In an effort to reduce the spread of COVID-19, Srourian Law Firm is now offering virtual meeting opportunities for clients and prospective clients who wish to abstain from coming into our office. Please call our office to schedule your remote appointment. We wish you & yours health and safety during this time.

X

SLFLA

Month: January 2019

In a decisive victory for workers throughout the State of California, Srourian Law Firm obtained a favorable appellate decision from the California Court of Appeals, Fifth Division, reversing an earlier Los Angeles Superior Court decision to direct a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of former and current workers of The Shore Hotel in Santa Monica, California, to individual arbitration. The initial order meant the class representatives could not proceed on a class action basis and seek recovery on behalf of all former and current Shore Hotel workers. The Court of Appeal reversed, finding the purported arbitration agreements to be invalid and unenforceable under the law. The class action will thus proceed.

You can read the whole decision by clicking here.

SROURIAN LAW FIRM’S CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT

The class action lawsuit, titled Prado v. Shore Hotel (Sand & Sea), is currently pending in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC600236. The class includes all non-exempt workers of Shore Hotel, including but not limited to housekeeping, bellmen, food and beverage, front desk, concierge, parking, and other similar non-managerial duties. The lawsuit alleges that Shore Hotel violated various provisions of the California Labor Code, including failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime, failure to authorize meal breaks and rest breaks in accordance with California law, failure to timely pay final paychecks, failure to provide proper paystubs, and violation of California Private Attorney General Act, among several other violations.

If you worked for Shore Hotel in California at any time from November 4, 2011, until the present and would like more information about this case, please call us at (310) 601-3131 or send an email to contact@slfla.com. Be sure to give your name, telephone number, and the best time to reach you, and an attorney will get back to you soon.

FREE CONSULTATION
Srourian Law Firm, with locations in Los Angeles, Westwood, Woodland Hills, and Orange County is aggressively pursuing claims against Shore Hotel, and other California hotels in Los Angeles, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Orange, Irvine, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Tustin, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, Garden Grove, Laguna Niguel, Brea, Fountain Valley, Aliso Viejo, Yorba Linda, Westminster, Laguna Hills, Cypress, and La Habra. If you or someone you know suffered violations of the California Labor Code in relation to their employment with a hotel, you may be entitled to compensation as a part of the class action lawsuit. Please contact us to speak with one of our lawyers for a free consultation.


Securitas Case Expands PAGA

The Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Labor Code section 2698 et seq.)
(“PAGA”), deputizes “aggrieved employees,” giving them the authority to enforce California
Labor Code violations in the workplace on behalf of themselves and other aggrieved employees.

In PAGA actions, the State of California is the real party in interest while the employee acts as a
private attorney general. For this reason, if an aggrieved employee succeeds in a PAGA action,
25% of any civil penalties recovered goes to the aggrieved employees, while the State of
California receives the remaining 75%.

A PAGA action is different than a traditional class action where a plaintiff must have standing to
sue – the class representative plaintiff must have suffered the injury that the class they seek to
represent also suffered. As recently explained in Huff v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.,
2018 S.O.S. 2555 (May 23, 2018, review denied Aug. 8, 2018), a PAGA plaintiff may sue on behalf
of all other aggrieved employees who have suffered violations of the Labor Code even if the
PAGA plaintiff did not suffer those violations.

In the Securitas case, the trial court initially found that PAGA plaintiff Huff was not a temporary services
employee and therefore had no standing to sue for the violations relating to that category of
worker. However, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the purpose of PAGA is not to recover
damages or restitution, but to deputize private citizens as private attorneys general to enforce the
Labor Code. Therefore, the Court of Appeals allowed PAGA plaintiff Huff to bring claims even
if he did not personally experience the Labor Code violations. As long as a PAGA plaintiff
personally suffered at least one of the alleged violations, the PAGA plaintiff can bring any other
claim suffered by the aggrieved employees of the same employer.

Securitas clearly expanded the scope of PAGA. In order to fully take advantage of this
opportunity, a PAGA plaintiff must make sure to meet the pleading requirements by establishing
sufficient facts and theories for their claims. If you or someone you know are being denied your
meal and rest breaks, or are suffering any other wage related issues, contact Srourian Law Firm
to speak with an attorney about your rights.


Phone: 213.474.3800
Fax: 213.471.4160