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

Jorge Montes aka Jorge Montes Silva v. AG Construction aka "AG Construction Inc." and Does 1 through 5, inclusive

Published: Aug. 2, 2024 | Result Date: Apr. 17, 2023 | Filing Date: Oct. 26, 2020 |

Case number: 20STCV41061 Settlement –  $940,000

Judge

Daniel M. Crowley

Court

Los Angeles County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Christopher J. Hamner
(Hamner Law Offices APLC)

Jose R. Garay
(Jose Garay APLC)


Defendant

Evelyn E. Zarraga
(Landegger, Verano & Davis, ALC)


Facts

On October 26, 2020, Jorge Montes sued his former employer A G Construction in Los Angeles Superior for wage-and-hour violations. Plaintiff, who had worked as an hourly cement worker for defendant sought to represent hourly construction workers who working for defendant from October 26, 2016 until judgment of the case.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Generally, plaintiff asserted claims for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, missed meals and breaks plus Private Attorneys General Act penalties. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that while working for defendant, he was not regularly provided the opportunity to take timely and uncontrolled meal periods and rest breaks. He was also not provided the opportunity to take meal breaks at least two to three times per week. Moreover, plaintiff argued that he infrequently was able to take timely, and uninterrupted rest periods. As defendant's policies and practices resulted in a failure to pay all wages and overtime due for compensable work time during when plaintiff remained subject to defendant's control, plaintiff alleged violations of several Labor Code violations.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied plaintiff's allegations.

Result

The parties settled for $490,000 with $161,700 apportioned for attorneys' fees and $10,901.20 for litigation expenses.


#143348

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

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