This case was last updated from Fresno County Superior Courts on 05/29/2019 at 19:08:33 (UTC).

Jonathan Miller vs. Cocal California, Inc.

Case Summary

On 08/08/2014 Jonathan Miller filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against Cocal California, Inc. This case was filed in Fresno County Superior Courts, Bf Sisk Courthouse located in Fresno, California. The Judges overseeing this case are Snauffer, Mark, Snauffer, Mark W and Black, Donald. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2313

  • Filing Date:

    08/08/2014

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    Fresno County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Bf Sisk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Fresno, California

Judge Details

Judges

Snauffer, Mark

Snauffer, Mark W

Black, Donald

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

Miller, Jonathan

Bailey, Aisha

Defendant

Colcal California, Inc.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Mahoney, Kevin

Mahoney Law Group 249 E. Ocean Blvd. #814

Long Beach, CA 90802

Defendant Attorney

Jacobs, Mark J.

 

Court Documents

Notice Filed

Notice Filed; Comment: Change of Calendar Setting

Objection filed

Objection filed; Comment: to Class Action Settlement Form

Notice of Hearing

App for Fees & Costs.FINAL.pdf; Comment: Application for Incentive Awards and Attorneys Fees and Costs

Objection filed

Objection filed; Comment: to Class Action Settlement Form

Declaration Filed

Supplemental Declaration of Shaun Voigt.ocr.pdf; Comment: Declaration of Shaun Voigt

Declaration Filed

Dec of Jonathan Miller. Miller v Colcal.pdf; Comment: Declaration of Johnathan Miller

Declaration Filed

KM DECLARATION.PRELIM.OCR.rs.pdf; Comment: Kevin Mahoney

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment

Notice Filed

Notice Filed; Comment: Joint Status Report

Notice Filed

Notice of Lodgment.FINAL.pdf; Comment: Notice of Lodgment

Objection filed

Objection filed; Comment: to Class Action Settlement Form

Objection filed

Objection filed; Comment: Objection to Class Action Settlement Form

Motion filed

AmendedMtn.Prelim.Approval.Ntc.and.MPA.pdf; Comment: Notice of Motion & Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement

Order Received for Signature

Proposed Order for Prelim App Miller.pdf; Comment: Proposed Order

Declaration Filed

Dec of Aisha Bailey. Miller v colcal.pdf; Comment: Declaration of Aisha Bailey

Declaration Filed

Dec of Toney. Miller..pdf; Comment: Declaration of James Toney

Stipulation and Order filed

Stipulation and Order filed; Judicial Officer: Snauffer, Mark; Comment: for leave to file second amended complaint

Order filed

Civil Document; Judicial Officer: Snauffer, Mark; Comment: Stipulation for leave to file first amended complaint

48 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/07/2017
  • View Court Documents
  • Disposition: Judgment- Judgment After Conditional Settlement; Judicial Officer: Snauffer, Mark; Judgment Type: Judgment After Conditional Settlement; Party Names: Miller, Jonathan; Colcal California, Inc.; Bailey, Aisha; Judgment - Monetary Award; Awarded To:; Miller, Jonathan; Mahoney, Kevin; Bailey, Aisha; Awarded Against:; Colcal California, Inc.; Jacobs, Mark J.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2017
  • Chambers Work- Pre- Judicial Officer: Black, Donald; Hearing Time: 5:30 PM; Result: Chambers Work - Order Submitted for Consideration; Comment: judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2017
  • View Court Documents
  • Judgment Received- [Proposed] Judgment.Miller v. Colcal.pdf; Comment: Judgment signed forwarded to clerks office for further processing Forward to:dept 502 on 11/28/17

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/10/2017
  • CRC 3.1385 After Settlement- Hearing Time: 1:00 PM; Cancel Reason: Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2017
  • View Court Documents
  • Minute Order Attachment (Tentative Rulings Only)- Civil Document

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2017
  • Motion - Attorney Fees- Judicial Officer: Black, Donald; Hearing Time: 3:28 PM; Result: Uncontested

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2017
  • Motion - Final Approval Class Settlement- Judicial Officer: Black, Donald; Hearing Time: 3:28 PM; Result: Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2017
  • View Court Documents
  • Declaration Filed- Supp. Dec. of MM.FINAL.pdf; Comment: Supplemental Declaration of Melissa Meade

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2017
  • View Court Documents
  • Declaration Filed- Supp Dec of KM ISO Final Approval.pdf; Comment: Supplemental Declaration of Kevin Mahoney In Support of FInal Approval Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2017
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice Filed- Notice Filed; Comment: Change of Calendar Setting

    Read MoreRead Less
118 More Docket Entries
  • 07/22/2016
  • Financial info for Miller, Jonathan: Transaction Assessment $20.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2015
  • Financial info for Miller, Jonathan: Counter Payment Receipt # CIVIL-2015-00009621 Eddings Atty. Support Service $20.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2015
  • Financial info for Miller, Jonathan: Transaction Assessment $20.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2014
  • Financial info for Miller, Jonathan: Counter Payment Receipt # 194792 Miller, Jonathan $150.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2014
  • Financial info for Miller, Jonathan: Transaction Assessment $150.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2014
  • Financial info for Miller, Jonathan: Counter Payment Receipt # 193777 Miller, Jonathan $1000.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2014
  • Financial info for Miller, Jonathan: Transaction Assessment $1000.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/08/2014
  • Financial info for Miller, Jonathan: Counter Payment Receipt # 193255 Miller, Jonathan $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/08/2014
  • Financial info for Miller, Jonathan: Transaction Assessment $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/08/2014
  • Financial: Miller, Jonathan; Total Financial Assessment $1,645.00; Total Payments and Credits $1,645.00

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

EILE]

Kevin Mahoney, Esq. (SBN: 235367) | AUG 03 2016

Kkmahone @mahoney-law.net FRESNO COUNTY Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq. (SBN: 184619) By JUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net SEPUTY ‘Morgan Glynn, Esq. (SBN: 303822)

mglynn@ nahoncy-law nct MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC

249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814 . Long Beach, CA 90802 ;E;ESXED via E-FILING Telephone: (562) 590-5550 FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 By: |. Herrera, Deputy

Attorneys for Plaintiffs JONATHAN MILLER and AISHA BAILEY as individuals and on behalf of dll similarly situated employces

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE COUNTY OF FRESNO

JONATHAN MILLER as an individual and | Case No.: 14CECG 02313 on behalf of all similarly situated employees - Assigned for all purposes to The Honorable Mark W. Snauffer Department: 104 Plaintiff,

JOINT STIPULATION FOR LEAVE TO ‘ FILE SECOND AMENDED

V. | COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED] ORDER

| Complaint Filed: August 8, 2014 COLCAL CALIFORNIA, [NC, and DOES Trial Date: None Set

I through 50, inclusive

Defendant.

~FPROPOSED] ORDER

On stipulation of the Parties, and good cause appearing therefore, the Court hereby | ORDERS the Second Amended Complaint, attached concurrently hereto as Exhibit A, filed

on . 2016,

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: MW 3 2016 By:

“Hon. Mark W. Snauffe Judge of the Superior Court

“Hon. Mark W. Snauffe Judge of the Superior Court 3. The “Class Period” is defined as the four (4) years prior to the filing of the initial Complaint through the date final judgment is entered. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this | Complaint to reflect a different “Class Period” as further discovery is conducted.

3. The “Class Period” is defined as the four (4) years prior to the filing of the initial Complaint through the date final judgment is entered. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this | Complaint to reflect a different “Class Period” as further discovery is conducted.

4, At all relevant times herein, ColCal and each Defendant, have consistently maintained and enforced against Plaintiff Class the following unlawful practices and policies: 1@ willfully refusing to pay Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class for all hours worked, including both | regular and overtime; (b) wilifully refusing to permit Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class from taking meal periods and failing to provide compensation in lieu thereof; (¢) willfully refusing to permit ‘Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class from taking rest periods and failing to provide compensation in lieu thereof; (d) willfully refusing to compensate Plaintiffs and certain Class Members wages due and owing at the time Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiff Class’ employment with Defendants ended; (¢) willtully refusing to furnish to Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class accurate itemized wage .;statemen-ts upon payment of wages; (f) willfully refusing to reimburse Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class for necessary business expenditures; and (g) willfully and unlawfully discounting Plaintiff Bailey’s wages and the wages of cértain Class Members.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. Venue is proper in this Judicial district and the County of Fresno because the Defendant maintain a location and transacts business in this county, the obligations and liability arise in this county, and work was performed by Plaintiff and members of the proposed Plaintiff Class made the subject of this action in this county. |

6. The California Superior Court has jurisdiction in the matter because the individual claims are under the scventy-five thousand dollar ($75,000.00) jurisdictional threshold for Federal Court and, upon information and belief, Plaintiff and Defendant are residents of and/or domiciled in the State of California. Further, there is no federal question at ;issue as the issues herein is based solely on California Statutes and law including the Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, Code of Civil Procedure, Rules of Court, and Business and Professions Code.

6. The California Superior Court has jurisdiction in the matter because the individual claims are under the scventy-five thousand dollar ($75,000.00) jurisdictional threshold for Federal Court and, upon information and belief, Plaintiff and Defendant are residents of and/or domiciled in the State of California. Further, there is no federal question at ;issue as the issues herein is based solely on California Statutes and law including the Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, Code of Civil Procedure, Rules of Court, and Business and Professions Code. II1.

II1.

THE PARTIES

A. The Plaintiff 7. Plaintiff‘J onathan Miller at various relevant times herein, was an employee of the

Defendant and entitled to compensation for all hours worked, overtime compensation, and penalties from Defendant. Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant during the four (4) years prior to the commencement of this action in the County of Fresno at various times herein relevant. Plaintift was employed by the Defendant during the Class Period in a non-exempt hourly position. Each of the Plaintiff Class members arc identifiable, current and/or formerly similarly situated persons who were employed in non-cxempt hourly positions in California for the Defendant during the Class Period.

8. Plaintiff Aisha Bailey at various relevant times herein, was an employee of the Defendant and entitled to compensation for all hours worked, overtimc compensation, and penalties from Defendant. Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant during the four (4) years ’prior to the commencement of this action in the City of Visalia at various times herein relevant. Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant during the Class Period in a non-exempt hourly { position. Each of the Plaintiff Class members are identifiable, current and/or formerly similarly situated persons who were employed in non-exempt hourly positions in California for the Detendant during the Class Period.

B. The Defendant

9. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that “ColCal” is a | corporation, and is and/or was the employer of the Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class during the Class Period. During the Class Period, Defendant employed Plaintiff and similarly situated persons and failed to pay Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class for all hours worked including overtime premium | for overtime hours worked, failed to provide meal periods or bay a meal period penalty in licu of, failed to provide rest periods or pay a rest period penalty in lieu of, failed to pay due and | owing wages upon ending of employment, failed to reimburse necessary business expenditures, | and failed to pay all wages due as a result of unlawfully discounting the wages of employecs.

9. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that “ColCal” is a | corporation, and is and/or was the employer of the Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class during the Class Period. During the Class Period, Defendant employed Plaintiff and similarly situated persons and failed to pay Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class for all hours worked including overtime premium | for overtime hours worked, failed to provide meal periods or bay a meal period penalty in licu of, failed to provide rest periods or pay a rest period penalty in lieu of, failed to pay due and | owing wages upon ending of employment, failed to reimburse necessary business expenditures, | and failed to pay all wages due as a result of unlawfully discounting the wages of employecs. ,/_ N - \.‘ 7

,/_ N - \.‘ 7

) | \ N/ \

et \\A;)

On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant is conducting business in good standing in California.

10. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names, capacities, relationships and extent of participation in the conduct herein alleged, of the defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, but on information and belief allege that said defendants is legally responsible for the payment of overtime compensation, rest and meal period compensation and/or Labor Code § 203 penalties to the Plaintiff Class by virtue of their unlawful practices, and therefore s‘ue | these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to allege the true names and capacities of the DOE defendants when ascertained.

11. Plaintiffs are informed and belil—:ve, and based thereon alleges, that each defendant acted in all respects pertinent to this action as the agent of the other defendants, and carried out a joint scheme, business plain or policy in all respects pertinent hereto, and the acts of each defendant are legally attributable to the other defendants.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

12. California Labor Code § 1194 provides that notwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage, an employee receiving less than the legal overtime compensation is entitled to recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of their overtime compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit.

13. Further, Business and Professions Code § 17203 provides that any person | who engages in unfair competition may be enjoined in any court of competent jurisdiction., | Business and Professions Code § 17204 provides that any person who has suffered actual injury and has lost mdney or property as a result of the unfair competition may bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction.

14. During all, or a portion of the Class Period, Plaintiffs and each member of the Plaintiff Class was employed by Defendant and each of them, in the State of California. Plaintiffs and each of the Class Members were non-exempt employees covered | under one or more Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Orders, and Labor Code § 510,