Cases & Investigations

Here are some of our current cases and investigations:

 

Ambrosio et. al. v. Cogent Communications, Inc.

  • Northern District of California, Case No. 14-02182 RS
  • CASE TYPE: Employment, Wage & Hour
  • STATUS: Class certified, tentative settlement reached.

In March 2014, DPLO, along with its co-counsel Shellist Lazarz Slobin, filed a class and collective action wage and hour lawsuit against Cogent Communications.  The lawsuit was brought by thirteen former sales manager seeking unpaid overtime they allege Cogent did not pay them.  The Court ordered that the class could proceed as a class and collective action, and Class Notice was sent.  The parties have reached a tentative settlement.  Once the settlement is finalized, the Parties will seek approval from the Court.

If you would like more information about this case, please contact Monique at 415.433.0333 x 6 or monique@dplolaw.com.

 

Bernstein et. al. v. Virgin America, Inc.

  • Northern District of California, Case No. 15-02277 JST
  • CASE TYPE: Employment, Wage & Hour
  • STATUS: Class certified, awaiting approval to send notice to the Class.

On March 18, 2015, DPLO, along with its co-counsel Kosinski and Thiagaraj, LLP, filed a class action lawsuit against Virgin America seeking unpaid minimum and overtime wages.  The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all Virgin America flight attendants who were employed by Virgin America over the past four years. The lawsuit, which was brought by two former and a current Virgin America flight attendants, alleges that Virgin America is violating California labor laws by not paying flight attendants for all hours worked (as opposed to just hours in flight), not paying overtime, not providing meal and rest breaks, and not providing accurate wage statements.

In November 2016, the Court ordered that the class could proceed as a class action.  Click here to read a copy of that order.

In January 2017, the Court determined that most of Plaintiffs’ wage claims can move forward toward trial.  Click here here to read a copy of that order.

The parties are in the process of preparing the notice that will be approved by the Court and sent to Class members to explain the lawsuit and their rights.

If you would like more information about this case, please contact Monique at 415.433.0333 x 6 or monique@dplolaw.com.

Your employer is prohibited from retaliating against you for asserting your rights, including for helping with this lawsuit.  If you believe that you are being retaliated against, please contact us as well.

 

Bowerman v. Field Assets Services, LLC et al.

  • Northern District of California, Case No. 13-00057 WHO
  • CASE TYPE: Employment, Wage & Hour
  • STATUS: Class certified, trial scheduled for May 2017.

In January 2013, DPLO filed a class action lawsuit against Field Asset Services, Inc. (“FAS”), on behalf of individuals who worked as “vendors” doing property preservation work for FAS.  The lawsuit alleges that FAS misclassified certain vendors as independent contractors when they are employees entitled to wages and reimbursement of business expenses under California law.  The Court ordered that the class could proceed as a class action on behalf of certain vendors.  Click here to read a copy of that order.  Class Notice was sent.

The case is scheduled for trial in May 2017.

 

Juarez v. Jani-King, Inc.

  • United States District Court, Northern District of California Case No. CV09-03495 SC
  • CASE TYPE: Employment, Consumer rights
  • STATUS: Class action case filed on June 22, 2009, pending in the Court of Appeals.

DPLO, along with co-counsel The Sturdevant Law Firm, and the Boston firm of Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. is prosecuting this action against Jani-King, a multinational commercial cleaning company. The suit, which is now pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, was brought by four janitorial workers who allege that they were lured into spending thousands of dollars on purported cleaning “franchises” in order to do janitorial work for Jani-King’s customers, and charges that the company has engaged in unlawful, fraudulent and unfair conduct in marketing, promoting, selling and operating these “franchises.” Plaintiffs are also challenging Jani-King’s misclassification of them and other California franchisees as “independent contractors.”

This case is pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and is awaiting the California Supreme Court’s decision in Dynamex v. Superior Court.

If you would like more information about this case, please contact Monique at 415.433.0333 x 6 or monique@dplolaw.com.

 

Balderas v. Massage Envy Franchising

  • United States District Court, Northern District of California
  • CASE TYPE: Employment class action
  • STATUS: Class action settled.

DPLO, along with its co-counsel Bain Mazza & Debski LLP represented a proposed class of massage therapists against Massage Envy, a national franchisor of massage spas, in their claim that Massage Envy required them to pay for licensing and insurance. The court approved a class settlement in 2014.

 

Bell v. Delta Air Lines

  • United States District Court, Northern District of California
  • CASE TYPE: Employment class action
  • STATUS: Class action settled.

DPLO, along with its co-counsel the Law Offices of Deborah C. England, prosecuted this proposed class action against Delta Air Lines, Inc. on behalf of Delta Airlines Ready Reserve employees.  The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that Delta violated California labor laws by failing to pay for all wages owed and for overtime, and failed to provide meal and rest breaks.  The court approved a class settlement in 2014.