Excerpt: ...der filed on October 19, 2021.1 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 SETTLEMENT APPROVAL A. Class Ac...

Excerpt: ...brings his own motion for summary adjudication of this issue, which Defendants oppose. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion and DENIES Plaintiff's. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual As alleged in the operative complaint, Defendants maintain and operate a health and fitness facility in California, where Plaintiff was employed. (First Amended Representative Action Complaint (“FAC”), ¶¶ 2, 14, 15.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants c...

Excerpt: ...plus Lines Insurance Company, seeking compensation under their policies for losses resulting from the COVID‐19 pandemic. Before the Court are (1) Factory Mutual's demurrer to the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for failure to state a claim, and alternative motion to strike allegations from the FAC, and (2) Lexington and Starr's motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, to sever for improper joinder and i...

Excerpt: ...nts & Medical Credit Corporation, Inc. (“MMCC”) and James Matthew Hresko oppose this motion. Also at issue is a motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction by Mr. Brewer and Ms. Church, which Plaintiff opposes. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS the motion for leave to amend and DENIES the motion to quash. I. BACKGROUND MMCC is a Michigan corporation engaged in the business of collecting defaulted consumer debts in California. (Compla...

Excerpt: ...roved in an order filed on October 22, 2021. 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 are Plaintiffs' motions for final approval of the settlement and for approval of their attorney fees, costs, and service awards. The motions are unopposed. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS final approval, but awards only the $20,888.21 in ...

Excerpt: ...ination. 2 The parties reached a settlement, which the Court preliminarily approved in an order filed on October 22, 2021. 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 bel...

Excerpt: ...6 I. BACKGROUND According the complaint, Plaintiff worked for Defendant from August 2011 to January 17, 2019 as an hourly, non‐exempt employee. (Complaint, ¶ 7.) During this time, he and other California employees were provided with wage statements that failed to identify Northrop Grumman's legal name and address; failed to identify any applicable hourly rates of pay; and failed to state employees' total hours worked accurately when overtime w...

Excerpt: ...reliminary approval, subject to the parties' agreement to amend the release to conform with Amaro v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 521 (Amaro). I. BACKGROUND Defendants Tupaz Homes, LLC; Tupaz Day Care Services Inc.; Rosario Tupaz; and Beebe Tupaz own and operate several care homes, intermediate care facilities for the developmentally disabled, and adult health day care facilities in Santa Clara County. (Third Amended Compla...

Excerpt: ...d. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS preliminary approval. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges that he and Defendant's other non‐ exempt employees were not provided with compliant meal and rest breaks or informed or their right to the same. (First Amended Complaint (FAC), ¶¶ 24–27.) They were not reimbursed for expenses for their use of personal cellphones and mileage incurred to complete their job duties. (Id., ¶ 28.) And Defendant willful...

Excerpt: ...s fee” to the successful Rosenthal Act plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks a total of $486,843.75 in fees. Defendant Mandarich Law Group, LLP opposes her motion, acknowledging that an award of fees and costs is required but urging the Court to award a reduced amount of fees and costs, totaling no more than $160,174.92. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion in the reduced amount of $269,325.75. It DENIES Defendant's untimely request to ...

Excerpt: ...l claims asserted in the operative Fifth Amended Complaint (“5AC”) and also move to strike dozens of specific allegations concerning (1) damages and (2) trademark infringement and “passing off.” Plaintiff opposes both motions. As discussed below, the Court SUSTAINS Defendants' demurrer to the third cause of action without leave to amend, but otherwise OVERRULES the demurrer. It DENIES the motion to strike. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual SinCo a...

Excerpt: ... at issue, which resulted from the COVID‐19 pandemic and associated public health orders.5 The Court held that PLG's interpretation of covered “direct physical” loss of or damage to its property “to encompass indirect, economic loss is unreasonable; inconsistent with related portions of the Policy; and contrary to California authorities, including [MRI Healthcare Center of Glendale, Inc. v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4...

Excerpt: ...(a)(3) (FDCPA). Defendants bring a special motion to strike the complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (anti‐SLAPP motion), which Plaintiff opposes. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS the motion. I. BACKGROUND As alleged in the Complaint,1 Defendants bring collection actions on behalf of their client CACH, LLC, which is a debt buyer. (See Complaint, ¶ 16.) But no CACH employee has first‐ hand knowledge of the original...

Excerpt: ...sion in a related federal case, Epic Games Inc. v. Apple Inc. (N.D. Cal., No. 4:20‐ CV‐05640) (“Epic”), Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Class Action Complaint (“FAC”). Apple now demurs to each cause of action in the FAC for failure to state a claim. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) Plaintiffs oppose the demurrer in its entirety. As discussed below, the Court SUSTAINS the demurrer with 30 days' leave to amend. I. B...

Excerpt: ...ubject to the parties' agreement to amend the release to conform with Amaro v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 521 (Amaro) and subject to its review of further information from Plaintiff. I. BACKGROUND Defendant is a Utah limited liability company that employed Plaintiff and other hourly workers performing manual labor in California. (First Amended Complaint (FAC), pp. 2–3.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant did not implement...

Excerpt: ...greements”). Before the Court is the Tributary Agencies' motion for monetary and evidence sanctions against City of San Jose for asserted disobedience of the Discovery Referee's May 17, 2021 Discovery Case Management Order No. 2 (“Order No. 2”). San Jose opposes the motion. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS the Tributary Agencies' motion in part and DENIES it in part. I. BACKGROUND The allegations of the Complaint are detailed in the Cou...

Excerpt: ...Director Defendants demur to the remaining claim alleged against them in the operative Second Amended Complaint (SAC): the third cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff opposes the demurrer. As discussed below, the Court OVERRULES the Director Defendants' demurrer. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual According to the operative complaint, Flora Bioscience is a Delaware corporation with its principal business office in Santa Clara County. (SAC...

Excerpt: ... seek monetary sanctions in connection with Plaintiffs' motion. As discussed below, the Court largely GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion but DENIES the parties' requests for monetary sanctions. I. BACKGROUND The factual and procedural background to this action are detailed in the Court's order on Defendants' demurrer to/motion to strike the Third Amended Complaint, and are not repeated here. Plaintiffs filed the instant motion on August 16, 2021, to be he...

Excerpt: ... a settlement, and Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval in August 2021. The Court denied this motion due to concerns over the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) portion of the settlement and the definition of the class period, but invited the parties to meet and confer about possible modifications to the settlement to address those issues. The parties met and conferred accordingly and agreed to amend the settlement to remove the FLSA component....

Excerpt: ...ysis 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 SETTLEMENT APPROVAL Generally, “questions whether a [class action] settlement was fair and reasonable, whether notice to the class was...

Excerpt: ... complaint (“3AC”) by Defendants ZZ Noodles, Inc., Green Earth Food, and Steve Kim (“Moving Defendants”) and Defendants' motion to strike portions of Plaintiffs' 3AC. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual Allegations Plaintiffs allege that they were non‐exempt employees of Defendants and Defendants failed to pay them for all hours worked, failed to pay a legal minimum wage, failed to provide them with accurate itemized wage statements, and failed to...

Excerpt: ...ious ways through their operation of the YouTube video‐sharing platform. In a June 2021 order (“June Order”), the Court sustained Defendants' demurrer to the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on the basis that its claims were all barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (the “CDA”).9 But the Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs then moved to lift the initial discovery stay in this case, ur...

Excerpt: ... alleges that Mr. Forrester and a coconspirator, Jon Billow, perpetuated various schemes to benefit themselves and another company controlled by Mr. Billow, Peak Hosting, at SnapRoute's expense. Before the Court is Defendants' demurrer to each cause of action in the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC), as well as Mr. Forrester's demurrer to each cause of action in the Cross‐Complaint. As discussed below, the Court OVERRULES Defendants' demu...

Excerpt: ...om accessing personal property (mostly sports memorabilia) he kept at the business that he asserts was worth $30,000 at the time. Plaintiff sued Defendant (Baker v. Baker, case no. 16CV298904) over the termination and that case eventually went into arbitration to resolve the dispute. Plaintiff alleges that from January 2016 to August 2017 he did not demand the return of his personal property because he (incorrectly) believed it would be part of t...

Excerpt: ...urt preliminarily approved in an order filed on September 9, 2021. 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 is inclined to grant final approval, subje...

Excerpt: ... Plaintiffs oppose SCVWD's motion.5 As discussed below, the Court DENIES SCVWD's motion. I. BACKGROUND6 As alleged in the operative Omnibus Complaint, the 63‐ mile Coyote Creek is the longest stream and drains the largest watershed in Santa Clara County, and is located within the over 320‐square‐mile watershed system managed by SCVWD. (Omnibus Complaint, ¶ 47.) Water stored in Coyote and Anderson Reservoirs, both of which are owned and man...

Excerpt: ... of the settlement and settlement class are set forth in that order. Before the Court are Plaintiff's motions for final approval of the settlement and for approval of her attorney fees, costs, and service award. The motions are unopposed. As discussed below, the Court is inclined to grant both motions, subject to the parties' agreement to amend the release to conform with Amaro v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 521 (Amaro). I...

Excerpt: ...ry the case in federal court. Plaintiff opposes Costco's motion. As discussed below, the Court DENIES summary adjudication. I. BACKGROUND This action was initially filed in 2013, as a putative “class action and representative action” under PAGA. Then, as now, Plaintiff alleged that Costco failed to provide suitable seating under the applicable wage order with respect to employees who worked as “greeters” and as “exit checkers” station...

Excerpt: ...e, and alleges that its subcontractors/suppliers must defend and indemnify it against District's claims. Teichert moves for summary adjudication that its supplier, Cross‐Defendant Northwest Pipe Company (“NW Pipe”), owes it a duty to defend. NW Pipe opposes Teichert's motion. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS summary adjudication. I. BACKGROUND A. District's Complaint District filed this action in San Luis Obispo County on May 19, 2020. ...

Excerpt: ...ckground checks, and committed other wage and hour violations. Before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of a settlement, which is unopposed. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS preliminary approval, subject to a few modifications to the class notice. I. BACKGROUND Jarka Enterprises is an industry leader in comprehensive commercial furniture services, including installation, relocation, warehousing, and project management. ...

Excerpt: ... below, the Court requires further information to evaluate the parties' settlement. I. BACKGROUND Defendants operate in the food services industry. Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants. (Second Amended Complaint (SAC), ¶¶ 4–7.) They allege that Defendants failed to provide compliant meal and rest periods due to inadequate staffing. (Id. at ¶¶ 18–25.) In addition, Defendants failed to pay minimum and overtime wages for off‐the�...

Excerpt: ...e set forth in that order. Before the Court are Plaintiffs' motions for final approval of the settlement and for approval of their attorney fees, costs, and service awards. The motions are unopposed. As discussed below, the Court is inclined to grant both motions, subject to the parties' agreement to amend the releases to conform with Amaro v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 521 (Amaro). I. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR SETTLEMENT APPRO...

Excerpt: ...ncies from imposing property‐related fees that exceed the cost of service. They allege that: a) Defendants use retail water rates to subsidize water service to the government and for general government services like public fire hydrants; b) some Defendants violate Proposition 218 by providing below‐cost “SAWR” rates for agriculture and irrigation; and c) some Defendants maintain “budget based tiered water rates” that “amount to a di...

Excerpt: ... are set forth in that order. Before the Court are Plaintiff's motions for final approval of the settlement and for approval of his attorney fees, costs, and service award. The motions are 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 was fair and reasonable, whether notice to the class was adequate, whether cer...

Excerpt: ...low, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' motion in its entirety. I. LEGAL STANDARD “Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (b).) Items explicitly allowed as costs are set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a).25 Items expressly disallowed as costs are set forth in section 1033.5, s...

Excerpt: ...dication in an order filed on April 21, 2021 (Order). The factual and procedural background to the action are summarized in more detail in that order and are not repeated here. In denying summary judgment, the Court held that there were triable issues of material fact as to Samaritan's violation of two provisions of Labor Code section 226 (Section 226): subdivision (a)(2), which requires wage statements to list the “total hours worked by the em...

Excerpt: ...eliminary approval of a settlement, which is unopposed. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS preliminary approval. I. BACKGROUND ASRW is a general building and roofing contractor that provides services on commercial and residential construction projects throughout California. (First Amended Complaint (FAC), ¶ 4.) Plaintiffs worked for ASRW as skilled roofers: Plaintiff Felix Aguilar from 2009 to January 2020; Plaintiff Jose Martinez from 2009 to...

Excerpt: ...rder. 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 SETTLEMENT APPROVAL A. Class Action Generally, “questions whether a [class action] settlement was fair and reasonable, whether notice to the class was adequate, whether certification of the class was ...

Excerpt: ...ve Second Amended Complaint. The Order followed the Court's sua sponte notice that it would reconsider a prior order overruling Regional's demurrer to the First Amended Complaint and directing the parties to provide supplemental briefing on certain issues.1 Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of the Order, urging that Nede Mgmt. Inc. v. Aspen American Ins. Co. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 1121 (Nede) constitutes new law showing that her claim for de...

Excerpt: ...ed to grant preliminary approval, subject to the parties' agreement to amend the release and a few modifications to the class notices. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual Veeco designs and manufactures equipment used to make electronic devices, including light emitting diodes (“LEDs”), micro‐ electromechanical systems (“MEMS”), wireless devices, power electronics, hard disk drives, and semiconductor devices. (Consolidated Complaint, ¶ 7.) Its pro...

Excerpt: ... Cher Yong aka Cy Ng, and Mui Liang Tjoa aka ML Tjoa (collectively, “Defendants”) oppose SinCo's motion. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS SinCo's motion. The Court also addresses several motions to seal as detailed below. I. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 5AC The operative Fourth Amended Complaint (“4AC”) was filed on May 18, 2020. On April 30, 2021, Defendants moved for summary adjudication of most of the claims in the 4AC. On August 2, th...

Excerpt: ...r Code section 201.3,5 subdivision (b)(6). Plaintiff opposes Defendant's motion. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS Inter‐ Con's motion. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual According to the operative complaint, Plaintiff was hired by Defendant to work as a security guard/officer in October 2018. (Complaint, ¶ 6.) He alleges that Defendant is a licensed private patrol operator and that he and other aggrieved employees are licensed security guards requir...

Excerpt: ... order. Before the Court are Plaintiff Eileen Staats's motions for final approval of the settlement and for approval of her attorney fees, costs, and service award. Plaintiff's motions are unopposed. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS both motions, but with a significant reduction in attorney fees. I. LEGAL STANDARD FOR SETTLEMENT APPROVAL Generally, “questions whether a [class action] settlement was fair and reasonable, whether notice to the...

Excerpt: ...r, around 8:00 pm, Plaintiff's family decided to go to a pastry shop for dessert. (Ibid.) Plaintiff wanted ice cream and walked up the street to defendant Gelato Classico Italian Ice Cream, LLC (“Gelato”). (Ibid.) Plaintiff arrived and stood in a line at defendant Gelato. (Complaint at ¶ 6.) The line was long and moving slowly so Plaintiff stepped out of line to look at the menu behind the counter. (Ibid.) Plaintiff looked through an open sl...

Excerpt: ...��Park Capital”), Lapsley Farms, LLC, McAfee Farms, Lutz Farms, Aaron McAfee, Adam McAfee, Eric McAfee, Mark McAfee and Joshua Lutz. The FAC asserts causes of action for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, securities law violation, and fraud. Plaintiff is a limited partnership with one general partner. The designation and identity of the current general partner is in dispute. Plaintiff ass...

Excerpt: ...de, in exchange for payment, materials testing and inspection services to support BWI's construction of levees for the Lower Berryessa Creek Flood Protection Project (“Project”) for the Santa Clara Valley District (“District”). (Complaint at ¶ 4, Ex. A.) Under the Agreement, Twining provided materials testing and inspection services. (Complaint at ¶ 6.) Among other things, Twining performed laboratory tests to determine whether soil mat...

Excerpt: ...mpel arbitration in each case, which are based on the same arbitration agreement. Plaintiff opposes both petitions. As explained below, the Court DENIES Defendants' petitions WITHOUT PREJUDICE, pending an evidentiary hearing. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges that CPC is a Minnesota corporation engaged in collecting defaulted and time‐barred consumer debts in California. (Complaint, Case No. 21CV375435, ¶ 10.) It is a “debt collector” as def...

Excerpt: ... issues of fact concerning whether Google was her joint employer. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS summary judgment. I. BACKGROUND 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. (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 period...

Excerpt: ... preliminary approval, subject to a few modifications to the class notices. I. BACKGROUND As alleged in the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC), Defendants routinely acquire consumer reports to conduct background checks on prospective, current, and former employees. (FAC, ¶ 2.) When Plaintiff applied for employment with Defendants, she was required to fill out a disclosure and authorization form to perform a background investigation, but the...

Excerpt: ... Cher Yong aka Cy Ng, and Mui Liang Tjoa aka ML Tjoa (collectively, “Defendants”) oppose SinCo's motion. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS SinCo's motion. The Court also addresses several motions to seal as detailed below. I. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 5AC The operative Fourth Amended Complaint (“4AC”) was filed on May 18, 2020. On April 30, 2021, Defendants moved for summary adjudication of most of the claims in the 4AC. On August 2, th...