Site Content

Active Class and Representative Cases

Active Class/Representative Action Cases


A “class action” or “representative action” is a lawsuit brought by one or more claimants as representatives for an entire group of claimants who have been negatively affected by a common violation, but who do not need to participate in the lawsuit to be awarded a recovery. A class/representative action suit may occur when many different people combine similar complaints. This saves the court time and allows a single judge to hear all the concerns at the same time, and come to one settlement or resolution for all parties. This process creates a procedure for redressing a relatively small claim that might otherwise be too costly to litigate on an individual basis.

A Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) action pursuant to Labor Code §§ 2699, et seq. is similar to a class/representative action and is also considered a representative action. The difference is the plaintiff-employee is essentially standing in the shoes of the California Labor Commissioner whose goal is to recover penalties for an employer’s violation of the Labor Code on behalf of the state and aggrieved employees whom she/he represents. Seventy-five percent of the money recovered in these types of actions is payable to the state, and 25% is payable to the aggrieved employees. 

The Law Offices of Thomas D. Rutledge plays a pivotal role in shaping the outcome of employment wage and hour class action lawsuits in California and the country. Our cases typically involve unpaid wages, and other claims like violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act or similar consumer protection statutes. 

The following is our class action department’s top investigations and current cases:


1. Madriz, et al. v. North County Ford Inc., et al.
Case No.: 37-2014-1896-CO-OE-CTL
Superior Court of California, San Diego County, Central Division

In this Representative Employee action matter, the Plaintiff and Represented Employees, auto mechanics, sought PAGA penalties for alleged wage and hour violations committed by Defendant, North County Ford. Plaintiffs’ Complaint mainly alleged: 1) failure to pay the minimum wage and overtime pay; 2) failure to provide compliant meal and rest breaks; 3) failure to reimburse business expenses; 4) failure to maintain accurate time keeping records; 5) failure to pay all wages due at termination; 6) unfair business practices; and 7) issuance of improper employees pay stubs, etc.

The Representative Period in this litigation was for all California employees who worked for defendant North County Ford as “Technicians” from February 2, 2010, to November 12, 2015.

If you are part of this group of employees, you may be entitled to money. For more information about this case, please contact Thomas D. Rutledge at 619-886-7224 or the claims administrator, Phoenix Settlement Administrators, at 1-800-784-2174.

2. Segal, et al. v. Aquent, et al.
Case No.: 37-2017-00043402-CU-OE-CTL
Superior Court of San Diego, Central Division

In this representative action case, the Plaintiffs allege their current or former employer: (1) Failed to Pay State Minimum/Regular Wages; (2) failed to Make Payments Within the Required Time; (3) Violated Labor Code § 201.3; (4) Violated Labor Code § 226; (5) Failed to Maintain Required Records in Violation of California Labor Code §§ 1174, et seq.; and (6) Failed to Reimburse Business Expenses in Violation of California Labor Code § 2802, among other things, because their employer required employees to work from home without reimbursement, issued them inaccurate paystubs, especially since the paystubs failed to identify their rates of pay or the name(s) of their employer, failed to pay them wages, and related claims. The putative representative class consists of all current or former employees who worked in the state of California from November 21, 2013 to the present day.

This case settled; on September 13, 2019, final approval of the settlement was obtained. Checks to class members were sent within 60 days of September 13, 2019. For more information about this case please contact Thomas D. Rutledge at 619-886-7224 or the claims administrator, Phoenix Settlement Administrator, at 888.613.5553/800-784-2174/Email: info@phoenixclassaction.com.

3. Babouchian, et al. v. Soleil Communications Inc., et al. (AKA Welk Resorts)
SDSC Case Number: 37-2017-00044756-CU-OE-CTL
Superior Court of California, San Diego County, Central Division

In this class/representative action case, the Plaintiffs allege their current or former employer: (1) Failed to Pay State and Federal Minimum/Regular Wages/Overtime; (2) failed to Make Payments Within the Required Time; (3) Violated Labor Code § 203; (4) Violated Labor Code § 226; (5) Failed to Maintain Required Records in Violation of California Labor Code §§ 1174, et seq.; and (6) Failed to Reimburse Business Expenses in Violation of California Labor Code § 2802, among other things, because their employer required its employees to work for less than the minimum wage rate of pay required by the local area in which they worked, such as Los Angeles, San Diego County, etc. Plaintiffs further allege that Welk underpaid their overtime because, among other reasons, Welk forgot to include their commissions into their regular rate of pay for overtime pay purposes. Plaintiffs further allege Welk neglected to reimburse them for mileage and/or cell phones properly despite them using their own personal cars and cell phones. Plaintiffs further allege that Welk failed to pay all of its marketers and salespeople for all wages earned in the form of underpaid commissions/incentive fees and because of a commission plan, Plaintiffs maintain was inherently illegal inasmuch as it failed to ensure all employees received rest break compensation particularly when salespeople performed non-sales activities.  

Plaintiff and the employees she represents worked in the timesharing business selling and marketing timeshare products. The putative class consists of all current or former employees who worked in the state of California from November 14, 2013 to the present.

This case has settled and the settlement is pending approval. We encourage you to please contact Thomas D. Rutledge at 619-886-7224 with any questions. 

4. Babouchian, et al. v. Wyndham Vacation Ownership, et al.
SDSC Case Number: 37-2018-00014601-CU-OE-CTL
Superior Court of San Diego, Central Division

In this representative action case, the Plaintiffs allege their current or former employer: (1) Failed to Pay State Minimum/Regular Wages; (2) Failed to Pay State Overtime Wages; (3) failed to Make Payments Within the Required Time; (4) Violated Labor Code § 226; (5) Failed to Reimburse Business Expenses in Violation of California Labor Code § 2802, and (6) failed to provide compliant meal breaks, among other things, because their employer required its employees to drive to more than one location, sometimes multiple locations, in the same workday without mileage, cell phone, and/or parking reimbursements. Plaintiffs also allege her meal breaks were often cut short or provided too late in the day and that her employer underpaid her wages, such as overtime and minimum wage, either because she worked in a vicinity where she was supposed to be paid higher minimum wages due to a local county or city ordinance and because her employer did not calculate her overtime properly. Plaintiffs and the employees she represents worked in the timesharing business marketing timeshare products. The representative group consists of all current or former employees who worked in the state of California from March 20, 2014 to the present.

This case has settled and the class action agreement is pending preliminary court approval. For more information about this case please contact Thomas D. Rutledge at 619-886-7224.

4. Fuentes, et al. v. Maxim Health Care Services, Inc., et al.
Case No.: 2:17-cv-01072
U.S. District Court, Central Division

In this class/representative action case, the Plaintiffs allege their current or former employer: (1) Failed to Pay State Minimum/Regular Wages; (2) Failed to Pay State Overtime Wages; (3) failed to Make Payments Within the Required Time; (4) Violated Labor Code § 226; (5) Failed to Pay for Missed Meal and Rest Breaks, and (6) violated the Business and Professions Code, among other things. 

Plaintiffs Fuentes and Johnston worked as LVN’s for Maxim in its Homecare division, helping patients with serious health conditions in their patient’s homes. Maxim made them sign meal break waiver forms, which they maintain were unfair and unenforceable because they feel they were never given a choice to decline signing. Even so, when they worked more than 10 hours in a workday, Maxim failed to pay them for their second missed meal break, which Plaintiffs maintain was illegal. Plaintiffs also allege that when Maxim’s employees earned regular pay at different rates and worked overtime, Maxim failed to apply the correct weighted average rate of pay for overtime purposes and thus underpaid the class. Further, Plaintiffs often experienced instances where they could not take an uninterrupted rest break because their patients needed so much attention. Plaintiffs also allege their employer issued its employees confusing and erroneous wage and earning statements. Plaintiffs and the employees they represent were homecare nurses who worked in patients’ homes throughout California. The representative group consists of all current or former employees who worked in the state of California from December 15, 2012 to the present.

This case has not settled. If you are a current or former employee, we would like to speak to you about your work experience. For more information about this case please contact Thomas D. Rutledge at 619-886-7224.

5. Logachev v. Cerna Healthcare, LLC, et al.

Superior Court of California, Orange County, Central Division 

OCSC Case Number: 37-2019-00029898-CU-OE-CTL

In this class/representative action case, the Plaintiffs allege their current or former employer: (1) Failed to Pay State Minimum/Regular Wages; (2) Failed to Pay State Overtime Wages; (3) failed to Make Payments Within the Required Time; (4) Violated Labor Code § 226; (5) Failed to Pay for Missed Meal and Rest Breaks, and (6) violated the Business and Professions Code, among other things. 

Plaintiff Logachev worked as a homecare worker for Cerna, helping patients with serious health conditions in their patient’s homes and facilities. Plaintiff Logachev alleges when he and similar workers worked more than 10 hours in a workday, Cerna failed to pay them for all their meal breaks. Further, Plaintiff often experienced instances where he could not take an uninterrupted rest break because their patients needed so much attention. Plaintiff also allege their employer issued its employees confusing and erroneous wage and earning statements. Plaintiff also alleges Cerna underpaid overtime to its employees particularly when receiving two or more rates of pay during the same workweek and when they worked overtime. The representative group consists of all current or former employees who worked in the state of California from June 11, 2015 to the present.

This case has not settled and we are very much interested in learning more about what you experienced if you worked for Cerna. If you are a current or former employee, we would like to speak to you about your work experience. For more information about this case please contact Thomas D. Rutledge at 619-886-7224.

6. Egan, et al. v. Premier Healthcare Services, Inc., et al.

Superior Court of California, San Diego County, Central Division 

Case No. 37-2019-00020223-CU-OE-CTL

In this representative action case, the Plaintiffs allege their current or former employer: (1) Failed to Pay State Minimum/Regular Wages; (2) Failed to Pay State Overtime Wages; (3) failed to Make Payments Within the Required Time; (4) Violated Labor Code § 226; (5) Failed to Pay for Missed Meal and Rest Breaks, and (6) violated the Business and Professions Code, among other things. Plaintiffs typically worked as homecare workers helping patients with serious health conditions in patient’s homes and facilities. 

Plaintiffs allege when she and similar workers worked more than 10 hours in a workday, their employer failed to pay them for all their meal breaks. Further, Plaintiffs often experienced instances where they could not take an uninterrupted rest break because their patients needed so much attention. Plaintiffs also allege their employer issued its employees confusing and erroneous wage and earning statements. Plaintiffs also allege their employer underpaid overtime to its employees particularly when receiving two or more rates of pay during the same workweek and when they worked overtime. The biggest claim, perhaps, was their employer’s requirement that Plaintiffs and similar healthcare professionals appear 10 minutes before their shift began without pay. This, Plaintiffs allege, constitutes unpaid minimum/regular wage claims. 

The representative group consists of all current or former employees who worked in the state of California from February 9, 2018 to the present.

This case has not settled and we are very much interested in learning more about what you experienced if you worked for Premier Healthcare Services, Inc. or its successor, Aveanna Healthcare AS, LLC. If you are a current or former employee, we would like to speak to you about your work experience. For more information about this case please contact Thomas D. Rutledge at 619-886-7224.

7. Hubbard, et al. v. L’Oreal USA Inc., et al.

Superior Court of California, San Francisco County

Case No.: CGC-18-567952

In this nationwide class action, Plaintiffs allege their current or former employer, among other things, illegally procured a background investigation report on them using the wrong disclosure form in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Before Plaintiff Hubbard worked for her employer, her employer required her to sign a form and pass a background check. Plaintiff maintains, however, the form her employer asked her to sign was in violation of FCRA because, among other reasons, the form was not a standalone document because it contained a variety of extraneous information such as irrelevant state law disclosures. 

The class consists of all current or former employees, who have not otherwise released their claims against L’Oreal, whose consumer report Defendants procured during the Class Period. Any putative Class Member who has previously released his/her claims against L’Oreal pursuant to a separate agreement shall not be eligible to participate as a Class Member in this Action, and shall not have a claim to any amount.

This case has settled and the settlement is pending approval. We encourage you to please contact Thomas D. Rutledge at 619-886-7224 with any questions. 

8. Olshansky, et al. v. ATC Healthcare Services, LLC, et al.

Superior Court of California, San Diego County, Central Division 

Case No. 37-2018-00065377-CU-OE-CTL

In this class action case, the Plaintiffs allege their current or former employer: (1) Failed to Pay State Minimum/Regular Wages; (2) Failed to Pay State Overtime Wages; (3) failed to Make Payments Within the Required Time; (4) Violated Labor Code § 226; (5) Failed to Pay for Missed Meal and Rest Breaks, (6) failed to reimburse its employees for work related expenses, and (7) illegally procured employees’ and job applicant’s criminal background checks in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and state law, among other things. Plaintiffs typically worked as temporary nurses helping patients at various facilities. Plaintiffs allege when they and similar workers worked more than 10 hours in a workday, their employer failed to pay them for all their meal breaks. Further, Plaintiffs often experienced instances where they could not take an uninterrupted rest break because their patients needed so much attention. Plaintiffs also allege their employer issued its employees confusing and erroneous wage and earning statements. Plaintiff also alleges their employer underpaid overtime to its employees in a variety of circumstances, such as when working graveyard shifts, for the sixth day of work, or when earning a bonus, etc. Plaintiffs allege their current or former employer, among other things, illegally procured a background investigation report on them using the wrong disclosure form in violation of the FCRA.

The Labor Code class consists of all current or former employees who worked in the state of California from December 27, 2014 to the present. The FCRA class consists of all current or former employees or job applicants in the U.S. whose background report Defendants procured from December 27, 2013 to the present. 

This case has not settled and we are very much interested in learning more about what you experienced in the workplace. If you are a current or former employee, we would like to speak to you about your work experience. For more information about this case please contact Thomas D. Rutledge at 619-886-7224.

9. Prieto v. Best Western

Superior Court of California, San Diego County, Central Division 

Case No.: 37-2018-00060899-CU-OE-CTL

In this class/representative action case, the Plaintiffs allege their current or former employer: (1) Failed to Pay State Minimum/Regular Wages; (2) Failed to Pay State Overtime Wages; (3) failed to Make Payments Within the Required Time; (4) Violated Labor Code § 226; and (5) Failed to Pay for Missed Meal and Rest Breaks in violation of state law, among other things. Plaintiffs typically worked as hotel employees at various hotel facilities in California. Plaintiffs allege when they and similar workers worked more than 5 or 10 hours in a workday, their employer failed to pay them for all their meal breaks. Further, Plaintiffs often experienced instances where they could not take an uninterrupted rest break because their patients needed so much attention. Plaintiffs also allege their employer issued its employees confusing and erroneous wage and earning statements. Plaintiff also alleges their employer underpaid overtime to its employees in a variety of circumstances, such as when working graveyard shifts, for the sixth day of work, or when earning a bonus, etc. 

The class consists of all current or former employees who worked in the state of California from December 3, 2014 to the present. 

This case has settled, but the settlement has not been approved by the court. For more information about this case please contact Thomas D. Rutledge at 619-886-7224.

10. Rhodan, et al. v. Job Options, Inc., et al.

Case Number: 37-2018-00060219-CU-OE-CTL

Superior Court of California, San Diego County, Central Division 

In this class and representative action case, the Plaintiffs allege their current or former employer (1) failed to pay for all accrued paid time off/vacation pay; (2) failed to make payments within the required time; (3) violated labor code § 226; and (4) failed to pay for missed meal and rest breaks in violation of state law, among other things. Plaintiffs typically worked as grocery store employees at various grocery stores in California. Plaintiffs allege when they and similar workers worked more than 5 or 10 hours in a workday, their employer failed to pay them for all their meal breaks. Plaintiffs also allege their employer issued its employees confusing and erroneous wage and earning statements. Plaintiffs also allege their employer underpaid their vacation/PTO. 

The class consists of all current or former employees who worked in the state of California from March 25, 2015 to the present. 

This case has settled, but the settlement has not been approved by the court. For more information about this case please contact Thomas D. Rutledge at 619-886-7224.

11. Hopper, et al. v. Kimball Tirey & St. John, et al.

Superior Court of California, San Diego County

Case No.: 37-2019-00010409-CU-OE-CTL

In this nationwide class action, Plaintiffs allege their current or former employer, among other things, illegally procured a background investigation report on them using the wrong disclosure form in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). During the application process Plaintiff’s employer required her to sign a form and pass a background check. Plaintiff maintains, however, the form her employer asked her to sign was in violation of FCRA because, among other reasons, the form was not a standalone document because it contained a variety of extraneous information such as liability release waiver language and irrelevant state law disclosures. 

The class consists of all current or former employees whose consumer report Defendants procured during the Class Period. 

This case has settled and the settlement is pending final approval. We encourage you to please contact Thomas D. Rutledge at 619-886-7224 or the claims administrator, Phoenix Settlement Administrators, at 1-800-784-2174 with any questions. 

image1