Defendant's Attorney: Phil J. Montoya, Jr.
Description: Los Angeles, California employment law lawyer represented Plaintiff who sued Defendants on a labor management relations law violation.
Plaintiff filed this action in Los Angeles County Superior Court on September 16, 2020 against Defendants Rescare Workforce Services; Rescare, Inc.; Bright Spring Health Services; Equus Workforce Solutions; Rescare Homecare; Rescare Residential Services; and Rescare California, Inc. Dkt. 1 at 22 (Exhibit A, “Compl.”). Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on January 7, 2021. Dkt. 13 (“FAC”). Defendants Res-care, Inc. (“ResCare”), Res-care California, Inc. (“ResCare California”), and Arbor E&T, LLC, d/b/a Equus Workforce Solutions (“Equus”), (collectively, “Defendants”) filed Answers to the FAC on January 28, 2021. Dkts. 15, 16, 17.
Plaintiff brings the following causes of action against all Defendants: (1) violations of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 510 and 1198 for unpaid overtime; (2) violations of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7 and 512(a) for unpaid meal period premiums; (3) violations of Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7 for unpaid rest period premiums; (4) violations of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1197, and 1197.1 for failure to pay minimum wages; (5) violations of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201 and 202 for failure to pay final wages timely; (6) violations of Cal. Lab. Code § 204 for failure to pay all wages earned during employment timely; (7) violations of Cal. Lab. Code § 226(a) for non-compliant wage statements; (8) violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 1174(d) for failure to keep accurate and complete payroll records; (9) violations of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 2800 and 2802 for failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; and (10) violations of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. (the Unfair Competition Law, “UCL”). Dkt. 13 (FAC) ¶¶ 53-127.
Plaintiff proposes the following class in the FAC: “All current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for any of the Defendants within the State of California at any time during the period from September 16, 2016 to final judgment and who reside in California.” Id. ¶ 19.
Defendants removed the action to federal court on November 30, 2020. Dkt. 1. In the Notice of Removal, Defendants stated this court has jurisdiction over the action under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Id. at 4. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Remand on December 30, 2020. Dkt. 11 (Mot.).
The action was transferred to this court on January 5, 2021. Dkt. 12. Defendants filed an opposition to the Motion on January 21, 2021, and Plaintiff filed a reply on February 3, 2021. Dkt. 14 (Opp.); Dkt. 21 (Reply). On May 24, 2021, the court ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing regarding the amount in controversy, which the parties filed on June 4, 2021. Dkts. 29, 32, 33. The Motion came to hearing on June 18, 2021. Dkt. 36.
Mills v. Rescare Workforce Servs. (C.D. Cal. 2022)
Outcome: ORDER DISMISSING ACTION by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha: Having considered the Joint Status Report 53 and finding good cause therefor, the court hereby ORDERS: 1. All deadlines governing this action are VACATED. 2. The court DISMISSES the action without prejudice. The court retains jurisdiction to vacate this Order and to reopen the action within 90 days from the date of this Order. 3. This Order does not preclude the filing of a stipulation of dismissal withprejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, which does not require approvalof the court. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (lc) (Entered: 07/03/2023)