This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Employment Law
Wage and Hour
Meal and Rest Periods

Steven Hammer v. Daylight Foods Inc., et al.

Published: Jul. 28, 2023 | Result Date: Oct. 3, 2022 | Filing Date: Mar. 15, 2021 |

Case number: 21CV378146 Settlement –  $380,000

Judge

Sunil R. Kulkarni

Court

Santa Clara County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Douglas Han
(Justice Law Corporation)


Defendant

Derek S. Sachs
(Daugherty Lordan LLP)

Sumy Kim
(O'Hagan Meyer LLC)


Facts

Steven Hammer and Michael Holdiman brought a putative class action against Daylight Foods, Inc. The class included all exempt drivers employed by Daylight Foods within the State of California during the class period.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that defendant misclassified its drivers as exempt and consequently committed a range of wage and hour violations as to these employees. Plaintiffs contended that defendant failed to pay drivers overtime compensation and to provide required meal and rest breaks or associated premiums; drivers did not receive minimum wages for all hours worked and did not receive all wages owed at discharge or resignation; drivers did not receive accurate wage statements because, among other things, their wage statements failed to reflect the total number of hours they worked; and drivers were not reimbursed for expenses including gas and mileage for required travel between worksites, office equipment, and cell phone usage. Plaintiffs also argued that defendant did not keep complete and accurate payroll records for plaintiffs and other putative class members. Based on these allegations, plaintiffs asserted claims under the Labor Code as well as the Business and Professions Code.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all contentions.

Settlement Discussions

On May 16, 2022, the parties held a mediation with Lisa Klerman, Esq. While they did not reach a settlement that day, they ultimately accepted a mediator's proposal resulting in a settlement agreement.

Result

$380,000 non-reversionary settlement.


#141181

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390