Injured? Get help from The Law Office of Thomas D. Rutledge!

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 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 action and is often referred to as 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 35% is payable to the aggrieved employees. 

Class  representatives and plaintiff-employees in PAGA actions are often  awarded incentive fees by the court. These fees are in addition to what Class representatives and plaintiff-employees in PAGA actions can earn from the suit itself.  

The Law Office of Thomas D. Rutledge plays an active role in shaping the outcome of employment wage and hour class action lawsuits in California and sometimes the U.S. Our cases typically involve unpaid wages, but sometimes other claims too like violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 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:

 Da Silva, et al. v. Instawork, et al.

Sup. Court of Cal., San Diego County Case No.: 24CL014486C

In this PAGA-only representative action case, the Plaintiffs allege that their current or former employer, Garuda Labs, Inc., DBA Instawork, a gig company, misclassified its workers as independent contractors. 

The Plaintiffs claim Instawork committed the following violations:

1. Failure to Pay State Minimum/Regular/Local Wages

2. Failure to Pay State Overtime

3. Failure to Make Payments Within the Required Time

4. Meal and Rest Break Labor Code Violations

5. Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements

6. Failure to Maintain Records

7. Failure to Reimburse Work-Related Expenses

8. Failure to Properly Pay Sick Pay

9. Misclassification of Workers as Independent Contractors

10. Failure to Maintain Workers’ Compensation Insurance

11. Various Miscellaneous Labor Code Violations (via PAGA)

Instawork connects businesses with hourly workers across various industries, primarily focusing on hospitality and light industrial sectors. Instawork’s workers select shifts in jobs such as bartenders, servers, line cooks, event staff, baristas, warehouse associates, pickers/packers, and general laborers, housekeepers and janitors, and/or retail associates and merchandisers.

The Plaintiffs allege that Instawork pays all workers hourly but misclassifies them as independent contractors.

The named Plaintiff worked in the hospitality industry, performing duties such as cashiering, barbacking, and restaurant work. However, the case extends beyond these specific job types. Instawork’s platform facilitates a wide range of employment opportunities, enabling workers to perform different assignments for Instawork’s customers.

The Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants supplied the tools and dictated the work instructions.When workers exceeded five hours in a workday, Instawork failed to provide meal and rest breaks.Defendants often delayed payments or failed to pay workers altogether. Instawork failed to issue wage and earnings statements and never paid overtime. Instawork’s continued misclassification of workers as independent contractors violates Labor Code § 226.8, entitling each affected worker to recover up to $25,000.

This case was filed on October 1, 2024. The representative group consists of all people that Instawork employed in the state of California from July 15, 2022 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 Instawork or any of its customers. If you are a current or former Instawork worker, 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.

Da Silva, et al. v. Advantage Workforce Services, LLC, et al.

Sup. Court of Cal., San Diego County Case No.: 24CL014486C

In this PAGA-only representative action case, the Plaintiffs allege that their current or former employer, Advantage Workforce Services, LLC committed the following violations:

1. Failure to Pay State Minimum/Regular/Local Wages

2. Failure to Pay State Overtime

3. Failure to Make Payments Within the Required Time

4. Meal and Rest Break Labor Code Violations

5. Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements

6. Failure to Maintain Records

7. Failure to Reimburse Work-Related Expenses

8. Failure to Properly Pay Sick Pay

9. Various Miscellaneous Labor Code Violations (via PAGA)

Advantage Workforce Services, LLC uses the Instawork application to connect businesses with hourly workers across various industries, primarily focusing on hospitality and light industrial sectors.Advantage Workforce Services, LLC’s workers select shifts in jobs such as bartenders, servers, line cooks, event staff, baristas, warehouse associates, pickers/packers, and general laborers, housekeepers and janitors, and/or retail associates and merchandisers.

This case was filed on October 1, 2024. The representative group consists of all current or former employees that Advantage Workforce Services, LLC employed in the state of California from July 15, 2022 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 Advantage Workforce Services, LLC or any of its customers. If you are a current or former Advantage Workforce Services, LLC worker, 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.

Fordham, et al. v. Instawork, et al.

Sup. Court of Cal., San Diego County Case No.: 25CU008176C

In this class action case, the Plaintiffs allege that their current or former employer, Garuda Labs, Inc., DBA Instawork, a gig company, misclassified its workers as independent contractors. The Plaintiffs claim Instawork committed the following violations:

1. Failure to Pay State Minimum/Regular/Local Wages

2. Failure to Pay State Overtime

3. Failure to Make Payments Within the Required Time

4. Meal and Rest Break Labor Code Violations

5. Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements

6. Failure to Maintain Records

7. Failure to Reimburse Work-Related Expenses

8. Failure to Properly Pay Sick Pay

9. Misclassification of Workers as Independent Contractors

10. Failure to Maintain Workers’ Compensation Insurance

11. Various Miscellaneous Labor Code Violations (via the B&P Code)

Instawork connects businesses with hourly workers across various industries, primarily focusing on hospitality and light industrial sectors. Instawork’s workers select shifts in jobs such as bartenders, servers, line cooks, event staff, baristas, warehouse associates, pickers/packers, and general laborers, housekeepers and janitors, and/or retail associates and merchandisers.

The Plaintiffs allege that Instawork pays all workers hourly but misclassifies them as independent contractors.

The named Plaintiff worked in the hospitality industry, performing duties such as cashiering, barbacking, and restaurant work. However, the case extends beyond these specific job types. Instawork’s platform facilitates a wide range of employment opportunities, enabling workers to perform different assignments for Instawork’s customers.

The Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants supplied the tools and dictated the work instructions.When workers exceeded five hours in a workday, Instawork failed to provide meal and rest breaks.Defendants often delayed payments or failed to pay workers altogether. Instawork failed to issue wage and earnings statements and never paid overtime. Instawork’s continued misclassification of workers as independent contractors violates Labor Code § 226.8, entitling each affected worker to recover up to $25,000.

This case was filed on February 18, 2025. The class consists of all people that Instawork employed in the state of California from February 18, 2021 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 Instawork or any of its customers. If you are a current or former Instawork worker, 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.

Crenshaw, et al. v. Shiftsmart Inc., et al.

Superior Court of California, San Diego County, Central Division 

Case No.: 37-2024-00019026-CU-OE-CTL

In this PAGA-only nonindividual representative action case, the Plaintiffs allege their current or former employer Shiftsmart Inc., a gig company, misclassified its workers as independent contractors. Plaintiffs allege Shiftsmart Inc. (1) Failed to Pay State Minimum/Regular/Local Wages; (2) Failed to Pay State Overtime; (3) Failed to Make Payments Within the Required Time; (4) Committed Meal and Rest Break Labor Code Violations; (5) Failed to Provide Accurate Wage Statements; (6) Failed to Maintain Records; (7) Failed to Reimburse for Work Related Expenses; (8) Failed to Properly Pay Sick Pay; (9) Misclassified workers as independent contractors; (10) Failed to Maintain Workers’ Compensation Insurance; and committed (11) a number of miscellaneous Labor Code Violations via the PAGA.

The named Plaintiffs typically worked as janitors, cleaning bathrooms, stocking shelves, mopping floors for Circle K Stores in California, but their case is not limited to just these types of workers. Shiftsmart Inc.’s website platform provides a wide variety of employment opportunities for workers to perform different job assignments for ShiftsmartInc.’s customers, such as Walmart, Frito-Lay, Neighborhood Loop, Quik Stop, Airspace, to name a few. Plaintiffs allege Defendants supplied their tools and told Plaintiffs what to do. Plaintiffs also allege when they and similar workers worked more than five hours in a workday, Shiftsmart Inc. failed to provide meal and rest breaks.

Further, Plaintiffs allege Defendants often paid them too slowly or not at all. Plaintiffs also allege Shiftsmart Inc.failed to issue its employees wage and earning statements. Plaintiffs also allege Shiftsmart Inc. never paid overtime. Plaintiffs’ biggest claim of all still is that Shiftsmart Inc. failed  and continues to fail to classify its workers as employees, a violation  that can provide each negatively affected employee the right to recover  up to $35,000 apiece per Labor Code § 226.8. 

The representative group consists of all current or former employees who worked in the state of California from May 15, 2022 to the present. The case is related and consolidated with the Sharp/Mize, et al. v. Shiftsmart Inc., et al. Superior Court of California, San Diego County, Central Division Case No.: 37-2023-00021163-CU-OE-CTL case discussed below.

This case has not settled and we are very much interested in learning more about what you experienced if you worked for Shiftsmart Inc. or any of its customers, such as Circle K Stores, Frito Lay, Neighborhood Loop, Quik Stop, and many others. If you are a current or former ShiftsmartInc. worker, 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.

Sharp/Mize, et al. v. Shiftsmart Inc., et al.

Superior Court of California, San Diego County, Central Division 

Case No.: 37-2023-00021163-CU-OE-CTL

In this PAGA-only individual and representative action case, the Plaintiffs allege their current or former employer Shiftsmart Inc., a gig company, misclassified its workers as independent contractors. Plaintiffs allege Shiftsmart Inc. (1) Failed to Pay State Minimum/Regular/Local Wages; (2) Failed to Pay State Overtime; (3) Failed to Make Payments Within the Required Time; (4) Committed Meal and Rest Break Labor Code Violations; (5) Failed to Provide Accurate Wage Statements; (6) Failed to Maintain Records; (7) Failed to Reimburse for Work Related Expenses; (8) Failed to Properly Pay Sick Pay; (9) Misclassified workers as independent contractors; (10) Failed to Maintain Workers’ Compensation Insurance; and committed (11) a number of miscellaneous Labor Code Violations via the PAGA.

The named Plaintiffs typically worked as janitors, cleaning bathrooms, stocking shelves, mopping floors for Circle K Stores in California, but their case is not limited to just these types of workers. Shiftsmart Inc.’s website platform provides a wide variety of employment opportunities for workers to perform different job assignments for ShiftsmartInc.’s customers, such as Walmart, Frito-Lay, Neighborhood Loop, Quik Stop, Airspace, to name a few. Plaintiffs allege Defendants supplied their tools and told Plaintiffs what to do. Plaintiffs also allege when they and similar workers worked more than five hours in a workday, Shiftsmart Inc. failed to provide meal and rest breaks.

Further, Plaintiffs allege Defendants often paid them too slowly or not at all. Plaintiffs also allege Shiftsmart Inc.failed to issue its employees wage and earning statements. Plaintiffs also allege Shiftsmart Inc. never paid overtime. Plaintiffs’ biggest claim of all still is that Shiftsmart Inc. failed  and continues to fail to classify its workers as employees, a violation  that can provide each negatively affected employee the right to recover  up to $35,000 apiece per Labor Code § 226.8. 

The representative group consists of all current or former employees who worked in the state of California from May 15, 2022 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 Shiftsmart Inc. or any of its customers, such as Circle K Stores, Frito Lay, Neighborhood Loop, Quik Stop, and many others. If you are a current or former ShiftsmartInc. worker, 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.

Laurie Davila, et al. v. ABM Aviation Inc., et al.

Superior Court of California, San Diego County, Central Division 

Case No.: 37-2024-00002748-CU-OE-CTL

In this PAGA-only nonindividual representative action case, the Plaintiffs allege their current or former employer ABM Aviation, Inc., an airline services company, failed to (1) pay minimum/regular wages; (2) State Overtime; (3) Comply with Meal Break Laws; (4) Comply with Rest Break Laws; (5) Reimburse Expenses; (6) Provide Accurate Wage Statements; (7) Pay Wages Timely; (8) Provide and Maintain Records; and committed (9) a number of miscellaneous Labor Code Violations via the PAGA.

The named Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees they represent typically worked for the Defendants at various airports cleaning aircraft for various airlines. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants required employees to perform work before clocking in and after clocking out, such as having to wait in long security lines before clocking in, riding in company provided vehicles that transported them from one location to another without pay, among other things. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants forced Plaintiffs to work many hours in a day without proper compensation, had failed to pay overtime correctly, neglected to provide its workers with rest time, deprived employees of their right to enjoy lawful meal and rest breaks, among other things.

The representative group consists of all current or former employees who worked in the state of California from November 14, 2022 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 ABM Aviation Inc. If you are a current or former employee of ABM Aviation Inc., 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.

Laurie Davila, et al. v. ABM Aviation Inc., et al.

Superior Court of California, San Diego County, Central Division 

Case No.: 25CU002207C

In this class action case, the Plaintiffs allege their current or former employer ABM Aviation, Inc., an airline services company, failed to (1) pay minimum/regular wages; (2) State Overtime; (3) Comply with Meal Break Laws; (4) Comply with Rest Break Laws; (5) Reimburse Expenses; (6) Provide Accurate Wage Statements; (7) Pay Wages Timely; (8) Provide and Maintain Records; and committed (9) a number of miscellaneous Labor Code Violations via the Bus. & Prof. Code.

The named Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees they represent typically worked for the Defendants at various airports cleaning aircraft for various airlines. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants required employees to perform work before clocking in and after clocking out, such as having to wait in long security lines before clocking in, riding in company provided vehicles that transported them from one location to another without pay, among other things. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants forced Plaintiffs to work many hours in a day without proper compensation, had failed to pay overtime correctly, neglected to provide its workers with rest time, deprived employees of their right to enjoy lawful meal and rest breaks, among other things.

The class consists of all current or former employees who worked in the state of California from November 26, 2019 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 ABM Aviation Inc. If you are a current or former employee of ABM Aviation Inc., 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.

Jose Felix, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company, et al.

Superior Court of California, San Diego County, Central Division 

Case No.: 37-2024-000029722-CU-OE-CTL

In this PAGA-only representative action case, the Plaintiffs allege their current or former employer Allstate Insurance Company, an insurance company, (1) Failed to pay minimum/regular wages; (2) Failed to Pay State Overtime; (3) Failed to Pay Wages Timely; (4) Failed to Comply with Meal and Rest Break Laws; (5) Failed to Provide Accurate Wage Statements; (6) Failed to Provide and Maintain Records; (7) Failed to Reimburse Expenses; (8) Committed sick pay violations; and committed (9) a number of miscellaneous Labor Code Violations via the PAGA.

The named Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees he represents worked for the Defendants primarily in the insurance industry. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants normally employed most of its workforce remotely failing to reimburse them for all their work-related expenses, such as home internet, use of their home office utilities, rent/mortgage payment, homeowner’s insurance, etc. Defendants also forced Plaintiffs to work many hours in a day without proper compensation, failed to pay overtime correctly, neglected to provide its workers with rest time, deprived employees of their right to enjoy lawful meal and rest breaks, among other things. 

The representative group consists of all current or former employees who worked in the state of California from June 24, 2023 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 Allstate Insurance Company, Signature Motor Club of California, Inc., and/or Allstate Motor Club, Inc. If you are a current or former employee of any of these companies, 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.

Vernon Barnett, et al. v. First American Home Warranty Corporation, et al.

Superior Court of California, San Diego County, Central Division 

Case No.: 37-2024-00046947-CU-OE-CTL

In this PAGA-only representative action case, the Plaintiffs allege their current or former employer First American Home Warranty Corporation, a home warranty company, (1) Failed to pay minimum/regular wages; (2) Failed to Pay State Overtime; (3) Failed to Comply with Meal Break Laws; (4) Failed to Comply with Rest Break Laws; (5) Failed to Reimburse Expenses; (6) Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements; (7) Failed to Pay Wages Timely; (8) Failed to Provide and Maintain Records; and committed (9) a number of miscellaneous Labor Code Violations via the PAGA.

The named Plaintiffs and the aggrieved employees he represents worked for Defendants in the home warranty business. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants normally employed most of its workforce remotely failing to reimburse them for all their work related expenses, such as home internet, use of their home office utilities, rent/mortgage payment, homeowner’s insurance, etc. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants forced Plaintiffs to work many hours in a day without proper compensation, failed to pay overtime correctly, neglected to provide its workers with rest time, deprived employees of their right to enjoy lawful meal and rest breaks, among other things.

The representative group consists of all current or former employees who worked in the state of California from August 22, 2022 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 First American Home Warranty Corporation. If you are a current or former First American Home Warranty 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. 

Machuca, et al. v. APR Consulting Inc., et al. 

Superior Court of California, San Diego County, Central Division 

Case No.: 37-2024-00026442-CU-OE-CTL

In this PAGA-only representative action case, the Plaintiffs allege their current or former employer APR Consulting, Inc., an employment agency, (1) Failed to Provide and Maintain Records; (2) Failed to pay minimum/regular wages; (3) Failed to Pay State Overtime; (4) Failed to Pay Wages Timely; (5) committed Labor Code violations concerning meal and rest breaks; (6) committed wage statement violations via the PAGA; (7) failed to maintain payroll records via the PAGA; (8) Failed to Reimburse Expenses; and committed (9) a number of miscellaneous Labor Code Violations via the PAGA. 

The named Plaintiffs and the aggrieved employees they represents worked for Defendants through an staffing agency that placed Plaintiffs to work for different companies, normally Verizon, while being in the employ of the Defendants.  Plaintiffs allege Defendants failed to pay overtime correctly, neglected to provide its workers with rest time, deprived employees of their right to enjoy lawful meal and rest breaks, among other things.

The representative group consists of all current or former employees who worked in the state of California from March 25, 2023 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 APR Consulting Inc. If you are a current or former APR Consulting Inc. 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. 

Aceves, et al. v. Atlas Retail Services, Inc., et al. 

Superior Court of California, San Diego County, Central Division 

Case No.: 37-2024-00018584-CU-OE-CTL

In this PAGA-only representative action case, the Plaintiffs allege their current or former employer Atlas Retail Services Inc., an employment agency, (1) Failed to Provide Access to Employee Personnel Records; (2) Failed to Pay State minimum/regular wages; (3) Failed to Pay State Overtime Wages via the PAGA; (4) Failed to Pay Wages Timely; (5) committed Labor Code violations concerning meal and rest breaks; (6) committed wage statement violations via the PAGA; (7) Failed to maintain payroll records via the PAGA; (8) Failed to Reimburse Expenses; (9) Failed to Properly Pay Sick Pay; (10) Misclassification as Independent Contractors; (11) Failed to Maintain Workers’ Compensation Insurance; and (12) committed a number of Labor Code Violations via the PAGA. 

The named Plaintiffs and the aggrieved employees typically worked for Defendants in providing construction and installation services to retail businesses. Plaintiffs allege Defendants failed to pay overtime correctly, neglected to provide its workers with rest time, deprived employees of their right to enjoy lawful meal and rest breaks, among other things. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, in some cases, misclassified them as independent contractors. 

The representative group consists of all current or former employees who worked in the state of California from April 19, 2023 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 Atlas Retail Services Inc. If you are a current or former Atlas Retail Services Inc. 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. 

Benitez v. MHF MV Manager VI LLC, et al.

Superior Court of California, Alameda County 

Case No.: 24CV080932

In this PAGA-only representative action case, the Plaintiffs allege their current or former employer MHF MV Manager VI LLC dba Courtyard San Diego Mission Valley, a hotel business, (1) Failed to pay minimum/regular wages; (2) Failed to Pay State Overtime Failed to Provide and Maintain Records; (3) Failed to Pay Wages Timely; (4) Committed Labor Code violations concerning meal and rest breaks; (5) Failed to Provide Accurate Wage Statements; (6) Failed to Maintain Records; committed wage statement violations via the PAGA; (7) Failed to Reimburse Expenses; (8) Committed Sick Pay Violations; and (9) Committed a Number of Miscellaneous Labor Code Violations via the PAGA. 

The named Plaintiffs and the aggrieved employees she represents typically worked as hospitality staff for Defendants. Plaintiffs allege Defendants failed to pay overtime correctly, neglected to provide its workers with rest time, deprived employees of their right to enjoy lawful meal and rest breaks, among other things.

The representative group consists of all current or former employees who worked in the state of California from May 22, 2023 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 MHF MV Manager VI LLC. If you are a current or former MHF MV Manager VI LLC. 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. 

We know that dealing with a personal injury can be a stressful and emotional time. That's why we provide compassionate and personalized service to each of our clients.

We offer a free consultation to discuss your case and answer any questions you may have. Contact us today to schedule your free consultation.

Our goal is to help you get the maximum compensation you deserve for your personal injury. We will fight tirelessly to get you the best possible outcome.