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
Compensations, Benefits
Wage and Hour

Sam Khaledi v. YY2K Inc. dba California Pita and Grill

Published: Mar. 31, 2012 | Result Date: Feb. 10, 2012 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC458174 Bench Decision –  $45,000

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Brennan S. Kahn
(Perona, Langer, Beck, Serbin and Harrison APC)

Todd H. Harrison
(Perona, Langer, Beck, Serbin and Harrison APC)


Defendant

Joel F. Tamraz


Facts

Defendant owned and operated a restaurant named California Pita and Grill. Defendant employed plaintiff Sam Khaledi as a delivery driver from November 2007 through July 2010.

Plaintiff alleged defendant failed to pay him overtime wages, failure to pay him minimum wages and failure to provide him with accurate itemized wage statements.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff proved that he was actually defendant's employee. Plaintiff demonstrated that what defendant misclassified as delivery charges were actually "tips" he inconsistently received, thus did not offset plaintiff's minimum wages owed to him. Further, plaintiff asserted that he worked 10 hours per day. As such, he demonstrated that defendant owed plaintiff overtime wages and additional wages to meet the minimum wage standard. Finally, plaintiff asserted that defendant, in an attempt to hide the wages owed to plaintiff and to commit tax fraud by avoiding the payment of payroll taxes, intentionally failed to provide plaintiff with accurate itemized wage statements.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant alleged that plaintiff was an independent contractor, not an employee, thus was never owed minimum wages, overtime wages nor any itemized wage statements. Defendant further contended that plaintiff worked only six or so hours per day, not the 10 hours per day plaintiff alleged, thus was not owed any overtime wages regardless of whether plaintiff was an employee or independent contractor. Finally, defendant contended that plaintiff received delivery charges, not tips, and that such delivery charges should have supplemented plaintiff's wages to meet defendant's minimum wage obligations, even where plaintiff was an employee.

Settlement Discussions

Defendant refused to engage in any settlement discussions and rejected plaintiff's offers for settlement.

Result

$45,000 for plaintiff

Other Information

The court found in favor of plaintiff as to all three causes of action. Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking an award of attorneys fees from pursuant to Labor Code sec. 226(e) and 1194(a). Defendant has filed a motion for new trial. FILING DATE: March 25, 2011.


#85999

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

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