Recent Cases

Settlement Reached in Wage and Hour Class Action on Behalf of Employees of Frazee Industries, Inc.

Class counsel for employees of Frazee reached a settlement of all alleged wage and hour claims during a mandatory settlement conference on August 11, 2014. Plaintiff alleged that Frazee had an illegally written meal period policy and regularly denied meal periods until after the fifth hour of work in violation of California's strict meal period law. Plaintiff also asserted a claim on behalf of all employees for his employer's failure to pay the cost of required uniforms.

Following significant discovery, including the production of tens of thousands of employee time records, the parties reached a settlement valued at $2,200,000. Members of the class entitled to share in the settlement include all non-exempt, hourly employees who worked for Frazee Industries, Inc. in California between August 2, 2011 and December 31, 2013 when Sherwin-Willams purchased the popular chain of paint stores. Pending preliminary approval of the settlement by the Court, class members will be provided with notice of the settlement and be given a chance to comment on its fairness. This will be a direct pay settlement and class members will not be required to take any affirmative steps to receive their share of the settlement.

The Emge Firm, LLP (619) 595-1400


Court Grants Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Against Capital One

July 29, 2014. United States District Judge Josephine L. Staton granted preliminary approval of a class action settlement that includes a class of more than 22,500 consumers who applied for a co-branded Best Buy Capital One Mastercard on-line between November 8, 2012 and June 20, 2013. During this class period, Plaintiff alleges that the on-line application clearly advertised and promised "no annual fees." However, upon receiving their first credit card statement, class members learned that they had, in fact, been assessed an annual fee.

Plaintiff brought suit on behalf of all class members to recover the cost of the annual fee, interest paid on the fee, penalties according to TILA (the Truth in Lending Act) and an injunction to prohibit Capital One from charging further annual fees on credit cards advertised with no annual fees. As a result of the litigation, Capital One paid back all improperly charged annual fees, all interest charged on unpaid annual fees, penalties pursuant to TILA and ceased from advertising no annual fees for Best Buy Capital One credit cards. The total settlement is valued at $1,801,956. The settlement is currently in the notice stage and requires final Court approval.

The Emge Firm, LLP: (619) 595-1400


Diakon LogisticsSouthern District Certifies Class Action in Misclassification Case

On August 21, 2013, Judge M. James Lorenz certified for class-wide treatment a case filed on behalf of all delivery truck drivers working for Diakon Logistics (Delaware) Inc. throughout California between December 3, 2003 and the present. The rights of more than 300 drivers are at issue in the case brought by The Emge Firm, LLP in San Diego, California.

Plaintiffs allege that they were misclassified as independent contractors when, in reality, they were treated as employees of Diakon. Independent contractors are typically responsible for the costs and expenses required to complete their work. Employees, on the other hand, must be reimbursed for all reasonable expenses incurred in the completion of one's duties on behalf of the employer. At Diakon, drivers must pay out of their wages the costs of truck fuel, insurance, wages for required helpers, uniforms, truck insurance and liability insurance as well as pay for all damage to goods shipped or to homes to which goods are delivered. Plaintiff seeks reimbursement of all such costs during the class period.

The Emge Firm, LLP (619) 595-1400


kohls expect great things9th Circuit Allows False Price Comparison Advertising Case Against Kohl's to Proceed

As Seen on the Today Show

On January 27, 2010, a consumer who purchased multiple items from a Kohl's Department Store in California filed a class action complaint for false advertising, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiff alleges that Kohl's advertises its merchandise as being on sale, but tickets its merchandise with False "original" or "regular" price labels to create the illusion of a sale.

In reality, there is no sale. The "sale" price advertised by Kohl's is the same price it always sells products for. Plaintiff, typical other consumers who shop at Kohl's, was looking for a deal and would not have purchased the products he did, but for the false price advertising.

The California Legislature enacted laws that specifically prohibits the practices complained of in this class action. California Business & Professions Code §17501 states:
No price shall be advertised as a former price of any advertised thing, unless the alleged former price was the prevailing market price as above defined within three months next immediately preceding the publication of the advertisement or unless the date when the alleged former price did prevail is clearly, exactly and conspicuously stated in the advertisement.

Plaintiff's case was initially dismissed by the Central District on the grounds that Plaintiff did not suffer any damages because he received products of the same value he paid for them, despite the false representation of "original" or "regular" prices. On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal overturned the dismissal, holding on May 21, 2013 that when a consumer purchases merchandise on the basis of false price information, he has been damaged/injured and has standing to sue.

Plaintiff will now proceed forward with his class action on behalf of all California consumers who have been misled by Kohl's false price comparison advertising between August 5, 2006 and the present.


Wells FargoDistrict Court in Missouri Grants Conditional Certification Against Wells Fargo Advisors

Missouri, March 10, 2013 - Conditional certification was granted today in a FLSA wage claim brought on behalf of Client Associates employed by Wells Fargo Advisors during the past three years. The class of employees, represented by The Emge Firm, LLP, Stanley Iola LLP and Blitz Bardgett & Deutsch LC, allege that they regularly work more than 40 hours in a week, but are not paid overtime. The class asserts that Wells Fargo Advisors has an unwritten policy of paying only for scheduled hours, even when work duties take longer to complete.

In its ruling, the Court set a deadline for Wells Fargo Advisors to identify all class members throughout the more than 800 branch offices in the United States. Notice of the pendency of the case will be mailed to all class members, affording them the opportunity to opt-in to the case. Trial is scheduled for November 18, 2013.


SercoThe Emge Firm, LLP Brings Whistleblower Case Against Serco

San Diego, August 9, 2012 - Earlier today, the California District Court, Southern District, unsealed a pending qui tam case against New Jersey based Serco Inc. brought on behalf of the United States by an employee whistleblower. Serco was contracted by SPAWAR and Homeland Security to provide project management to the boarder tower upgrade and modernization project. The Plaintiff whistleblower alleges that Serco engaged in ongoing billing fraud designed to receive tens of millions of dollars in government funding while providing few if any actual services.

Qui Tam actions are brought on behalf of the government to recover fraudulently obtained payments and prevent fraud against the government. Federal statute, 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq. rewards successful whistleblowers 15-30% of all monies recovered on behalf of the government. The Emge Firm, LLP (619) 595-1400.


JCP False Advertising Case Against JC Penney Ordered to Proceed

As Seen on the Today Show

As Noted in the Wall Street Journal

Los Angeles, July 16, 2012 - A ruling today in Los Angeles Superior Court rejected JC Penney's motion to dismiss a false advertising class action brought on behalf of California consumers by The Emge Firm, LLP and Stanley Iola L.L.P. Plaintiff alleges that JC Penney used false price comparison advertising to induce consumers to purchase its merchandise. Prior to January 2012, nearly all merchandise sold by JC Penney was marked with an "original" or "regular" price and then a "sale" price. Plaintiff asserts that the alleged "original" or "regular" prices were fictitious, inflated and designed to trick consumers into thinking they were obtaining a large discount, when in fact they were paying the true regular price.

Plaintiff's case, should class certification be granted, is brought on behalf of all California consumers who purchased private branded and private licensed clothing and accessories from JC Penney between February 7, 2008 and December 31, 2011. Litigation is continuing.

The Emge Firm, LLP (619) 595-1400


Boys & Girls ClubThe Emge Firm, LLP Directs a $2,500,000 Cy Pres Award to Boys & Girls Clubs of America

SAN DIEGO, November 18, 2011 - The Emge Firm, LLP is proud to actively participate in philanthropic and community activities. One manner of giving back to the community includes the selection of appropriate charitable organizations to receive unclaimed monies from class action settlements or judgments. Known as cy-pres awards, these monies can arise in consumer fraud class actions where a defendant is either ordered to or agrees to restore ill-gotten gains. If the actual victims of a corporation's fraud can not be readily identified for restitution, the law favors a donation of unclaimed monies to charity rather than returning it to the corporation.

Recently, The Emge Firm, LLP selected the Boys & Girls Clubs of America as a recipient of unclaimed funds in a class action settlement. The value of the unclaimed funds, $2,500,000, will be distributed to the charity this holiday season. The Boys & Girls Clubs of America sponsors programs to enhance the lives of at-risk children through the integration of athletics and education. The Clubs service some 4.2 million youth. The Emge Firm, LLP is proud to assist these noble efforts.


Big 5Big5 Sporting Goods Settles False Price Comparison Case for $4,000,000.

SAN DIEGO, July 29, 2011 - San Diego Superior Court Judge Judith Hayes granted final approval of a class action settlement against Big5 Sporting Goods for allegations of using false price comparisons to market and sell tennis, squash and racquet ball rackets. Plaintiff alleged that he was induced to purchase a Wilson n5 tennis racket when Big5 Sporting Goods advertised it with a sale price of $49.00 along with representations that the "regular" price was $229.00. Plaintiff later learned that the racket was a low quality racket specially made for Big5 that never had a regular price of $229.00. Plaintiff sued on behalf of all consumers who purchased similarly falsely advertised rackets sold by Big5.

A settlement was reached with a minimum value of $4,000,000. All consumers who purchased a tennis, squash or racquet ball racket from a Big5 store in the United States between August 7, 2005 and March 18, 2011 are entitled to a refund of the full amount of the price they paid for each racket, subject to a maximum payment of $50 per racket purchased. Claim forms are available online at http://www.racketadlitigation.com/index.html.

Should less than the $4,000,000 minimum payout be claimed, the balance of the settlement will be converted to merchandise vouchers and donated to the Boys and Girls Club of America for distribution to club members in states in which Big5 operates its stores (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming).

The settlement also includes an injunction prohibiting Big5 from including comparative "regular" prices on merchandise unless the "regular" price was actually in effect on at least 45 days of the 90 days immediately preceding the date that the advertised sale commences.

The Emge Firm, LLP 1-866-629-3409 /


BCBGBCBG Settles Invasion of Privacy Case for $4,840,400

SAN DIEGO, September 3,2010 -- San Diego Superior Court entered a final judgment today against BCBG in a class action case challenging their solicitation of personal identification information during credit card transactions. At issue was the alleged violation of California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 (California Civic Code section 1747.08) which seeks to protect consumers from identity theft and from being placed on unwanted marketing campaigns. Plaintiff's settlement provided a recovery to approximately 121,010 consumers who made credit card purchases at BCBG between June 5, 2007 and June 3, 2010.

Personal identification information such as address, telephone numbers and zip codes is valuable data to retailers who can use this information to target past purchasers with endless mail stuffers and telephone promotions. Retailers are also known to sell their customer lists to other retailers and mass marketers. Additionally, any store clerk supplied with a credit card number, name and address can easily make fraudulent credit card purchases. Experts on identity theft have found that approximately 60% of all incidents arise from store employees having access to consumers' information.

The Emge Firm, LLP, 1-866-629-3409 /


Avis BudgetAvis and Budget Settle Illegal Fee Case Affecting 10,948 Rental Car Customers

LOS ANGELES, September 10, 2009 -- Los Angeles Superior Court granted final approval today of settlement involving 10,948 customers of Avis Rent A Car and Budget Group, Inc. who rented vehicles from LAX locations between January 1, 2008 and March 2, 2009. Rental car customers who rent vehicles located on LAX property are customarily charged an Airport Concession Recovery Fee of up to 11% of the daily rental charge. Pursuant to contractual agreements between Avis, Budget and Los Angeles Airport Authority, Airport Concession Recovery Fees are not to be charged to local customers, as defined as those residing within the 203 identified area codes.

Avis and Budget had a practice of charging all customers the Airport Concession Recovery Fee, even if they were local customers. Plaintiffs brought suit to enjoin the practice of charging these fees to local customers. Plaintiffs' class action lawsuit also sought restitution under California's Unfair Competition Law in the amount illegally charged these customers.

After more than a year of litigation, the parties entered into a settlement agreement wherein class members each received one or more vouchers good for one free day's rental of any vehicle offered for rent by Avis or Budget. The value of all rental vouchers is $1,208,129. Vouchers are good for all rental locations in the continental United States with the exception of the New York metropolitan area. Multiple vouchers may be used for the same multi-day rental transaction. Avis and Budget were also ordered to pay attorneys' fees and costs to class counsel as well as incentive fees to the two lead plaintiffs in the amount of $4,000.

Contacts
The Emge Firm, LLP
Derek J. Emge, 1-866-629-3409
e-mail


MarriotHourly Employees Settle Class Action Against Marriott International, Inc.

Last Update: 11:00 AM ET June 16, 2009

SAN DIEGO, June 16, 2009 -- Southern California class action attorneys Derek J. Emge and Kirk B. Hulett recently obtained preliminary approval of a settlement on behalf of all hourly workers employed by Marriott International, Inc. at the Desert Springs JW Marriott Resort & Spa and the Renaissance Esmeralda Resort & Spa between March 1, 2004 and April 6, 2009. Plaintiff, Huyen-Tram Nguyen filed this class action on behalf of all hourly employees alleging that Marriott failed to provide its hourly employees with state-mandated meal breaks and rest periods.

Under California law, all hourly employees are entitled to a 30-minute meal break for each shift lasting more than five hours. The 30-minute meal break must be uninterrupted and provided during the first five hours of the employee's shift. California hourly employees are also entitled to a 10-minute rest period for every four hours worked.

Following significant pleading work and extensive discovery, the parties met for mediation under the guidance of David Rotman of Gregorio, Haldman, Piazza & Matityahu. Throughout this process, a settlement was reached wherein Marriott agreed to pay $625,000.00 to class members. Pending final court approval of the settlement, proceeds will be distributed to class members based upon the number of hours they worked during the class period in relation to the total number of hours worked by all class members during the same period. Any uncashed checks will be paid to the State of California under the name of the class member as unclaimed wages. Unclaimed wages may be recovered by visiting http://www.sco.ca.gov/upd_msg.html.

SOURCE: The Emge Firm, LLP

The Emge Firm, LLP 619-595-1400 derek@EmgeLawFirm.com


Dollar ThriftyDollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. Settles Case For Excessive Loss Damage Waiver Fees For $16,500,000

San Diego - January 13, 2009 - Southern California class action attorneys Derek J. Emge and Karla Bell recently settled an excessive rental fee case against Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. (NYSE: DTG) on behalf of California consumers.

In his class action complaint, Plaintiff Smith claimed that California consumers were charged excessive Loss Damage Waiver Fees when receiving a "free" upgrade in rental vehicles. Before the matter went to trial, DTG altered its rental procedure to prevent consumers from being charged more for Loss Damage Waivers than the amount contracted for in their rental agreement.

DTG agreed to provide all aggrieved consumers with rental vouchers good for one year. The remedial rental vouchers are redeemable for any single rental transaction and have a value of $10 per day up to a maximum of five days. The settlement has a value to class members of $3,300,000 to $16,500,000, depending on the number of days to which class members' vouchers are applied. Additionally, DTG will no longer be charging higher Loss Damage Waiver Fees to its customers who receive a free upgrade.

Plaintiff's case was brought pursuant to California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and California's Unfair Business Practices Law. The injunction and restitution to the members of the settlement class were agreed upon at mediation prior to trial.

For more information, contact Derek J. Emge of The Emge Firm, LLP: (619) 595-1400, derek@inthelaw.com or Karla D. Bell at SANDERS BELL LLP: (310) 577-2555.


Bare EscentualsCustomers of Bare Escentuals Makeup Sue To Protect Privacy Rights

SAN FRANCISCO, November 8, 2008 -- Customers of Bare Essentuals brought suit under California's Song Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 after fears of identify theft and unsolicited marketing arose. As many as 180,000 California consumers may have been affected by the alleged activity. Under California law, retail merchants are not allowed to request "Personal Identification Information" from customers paying by credit card. Credit card companies do not require a card holder's address or telephone number to complete a credit transaction. Why does Bare Essentuals request this information? Plaintiff alleges in her class action complaint that Bare Essentuals uses her Personal Identification Information to mail advertisements and other unsolicited marketing material and that the collection of her personal information places her at great risk of identity theft. Experts in the field of identity theft state that more than 60% of all identity theft results from bad employees that have access to credit card numbers and Personal Identification Information.

Plaintiff's case is brought on behalf of all California consumers who purchased products from Bare Essentuals with a credit card between November 2007 and the present. Plaintiff is seeking statutory penalties of up to $1,000 per violation during the class period. Counsel for the plaintiff class include The Emge Firm, LLP and Hulett, Harper, Stewart LLP.

The Emge Firm, LLP, (866) 629-3409, /


California pizza kitchen CPK Agrees to Settle Second Meal Period Class Action for $3,200,000

SAN DIEGO-On August 15, 2008, the San Diego Superior Court granted final approval to a class action settlement in Santiago v. California Pizza Kitchen, case number GIS28490. Santiago brought this action on behalf of all hourly employees working for CPK in California between November 1, 2004 and May 2, 2008. He sought recovery of damages of one hour of pay for each day that an employee was not provided with a full 30 minute meal period for shifts in excess of five hours as well as penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004.

The case, originally filed in March 2007, was brought to closure through mediation after just over one year. Following preliminary approval of the settlement by the Court, class members were notified of the terms of the settlement and provided an opportunity to weigh in on the terms. Favorable comments were received and the Court granted final approval on August 15, 2008. Class members who submitted valid claim forms by August 11, 2008 will receive their share of the settlement fund by October 20, 2008.

This case marks the second time CPK has paid to settle similar claims. In November 2004, CPK paid $1,300,000 to settle another class action alleging the failure to provide meal periods to its hourly employees. CPK asserts that it now provides all employees with all required rest breaks and meal periods.

The Emge Firm, LLP, 1-866-629-3409 /


IntergulfFalse Advertising Claim Against Intergulf Development Group Settles for $1,700,000

San Diego - May 8, 2008

Today, the San Diego Superior Court granted final approval of a class action settlement in Cherepon v. Intergulf Development Group. In their class action complaint, buyers of condominium units at Treo @ Kettner claimed that they were the victims of a scheme of false advertising. Specifically, Class Members entered into purchase agreements for the more than 300 condominiums at a downtown San Diego high-rise known as Treo before the building had even been completed. These purchases totaled $115,300,000. Class Members relied upon color brochures, Internet advertising and written descriptions of the project in deciding what to pay for their units, all of which promoted access to and use of a 3,000 square foot rooftop terrace with 360-degree views of San Diego. Upon completion of the project long after entering into purchase agreements, Class Members learned that they had paid for a unique feature that was not to be included in the finished product - the rooftop terrace.

Written and deposition discovery revealed that Intergulf made a fiscal decision to remove the rooftop terrace amenity prior to entering into purchase agreements with consumers. Marketing materials, however, continued to display the feature as though it was going to be constructed. Plaintiff retained a team of experts to determine the value a rooftop terrace in the downtown San Diego marketplace while Defendant argued that any such lost value was more than covered by the rising price of real estate in 2004-2007. Less than a month before trial was scheduled to commence, the parties mediated the case to a resolution before Judge Vincent P. Di Figlia (Ret.). Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, class members who purchased their units from Intergulf will be entitled to $5,000 in restitution.

The Emge Firm, LLP specializes in consumer and employee class action litigation. Claims that may not justify the time and expense of litigation on an individual basis can often achieve maximum results when brought as a class action on behalf of others similarly situated. Over the past 5 years alone, The Emge Firm, LLP has successfully recovered tens of millions of dollars on behalf of consumers and employees through the class action procedure.

Contacts
The Emge Firm, LLP
Derek J. Emge, 1-866-629-3409
e-mail


American GolfCourt Approves $2,600,000 Class Action Settlement Against American Golf Corp.

San Diego Superior Court, December 14, 2007

The California Superior Court for the County of San Diego granted final approval today of a $2,600,000 settlement in the meal and rest break class action Lopez v. American Golf Corp. Plaintiff was employed as a cook at one of the 67 golf courses operated by American Golf Corp. throughout California. After being denied statutory meal periods of at least 30 minutes for each work shift in excess of five hours, Lopez brought suit on his own behalf and on behalf of the 17,500 non-exempt, hourly employees working for American Golf between May 12, 2002 and September 14, 2007.

Following more than a year of litigation and the exchange of thousands of documents of time and wage records, the parties met for mediation with Lynn Frank from the mediation firm of Gregorio Haldeman Piazza Rotman & Frank. Twelve hours of mediation resulted in a settlement of $2,600,000 for the class of employees. The settlement award is to be allocated to class members based upon the number of weeks each worked in relation to the total number of weeks worked by all class members. Settlement checks are due to class members by February 6, 2008.

The Emge Firm, LLP and the Law Offices of David A. Huch represented the class members. Defendant was represented by Payne & Fears LLP in Irvine, CA.

The Emge Firm, LLP and the Law Offices of David A. Huch specialize in employee class action litigation. Over the past five years, Mr. Emge and Mr. Huch have successfully recovered millions of dollars on behalf of consumers and employees through class action litigation.

The Emge Firm, LLP, 1-866-629-3409 /

Law Offices of David A. Huch, 1-866-629-3409


Pacific AggregatesClass Action Settlement with Pacific Aggregates Obtains Final Approval

SAN DIEGO-On August 20, 2007, the California Superior Court for the County of Riverside granted final approval of a class action settlement between Pacific Aggregates and its hourly employees. Represented by class action employment attorneys Derek J. Emge and David A. Huch, employees sued Pacific Aggregates for its failure to provide thirty minute meal breaks and ten minute rest periods, failure to pay overtime compensation and failure to pay compensation at time of termination.

Before the case went to trial, the class and defendant engaged in extended settlement discussions and a twelve-hour mediation. Pursuant to the resulting settlement agreement, Pacific Aggregates agreed to compensate its past and present hourly employees $280,000. 58 qualified class members will share in the settlement award based upon the number of pay periods each was employed. Payments are scheduled to be made to all qualified class members before the end of September 2007.

The Emge Firm, LLP and the Law Offices of David A. Huch represented the class members. Defendant was represented by Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP. The case is captioned Wolfe v. Pacific Aggregates, RIC 434805.

The Emge Firm, LLP and the Law Offices of David A. Huch specialize in employee class action litigation. Over the past five years, Mr. Emge and Mr. Huch have successfully recovered millions of dollars on behalf of consumers and employees through class action litigation.

The Emge Firm, LLP, 1-866-629-3409 /

Law Offices of David A. Huch, 1-866-629-3409


Class ActionFinal Approval of $1,080,000 Class Action Settlement Obtained in Misclassification Case Against F.H. Paschen/S.N. Nielsen, Inc.

San Diego Superior Court, June 8, 2007

After three years of litigation, including the commencement of trial, the Superior Court for the County of San Diego granted final approval of a class-wide settlement. The action was brought by former California construction superintendents against their employer F.H. Paschen/S.N. Nielsen, Inc. Construction superintendents were classified by the employer as exempt employees on the basis that they were paid a salary. However, discovery revealed that class members spent the majority of their workday performing non-exempt production duties.

Plaintiffs obtained class certification by demonstrating the employer's universal error of assuming that the payment of a salary automatically exempts an employee from overtime compensation, meal breaks, rest periods and related benefits to which hourly employees are entitled. As recognized by the court, an employee's exemption status is properly based upon an assessment of actual job duties performed rather than the form of compensation received. The employer's multiple motions for decertification also failed as common questions predominated.

Prior to settlement, Plaintiffs defeated the employer's motion for summary judgment by arguing the applicability of the administrative/production dichotomy to construction superintendents. As set forth in Bell v. Farmers Ins. Exch., (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 805, there is a distinction between administrative employees "who are usually described as employees performing work directly related to the management policies or general business operations of his employer or his employer's customers and production employees, who have been described as those whose primary duty is producing the commodity or commodities, whether goods or services, that the enterprise exists to produce."

The case was originally scheduled for trial in November 2005. It was then learned that F.H. Paschen/S.N. Nielsen, Inc. had insufficient assets to support a judgment as it had been funneling all income into its alter egos in Chicago: F.H. Paschen, S.N. Nielsen & Associates, Inc. and FHP Tectonics Corp. An additional twelve months of alter ego discovery was conducted before trial was set to commence in November 2006. On the first day of trial, the parties were able to settle the case.

The class-wide settlement was granted final approval on June 8, 2007. 84 current and former construction superintendents will share in the settlement fund of $1,080,000. Final distributions are due at the end of June 2007.

Contacts
The Emge Firm, LLP
Derek J. Emge, 1-866-629-3409

Law Offices of David A. Huch
David A. Huch, 1-866-629-3409


Coldwell BankarSouthern California Attorneys Derek J. Emge and David A. Huch Bring Class Action Lawsuit Against Del Mar Racetrack Food and Beverage Service Company for Missed Meal and Rest Break


SAN DIEGO, Mar 13, 2007 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Southern California class action attorneys Derek J. Emge and David A. Huch recently filed a class action lawsuit against PREMIER FOOD SERVICES, INC. on behalf of numerous hourly workers, including bartenders and food servers. Headquartered in San Diego, California, PREMIER FOOD SERVICES, INC. provides food and beverage service at the Del Mar Racetrack, Del Mar Fairgrounds and other San Diego area catering operations under the fictitious business name of Carriage Trade Catering.

In their class action complaint, the hourly employees claim they have not been provided with state-mandated meal breaks and rest periods. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages for hourly employees employed by PREMIER FOOD SERVICES, INC. from February 2003 to the present.

Under California law, all hourly employees are entitled to a 30-minute meal break for each shift lasting more than five hours. The 30-minute meal break must be uninterrupted and provided during the first five hours of the employee's shift. California hourly employees are also entitled to a 10-minute rest period for every four hours worked.

The Emge Firm, LLP and the Law Offices of David A. Huch specialize in consumer and employee class action litigation. Over the past five years, Mr. Emge and Mr. Huch have successfully recovered millions of dollars on behalf of consumers and employees through the class action procedure.


SOURCE: The Emge Firm, LLP

Law Offices of David A. Huch David A. Huch, 1-866-629-3409 e-mail or The Emge Firm, LLP Derek J. Emge, 1-866-629-3409 e-mail Copyright Business Wire 2007


California Class Action Attorneys David A. Huch and Derek J. Emge Settle Overtime and Meal Break Claims against Fortune 1000 Media Conglomerate

Portfolio Media, Inc.

Media Co. Settles Overtime, Wage Class Action

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

A California newspaper publisher has settled a lawsuit alleging that it failed to pay its district supervisors overtime or allow them meal or rest breaks was recently settled. The class action suit, filed in January 2006 in state court in California, alleged that Belo Corp. and the Press-Enterprise Company had treated 61 employees unfairly.

Derek J. Emge, one of the attorneys for the class, said Tuesday that the case came to a quick conclusion because attorneys for Belo Corp., Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, moved fast when apprised of the issue. Belo Corp. re-classified the employment positions that are contested, and settled all claims with the current and former employees who worked during the applicable four-year statutory period under California law.

All that was left was another part of the class not covered by the first settlement. "They also sat down with us to quickly reach a resolution. In the long run, it saved their clients a lot of money by recognizing the problem and dealing with it," Emge said. He said the terms of the settlement are confidential.

The class included those who worked for Press Enterprise, a newspaper in Riverside, Calif., as district supervisors from 2002 to 2006. Emge said more than half of the class still works for the company. He said the district supervisors unload newspaper trucks at distribution centers, and are in charge of making sure the delivery workers do their routes and that all the newspapers get delivered. They also do routes themselves, as well as doing paperwork and scheduling.

The amended complaint alleged the workers had not been allowed state-mandated meal breaks and rest periods. The companies from December 2001 regularly made their workers work more than eight hours a day and /or 40 hours a week. The district supervisors, worked significant overtime hours and were responsible for scheduling and servicing daily delivery routes. During the course of their day, the supervisors weren't allowed 30-minute meal periods as required by California law. The amended complaint said that the companies also failed to itemize the wage statements with the precise number of hours and minutes worked by members of the class.

The practices are fraudulent because they likely deceived all class members into believing that the compensation paid to them and their working conditions were accurate and proper employment practices, the suit said. Under California law, all employees are presumed to be entitled to overtime pay and 30-minute meal breaks unless the employee in question falls "plainly and unmistakably" within narrowly defined exemption categories.

Russ Coleman, an attorney for the Press-Enterprise, said Monday that the company settled the suit to avoid the expense and uncertainty of litigation. Belo Corp. owns and operates 19 television stations, seven cable news channels, 30 websites and four daily newspapers, including the Press Enterprise, which is based in Riverside, Calif.

Law Offices of David A. Huch and The Emge Firm, LLP represented the class. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP represented the defendants.

The case is Wallis v. Belo Investment Corp, et al, case number RIC 444262, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside.


November 20, 2006 9:00 a.m. US Pacific Timezone

CLASS CERTIFICATION OBTAINED IN FALSE ADVERTISING CASE AGAINST INTERGULF DEVELOPMENT GROUP

SAN DIEGO—The Emge Firm, LLP, along with co-counsel Thomas E. Glynn, were appointed lead counsel in a class action certified today against Intergulf Development (Kettner) LLC, Intergulf Development Corp., Intergulf Development (USA) Corp. and Intergulf Construction Corp. The court certified the following class:

"All persons who purchased a condominium unit at Treo @ Kettner in San Diego, California directly from Intergulf Development (Kettner) L.L.C."

In their class action complaint, buyers of condominium units at Treo @ Kettner claim that they were victimized by a scheme of false advertising and misrepresentation. Specifically, Class Members entered into purchase agreements for the more than 300 condominiums at a downtown high-rise known as Treo before the building had even been completed. These purchases totaled $115,300,000. Class Members relied upon color brochures, Internet advertising and written descriptions of the project in deciding what to pay for their units, all of which promoted access to and use of a 3,000 square foot rooftop terrace with 360-degree views of San Diego. Only after agreeing upon a purchase price and closing escrow did Class Members learn that they had paid for a unique feature that was not to be included in the finished product – the rooftop terrace.

Class Members are anticipated to receive notice of the pending class action in the upcoming months. Meanwhile, Class counsel is in the process of obtaining deposition and written discovery and preparing the case for trial. Trial is anticipated to be set in early summer, 2007.

The Emge Firm, LLP specializes in consumer and employee class action litigation. Claims that may not justify the time and expense of litigation on an individual basis can often achieve maximum results when brought as a class action on behalf of others similarly situated. Over the past 5 years alone, The Emge Firm, LLP has successfully recovered tens of millions of dollars on behalf of consumers and employees through the class action procedure.

Contacts
The Emge Firm, LLP
Derek J. Emge, 1-866-629-3409
e-mail


October 6, 2006 11:00 a.m. US Pacific Timezone

$35,000,000 Class Action Settlement with Coldwell Banker obtains final approval

SAN DIEGO-Southern California consumer class action attorneys Derek J. Emge, Matthew J. Zevin and Kirk B. Hulett obtained final approval today of a class-wide settlement with Coldwell Banker on behalf of all buyers of Southern California real estate who retained Coldwell Banker as their agent between October 16, 1998 and July 21, 2006.

In their class action complaint, buyers represented by Coldwell Banker claimed that they were deceived into paying unnecessary and duplicative fees identified as Transaction Coordinator Fees or Document Compliance Fees. These fees averaged $250 and were charged to buyers to pay for the same services that the broker was already obligated to provide.

Plaintiff's claims were brought pursuant to Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et. seq. and alleged unfair, illegal and/or fraudulent business practices. This statutory basis allows for the recovery of restitution of moneys obtained through business practices that are "likely to deceive" the general public.

Before the matter went to trial, the parties engaged in multiple settlement discussions and, ultimately, a two-day mediation. As a result of these efforts, Coldwell Banker agreed to immediately cease from charging Transaction Coordinator Fees or Document Compliance Fees. Additionally, Coldwell Banker agreed to reimburse all class members $200 in exchange for an executed claim form. More than 175,000 consumers have been provided with direct notice of the settlement which has a value in excess of $35,000,000.00. Claim forms may be submitted until November 8, 2006.

The Emge Firm, LLP specializes in consumer and employee class action litigation. Claims that may not justify the time and expense of litigation on an individual basis can often achieve maximum results when brought as a class action on behalf of others similarly situated. Over the past 5 years alone, The Emge Firm, LLP has successfully recovered tens of millions of dollars on behalf of consumers and employees through the class action procedure.

Contacts
The Emge Firm, LLP
Derek J. Emge, 1-866-629-3409
e-mail


May 12, 2006 05:15 PM US Western Timezone

American Golf Corp. Sued For Denying Required Meal Breaks and Rest Periods and Failing To Reimburse For Uniforms

SAN DIEGO—May 12, 2006--Employment attorneys at The Emge Firm, LLP and the Law Offices of David A. Huch filed a class action suit today against American Golf Corp. on behalf of all hourly, non-exempt employees for meal break and rest period violations and the failure to reimburse employees for the cost of uniforms.

In their class action complaint, hourly employees claim that they were denied state-mandated, uninterrupted meal breaks of at least 30 minutes for every period of work in excess of five straight hours. Employees also allege that they were denied ten-minute rest periods as provided by statute.

California Labor Code §512 provides that an employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more than five hours per day without providing the employee with an uninterrupted meal period of not less than 30 minutes, except that if the total work period per day is no more than six hours, the meal period may be waived by mutual consent. Further, an employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more than 10 hours per day without providing the employee with a second meal period of not less than 30 minutes.

In a third allegation, the complaint alleges that employees were required to purchase and maintain uniforms at their own expense. While many employers require their employees to wear uniforms during working hours, Labor Code § 2802 provides that an employer shall indemnify his or her employees for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employees in direct consequence of the discharge of the employees' duties, including the cost of purchasing and maintaining uniforms.

American Golf Corp. owns and runs 67 public golf courses in the state, employing hundreds of minimum and low wage employees. Plaintiff alleges a systematic process of violating California's wage and hour laws for the financial benefit of American Golf Corp. Plaintiff's complaint seeks an injunction, restitution and damages on behalf of all hourly, non-exempt employees of American Golf Corp. between May 10, 2002 and the present.

Contacts
The Emge Firm, LLP
Derek J. Emge, 1-866-629-3409
e-mail

or

Law Offices of David A. Huch
David A. Huch, 1-866-629-3409
e-mail


April 04, 2006 04:57 PM US Eastern Timezone

Southern California Class Action Attorneys David A. Huch and Derek J. Emge Settle Overtime Claims on Behalf of San Diego Padres Sales Employees

SAN DIEGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 4, 2006--Southern California class action attorneys David A. Huch and Derek J. Emge recently settled overtime claims against the San Diego Padres Baseball Club on behalf of numerous sales employees.

In their class action complaint, the Padres' sales employees claimed that they were misclassified as exempt from California's overtime and meal break/rest period requirements, as well as other wage requirements under the California Labor Code. These sales employees, who worked significant overtime hours during the baseball season, were responsible for selling various ticket and entertainment packages, including group sales, season ticket sales, premium seating sales and luxury skybox sales.

Before the matter went to trial, the Padres re-classified these employment positions as non-exempt and settled all claims with current and former sales employees who worked during the applicable four-year statutory period under California law. The specific terms of the settlement are to remain confidential.

Under California law, all employees are presumed to be entitled to overtime pay unless the employee in question falls "plainly and unmistakably" within narrowly defined exemption categories. Sales employees in California are often misclassified by employers as exempt from overtime pay due to the employers' failure to comply with the exemption categories' strict requirements. Under California law, misclassified employees are entitled to four years of overtime compensation (at "time and a half" and "double time" rates) plus various other remedies, including attorneys' fees, litigation costs and interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum.

Contacts
Law Offices of David A. Huch
David A. Huch, 1-866-629-3409
e-mail.
or
The Emge Firm, LLP
Derek J. Emge, 1-866-629-3409