Recinos v. Amports, Inc.
Contra Costa County Superior Court
Case No. C24-02244

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees, who have worked for Amports in California allege that they were denied expense reimbursement for the reasonable and necessary use of their personal mobile phones to carry out their job duties.

To Join the Class
In any class action suit, the court stipulates a window of eligibility for participation in the class. If you feel you qualify for damages or remedies that might be awarded in this suit, please contact us.

Sablowsky, et al. v. Auto-Chlor System of New York City, Inc., et al.
US District Court, Northern District of California
Case No. 23-cv-02555-AGT

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated Branch Managers, who have worked for Auto-Chlor System of New York City, Inc., Auto-Chlor System of the Mid South, LLC or Auto-Chlor System of San Diego, allege that they were denied overtime compensation.

To Join the Class
In any class action suit, the court stipulates a window of eligibility for participation in the class. If you feel you qualify for damages or remedies that might be awarded in this suit, please contact us.

Ghiorso, et al. v. Auto-Chlor System of Northern California
Alameda County Superior Court
Case No. 24CV090505

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated Branch Managers, who have worked for Auto-Chlor System of Northern California, Inc. in California, allege that they were denied overtime compensation and failed to receive uninterrupted meal breaks.

To Join the Class
In any class action suit, the court stipulates a window of eligibility for participation in the class. If you feel you qualify for damages or remedies that might be awarded in this suit, please contact us.

Hernandez, et al. v. Auto-Chlor System of Washington
Santa Clara County Superior Court
Case No. 24CV447231

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated Branch Managers, who have worked for Auto-Chlor System of Washington, allege that they were denied overtime compensation and failed to receive uninterrupted meal breaks.

To Join the Class
In any class action suit, the court stipulates a window of eligibility for participation in the class. If you feel you qualify for damages or remedies that might be awarded in this suit, please contact us.

Greeley, et al. v. Blue Bottle Coffee, LLC
San Francisco County Superior Court
Case No. CGC-23-610084

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated Café Leaders, who have worked for Blue Bottle Coffee in California allege that they were denied overtime compensation and failed to receive uninterrupted meal breaks.

This case has settled and a Notice will be sent to eligible class members on March 6, 2025.  Contact us if you have any questions.

Gonzalez, et al. v. Blue Link Wireless
San Francisco County Superior Court
Case No. CGC-24-614396

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated Store Leaders, who have worked for Blue Link Wireless in California allege that they were denied overtime compensation and failed to receive uninterrupted meal breaks.

To Join the Class
In any class action suit, the court stipulates a window of eligibility for participation in the class. If you feel you qualify for damages or remedies that might be awarded in this suit, please contact us.

Husted v. Dignity Health
San Francisco County Superior Court
Case No. CGC-24-612854

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated Managers, who have worked for Dignity Health in California allege that they were denied expense reimbursement for the reasonable and necessary use of their personal mobile phones and home internet to carry out their job duties.

To Join the Class
In any class action suit, the court stipulates a window of eligibility for participation in the class. If you feel you qualify for damages or remedies that might be awarded in this suit, please contact us.

Su v. JPMorgan Chase Bank
Sonoma County Superior Court
Case No. 24CV03516

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated Branch Managers, who have worked for JPMorgan Chase in California allege that they were denied overtime compensation and failed to receive uninterrupted meal and rest breaks.

To Join the Class
In any class action suit, the court stipulates a window of eligibility for participation in the class. If you feel you qualify for damages or remedies that might be awarded in this suit, please contact us.

Dunaway v. Mechanics Bank
Contra Costa County Superior Court
Case No. C24-01512

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated Branch Managers, Financial Services Managers, and Banking Service Officers who have worked for Mechanics Bank in California allege that they were denied overtime compensation and failed to receive uninterrupted meal and rest breaks.

To Join the Class
In any class action suit, the court stipulates a window of eligibility for participation in the class. If you feel you qualify for damages or remedies that might be awarded in this suit, please contact us.

Kern v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC
Marin County Superior Court
Case No. CIV2201383

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated Morgan Stanley employees who incurred reasonable and necessary business expenses as a result of their performance of duties for Morgan Stanley while working from home, allege that they were not reimbursed for these necessary expenses.

To Join the Class
In any class action suit, the court stipulates a window of eligibility for participation in the class. If you feel you qualify for damages or remedies that might be awarded in this suit, please contact us.

Flores v. Diana Benyamin, Inc., dba Mountain Mike’s Pizza – Santa Cruz & Mountain Mike’s Pizza-Watsonville
Santa Cruz County Superior Court
Case No. 24CV00945

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees who have worked for Mountain Mike’s Pizza – Santa Cruz and/or Mountain Mike’s Pizza – Watsonville allege that they were (1) denied overtime compensation, (2) did not receive uninterrupted meal and rest breaks, (3) did not receive accurate wage statements, (4) were not reimbursed for necessary business expenses, and (5) were not paid all earned wages twice per month.

To Join the Class
In any class action suit, the court stipulates a window of eligibility for participation in the class. If you feel you qualify for damages or remedies that might be awarded in this suit, please contact us.

Rhodes, et al. v. Patelco Credit Union
Alameda County Superior Court
Case No. 23CV025913

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated Branch Managers who have worked for Patelco Credit Union in California allege that they were denied overtime compensation and failed to receive uninterrupted meal and rest breaks.

To Join the Class
In any class action suit, the court stipulates a window of eligibility for participation in the class. If you feel you qualify for damages or remedies that might be awarded in this suit, please contact us.

Marquez, et al. v. Peet’s Coffee
Marin County Superior Court
Case No. CIV2201507

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated Store Managers, Assistant Store Managers and Store leads who have worked for Peet’s Coffee in California allege that Peet’s failed to reimburse them for expenses relating to the use of their mobile phones to perform work-related tasks, (b) failed to compensate them with minimum wage and overtime compensation for hours spent engaging in work-related communications while working off-the-clock; (c) failed to provide meal and rest breaks as a result of having to use their mobile phones when on break; (d) failed to pay them at their regular rates when paying meal and rest period premiums, overtime premiums, and sick pay premiums; (e) failed to provide accurate, itemized wage statements because their wage statements did not reflect all hours worked as a result of off-the-clock work and premium pay; and (f) failed to timely pay all wages owed upon the termination of employment.

Final Approval was recently granted and settlement checks will be distributed.

Contact Us if you have any questions.

Palatto v. Safeway Inc.
Alameda County Superior Court
Case No. RG19020914

Plaintiff, on behalf himself and other Delivery Drivers, who worked for Safeway in California allege that they were not paid wages for all working hours, not provided uninterrupted meal breaks, and not timely and properly paid all their wages at time of separation.

This case has settled.  Notice will be mailed to eligible class members by March 20, 2025.  Please contact us if you do not receive your class notice.

Anderson v. Starbucks Corporation
Northern District of California
Case No. 20-cv-01178-JD

This case is a putative class action on behalf of Plaintiffs and all other individuals who are or have been employed as Store Managers by Starbucks Corporation, in California. Plaintiffs allege that they were not reimbursed for the reasonable and necessary use of their personal cell phones for work. Plaintiffs seek damages and penalties for the unreimbursed business expenses they incurred for the benefit of Starbucks.

This case has settled and settlement checks were mailed to eligible class members on November 20, 2024. The check stale date is March 4, 2025. If you have not received your check, please contact the claims administrator to have your check reissued, info@starbuckscaliforniasettlement.com.

Hutcheson, et al. v. UBS Financial Services, Inc.
Marin County Superior Court
Case No. CV0005398

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated UBS Financial Advisors in California who incurred reasonable and necessary business expenses as a result of their performance of duties for UBS, allege that they were not reimbursed for these necessary expenses.

If you feel you qualify for damages or remedies that might be awarded in this suit, please contact us.

Aguilar v. Walgreen Co.
Northern District of California
Case No. 20-cv-00124

Plaintiffs were employed as Store Managers at Walgreens in California and allege that they have been misclassified as exempt instead of non-exempt and therefore not paid overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked. Plaintiffs also allege that they have not been provided meal and rest breaks, correct wage statements and were not paid all their wages at time of separation.

If you feel you qualify for damages or remedies that might be awarded in this suit, please contact us.