Excerpt: ...asive unwanted sexual harassment by defendant Frank Lopez (“Lopez”), his supervisor. (Id. at ¶ 15.) For example, in August 2018, defendant Lopez slapped and grabbed Plaintiff's buttocks repeatedly as Plaintiff stocked sausages for Costco. (Complaint at ¶ 16.) At that moment, Lopez stated to Plaintiff that he loved it when Plaintiff touched his “sausage” and that it felt so good. (Ibid.) The very next day, Plaintiff filed a written compl...

Excerpt: ...w interpretation of its zoning code to prevent Bloom and its customers from installing the technology: not for any legitimate purpose, but to retaliate against Bloom and protect the financial interests of its municipal electric utility, Silicon Valley Power (“SVP”). As a result, Bloom brings this action for writ of mandate, violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), constitutional violations, and other claims. In an o...

Excerpt: ... Court GRANTS preliminary approval, subject to a few modifications/clarifications as explained below, and GRANTS the motion to seal. I. BACKGROUND As alleged in the Complaint, HPE is a multinational corporation headquartered in Palo Alto and is one of the largest information technology companies in the world, selling products and services on an enterprise level. (Complaint, ¶ 1.) Women make up approximately 1/3 of HPE's employees, filling 81 per...

Excerpt: ...nt, which is unopposed. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS preliminary approval. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant during the class period as non‐exempt employees. (Second Amended Class Action Complaint (“SAC”), ¶ 12.) They allege that they and other employees were paid overtime based on their base hourly wage rather than their regular rate of pay as required by law. (Id., ¶ 23.) They worked off‐the‐clock, includin...

Excerpt: ...d of the action and the Court's analysis of the settlement and settlement class are set forth in that order. Before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement and for approval of their attorney fees, costs, and service awards. The motion is unopposed. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS final approval. I. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR SETTLEMENT APPROVAL A. Class Action Generally, “questions whether a [class action] settlement ...

Excerpt: ...The parties reached a settlement, which the Court preliminarily approved in an order filed on May 26, 2022. The factual and procedural background of the action and the Court's analysis of the settlement and settlement class are set forth in that order. Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the settlement and for approval of her attorney fees, costs, and service award. The motion is unopposed. As discussed below, the Court G...

Excerpt: ...tes Supreme Court's recent decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) ___U.S.___ [142 S. Ct. 1906, 2022 U.S. LEXIS 2940] (Viking River). Plaintiff opposes the motion on several grounds. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion in part and DENIES it in part. I. BACKGROUND As alleged in the operative complaint, Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an RN Case Manager from November 13, 2020 to June 28, 2021. (Second Amended ...

Excerpt: ...“Property”). (First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), ¶1.) On or about May 31, 2011, plaintiff Holt and defendant Subway Real Estate, LLC (“Subway”) entered into a written lease agreement (“Agreement”) for lease of the premises located at 375‐D Saratoga Avenue in San Jose (“Premises”), effective May 4, 2011. (FAC, ¶13.) The Premises, which comprise about 1,540 square feet, are located in Saratoga Plaza shopping center. (Id.) The ...

Excerpt: ...s, and comitted other wage and hour violations. Before the Court is Defendants' motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) ___U.S.___ [142 S. Ct. 1906, 2022 U.S. LEXIS 2940] (Viking River). Plaintiff opposes the motion on several grounds. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion in part and DENIES it in part. I. BACKGROUND As alleged in ...

Excerpt: ...ecision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) ___U.S.___ [142 S. Ct. 1906, 2022 U.S. LEXIS 2940] (Viking River). Plaintiff opposes the motion on several grounds. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion in part and DENIES it in part. I. BACKGROUND As alleged in the operative complaint,13 Defendant employed Plaintiff and other salaried on‐site employees as “retail sales supervisors, showroom leads, showroom managers,�...

Excerpt: ...reme Court's recent decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) ___U.S.___ [142 S. Ct. 1906, 2022 U.S. LEXIS 2940] (Viking River). Plaintiff opposes the motion on several grounds. As discussed below, the Court DENIES Defendants' motion. I. BACKGROUND As alleged in the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Defendants employed Plaintiff as a service worker at the Juniper Hotel Cupertino from August 2019 to February 2020. (FAC,...

Excerpt: ...on in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) ___U.S.___ [142 S. Ct. 1906, 2022 U.S. LEXIS 2940] (Viking River). Plaintiff opposes the motion on several grounds. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion in part and DENIES it in part. I. BACKGROUND As alleged in the Complaint, Defendant Extra Space Management, Inc. is a Utah corporation doing business in California providing general contracting services. (Representative Action ...

Excerpt: ...ion. I. BACKGROUND Mr. Brewer and Ms. Church provided certain information concerning their net worth in response to written discovery requests served by Plaintiff earlier in the case. Plaintiff's counsel declares that after reviewing this information and investigating its accuracy using government records and online information services, he believes that both Defendants significantly understated their net worth. Plaintiff reached out to Defendant...

Excerpt: ...so addressed a request by Defendant that the Court strike Plaintiff's PAGA claim as unmanageable: Finally, Northr[o]p Grumman urges that, for the same reasons it argues against certification, the Court should “exercise its inherent authority to strike [Plaintiff's] PAGA claims—which are significantly broader than the proposed class—due to a lack of manageability.” While the Court has the authority to strike unmanageable PAGA claims, it de...

Excerpt: ...ent, the parties also seek leave for Plaintiffs to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) adding a claim under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). As discussed below, the Court GRANTS preliminary approval and GRANTS leave to file the FAC. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs and the other putative class members worked at Teleféric's restaurant in Palo Alto as servers and food staff. (Complaint, ¶ 5.) They worked shifts of up to twelve hours...

Excerpt: ...eliminarily approved in an order filed on May 31, 2022. The factual and procedural background of the action and the Court's analysis of the settlement and settlement class are set forth in that order. Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the settlement and for approval of her attorney fees, costs, and service award. The motion is unopposed. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS final approval. I. LEGAL STANDARD FOR SETTLEME...

Excerpt: ...d with JLA's relationship with ASIP Holdings and Q Networks, and wrongly claimed ownership of intellectual property developed in connection with the project. In a cross‐complaint, Mr. Rajagopalan alleges that he never signed the draft consulting agreement and was not paid for much of his work. Moreover, he claims he disclosed his other work for Q Networks—on his own time—on technology outside the scope of the JLA project to Cross‐Complain...

Excerpt: ... and Cross‐Defendant James Tananbaum (collectively, “Cross‐Defendants” or the “Foresite Parties”) misappropriated its trade secrets and started two competing companies. Before the Court are the following motions: (1) Defendant Hesaam Esfandyarpour, Ph.D.'s motion to stay pending resolution of bankruptcy proceeding; (2) Dr. Esfandyarpour's motion to strike portions of the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”); and (3) Dr. Esfa...

Excerpt: ...grounds. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS HCLA's motion in part and DENIES it in part. I. BACKGROUND As alleged in the Complaint, HCLA is located in Sunnyvale and offers computer programming solutions including informational technology, infrastructure management, software engineering, data center, and application development services. (Complaint, ¶¶ 2–3.) Plaintiff worked for Defendant until April 27, 2021. (Id., p. 4.) Plaintiff alleges ...

Excerpt: ... motion on several grounds. As discussed below, the Court DENIES Adecco's motion. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual As alleged in the operative complaint, Plaintiff Olga Ortmann was hired by Defendants as an hourly, non‐ exempt employee who worked in California during July 2018. (First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), ¶ 9.) She was not provided with 30‐minute meal periods for each five hour work period due to Defendants' policy of not scheduling meal p...

Excerpt: ... a settlement of the class and PAGA claims, which is unopposed. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS preliminary approval. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff began working for Defendant in 2018. (First Amended Class and Representative Action Complaint (“FAC”), ¶ 9.) Until her employment as a business data analyst was terminated in August 2020, she was paid on an hourly basis as a non‐exempt employee. (Ibid.) Plaintiff alleges that her wage statements...

Excerpt: ...yed Plaintiff Steven Hammer as an exempt driver from June 2014 to March 2018, and Plaintiff Michael Holdiman in the same capacity from October 2018 to February 2019. (First Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages (“FAC”), ¶ 18.) But Plaintiffs allege that drivers were misclassified as exempt. (See id., ¶ 16.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendant failed to pay drivers overtime compensation and to provide required meal and rest breaks or assoc...

Excerpt: ...other wage and hour violations. The parties reached a settlement, which the Court preliminarily approved in an order filed on May 4, 2022. The factual and procedural background of the action and the Court's analysis of the settlement and settlement class are set forth in that order. Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the settlement and for approval of his attorney fees, costs, and service award. The motion is unopposed. ...

Excerpt: ...Court preliminarily approved in an order filed on May 13, 2022. The factual and procedural background of the action and the Court's analysis of the settlement and settlement class are set forth in that order. Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the settlement and for approval of his attorney fees, costs, and service award. The motion is unopposed. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS final approval. I. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR...

Excerpt: ... preliminary approval. I. BACKGROUND Defendant HGST, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that manufactures, distributes, and sells hard disk drives, external storage drives, and other computer storage devices. (First Amended Class and Representative Action Complaint (“FAC”), ¶ 10.) Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a non‐exempt operator from about September 2017 to January 2021. (Id., ¶ 8.) Plaintiff alleges that he and other employees were re...