Skip to main content
Consumer & Employment Lawyers

Some of our case results include:

Consumer & Employment Lawyers

Some of our case results include:

$5.750 million on behalf of approximately 3,900 hourly employees

Avila v. DirectTV (consolidated as DirectTV Wage and Hour Cases)
Santa Clara Superior Court

DirectTV violated California law by failing to separately compensate employees for work outside of installations and repairs. In addition, both hourly and piece-rate employees were subject to an illegal travel pay policy which did not compensate them for commuting to and from their work sites, even though they performed other work for DirecTV during this time and were required to transport company equipment.

$2.95 million on behalf of 10,219 hourly employees in the state of California

Cohen v. Lowes HIW, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Plaintiffs alleged that Lowes HIW, Inc. violated California Labor Code by subjecting employees to a policy that allowed for deductions from previously paid commissions if a customer later returned the merchandise. Plaintiffs also alleged that the policy resulted in employees receiving inaccurate wage statements.

$2,750,000 settlement

Gonzalez v. L and R Auto Parks, Inc. d.b.a. Joe’s Auto Parks
Los Angeles Superior Court

This lawsuit was brought on behalf of approximately 400 parking lot attendants who alleged that Defendant Joe’s Auto Parks unlawfully implemented an on-duty meal period agreement and failed to reimburse them for expenses they incurred while driving from one work site to another. After nearly four years of litigation, including numerous depositions and extensive written discovery, Joe’s Auto Park eventually agreed to settle the claims for $2,750,000.

$2.7 million on behalf of approximately 13,000 hourly janitors and housekeepers

Arellano v. Kellermeyer Building Services, LLC:
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

Plaintiffs alleged that Kellermeyer Building Services, LLC’s practice of locking its janitorial employees inside the retail stores they were tasked with cleaning overnight violated numerous California labor laws related to the payment of wages, meal and rest periods, and employee business expenses.

$2,200,000 settlement on behalf 991 hourly employees

De Leon v. Ricoh USA, Inc., et al.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Ricoh USA, Inc. as a field service technician. In his class and representative complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Ricoh violated state and federal law by failing to provide timely, uninterrupted meal and rest breaks and requiring him and other hourly employees to work off-the-clock in order to complete their work. Ultimately, Ricoh agreed to pay the settlement.

$1,900,000 settlement on behalf of approximately 6,000 employees

Hudson v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company
Sacramento Superior Court

The plaintiff in this case filed a class and representative action alleging that Defendant Pacific Bell Telephone Company’s performance standards were such that he and other employees who worked as premises technicians were effectively required to work off-the-clock in order complete their work in the allotted time. Plaintiff also contends that Pacific Bell placed unreasonable restrictions on their lunch breaks and failed to compensate them for time spent transporting company equipment. After participating in private mediation, the parties agreed to settle this matter for $1,900,000 on behalf of approximately 6,000 employees.

$1,750,000 settlement

Harrington v. Professional Security Consultants, Inc., et al.
Los Angeles Superior Court

Plaintiffs, representing a class of more than 4,000 security guards, alleged that Defendant Professional Security Consultants, Inc. failed to reimburse employees for expenses they incurred in maintaining their uniforms, required employees to remain on-site and on-call during their meal and rest breaks, and failed to compensate employees for time spent attending mandatory training. The parties eventually reached an agreement to settle plaintiffs’ class claims for $1,750,000.

san diego consumer law lawyer - attorney craig clark

$600,000 settlement on behalf of 1,730 current and former employees.

Kim v. ATV, Inc. dba American Tire Depot
Los Angeles Superior Court

Pursuant to the California Labor Code’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), this representative action sought civil penalties on behalf of all nonexempt, hourly employees for Defendant American Tire Depot’s failure to provide adequate rest breaks. The complaint alleged that American Tire Depot: (1) unlawfully required employees to remain on the premises during rest breaks; (2) did not provide an additional paid rest break for shifts in excess of 10 hours; and (3) required employees to answer the telephone and greet customers while they were purportedly on break. Following more than two years of litigation, including substantial motion practice, American Tire Depot agreed to pay $600,000 to settle the claims of 1,730 current and former employees.

$500,000 settlement for 700 consumers

Fontes v. Heritage Operating, L.P., et al.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

Plaintiff, representing a class of California consumers, alleged that Defendants Heritage Operating, L.P. and AmeriGas Propane, Inc. engaged in a systematic practice of overcharging residential and commercial customers by artificially inflating their laid-in cost (i.e., the cost associated with acquiring propane), and representing it to customers as their true, or actual laid-in cost. The parties reached an agreement to settle the claims on behalf of approximately 700 consumers for $500,000.

$280,000 settlement for approximately 400 delivery drivers

Markell v. Excalibur Pizza, LLC
Sacramento Superior Court

Plaintiff filed a class and representative action against his employer, Defendant Excalibur Pizza, LLC, alleging that the company failed to adequately reimburse him and other pizza delivery drivers for the expenses they incurred in using their personal vehicle to deliver pizzas. In support of his claim, Plaintiff presented evidence showing that based on an average roundtrip distance of 3.4 miles per delivery, the $1.25 that Excalibur Pizza paid delivery drivers was far less than what they would have been entitled to under the IRS standard mileage reimbursement rate – a rate that the California Supreme Court had previously found “presumptively reasonable” for purposes of reimbursing mileage expenses. The parties ultimately agreed to settle the claims of approximately 400 delivery drivers for $280,000.

How We Can Help:

Labor & Employment Law


Bad Faith Insurance

We like to think of our firm as a fortress of protection for the people.

Let us help you right the wrong that you’ve been subjected to.

Click to schedule a free consultation

“Consumer & Employment Lawyers never gave up on me or my case even though they were fighting against a huge corporation that had pushed back hard against them. They helped me obtain justice, and for that I cannot thank them enough.”

- Matt O.
Send us a message: