Category: Daily News

Pedro Susano Herrera Marquez (Herrera) was injured on December 31, 2019, while operating a power press while working for Research Metal Industries, Inc. (RMI). The injury occurred when a power press ram used for stamping metal parts unexpectedly stroked downward while Herrera’s hand was beneath it. Herrera received workers’ compensation benefits for this injury.

According to a California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal-OSHA) summary prepared after the accident occurred, “At the completion of [the press] stamping a piece of metal, the ram of the punch press returned to the up position. As [Herrera] went to remove the piece of stamped metal from the punch press’s tooling the punch press ram began its next cycle and came down onto [Herrera]’s left hand.” “The malfunctioning of [the press’s] air control valve did not allow the punch press[’]s ram to lock in position after its upright stroke.”

In December 2020, Herrera sued RMI as well as Doe defendants. Herrera asserted a single cause of action against RMI for negligence pursuant to Labor Code section 4558 alleging that RMI failed to repair, maintain, or retrofit the power press and “removed the point of operation guard from the subject power press, rendering the safeguarding mechanism dysfunctional or unavailable for use.”

Federal Press manufactured the subject press, a Federal Press No. 10, in or about 1967. RMI purchased the press at auction in or about 2010. A Federal Press catalog obtained by Herrera after the accident depicted the company’s model No. 10 as having a two-button operator control mounted directly on the machine. At the time of Herrera’s injury, the subject press did not have such an original mounted two-button control. Rather, the press was equipped with a two-button control on a movable pedestal. Generally, two-button controls keep the operator’s hands out of the area where the ram strikes the item being shaped.

RMI had a third party install the two-handed control system. The two-button control was mounted on a movable pedestal that could be “moved out” “about three feet” away from the press.

RMI moved for summary judgment which the trial court granted. It found that because RMI submitted evidence that a functional two-button control was in use at the time of Herrera’s injury, RMI shifted the burden to Herrera to demonstrate a triable issue. Herrera attempted to do so by arguing that the two-button control did not comply with the manufacturer’s design or state and federal regulations and that the solenoid air valve did not comply with point of operation guarding requirements.

The Court of Appeal affirmed (although for a different reason than that relied upon by the trial court) in the unpublished case of Herrera Marquez v. Research Metal Industries -B329641 (February 2025).

Labor Code section 4558 provides that an injured employee may sue his employer in tort when the injury “is proximately caused by the employer’s knowing removal of, or knowing failure to install, a point of operation guard on a power press.” This narrow exception limits tort liability to cases where “the manufacturer designed, installed, required, or otherwise provided by specification for the attachment of the guards and conveyed knowledge of the same to the employer.”

RMI argued Herrera could not adduce evidence that “the manufacturer designed, installed, required, or otherwise provided by specification for the attachment of [the] guards and conveyed knowledge of [the] same to [RMI]” as required under subdivision (c) of section 4558. Herrera argued RMI had failed to shift the burden to him to demonstrate a triable issue. “The parties (like the trial court did) focus on whether RMI’s independent installation of a two-button control means RMI failed to install or removed a point of operation guard.”

However, under section 4558, “the culpable conduct is the employer’s ignoring of the manufacturer’s safety directive.” (Aguilera v. Henry Soss & Co. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1724, 1730; see Award Metals, Inc. v. Superior Court (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1128, 1134 [“From the plain language of section 4558, it is clear that an exception . . . only arises for a power press injury where the employer has been expressly informed by the manufacturer that a point of operation guard is required”].)

“Here, the summary judgment record shows that when RMI purchased the subject press at auction approximately 45 years after Federal Press had manufactured it, the press did not include a two-button hand control. Nor did RMI receive a Federal Press manual or other documentation at the time of purchase.

Thus, RMI made a prima facie showing that Federal Press did not convey any information to RMI concerning a point of operation guard. This shifted the burden to Herrera to demonstrate a triable issue of fact as to what Federal Press conveyed to RMI. He failed to do so.

Accordingly, Herrera failed to carry his burden to demonstrate a triable issue that Federal Press ‘designed, installed, required, or otherwise provided by specification for the attachment of the guards and conveyed knowledge of the same to [RMI].’ (§ 4558, subd. (c).) As this is dispositive, we need not consider Herrera”

The Labor Commissioner’s Office (LCO), which operates under the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), has taken enforcement action totaling more than $1.1 million against Buena Park restaurant Food Source LLC for wage theft violations and failure to comply with paid sick leave requirements.

The total includes $532,561 in citations, issued to compensate 73 affected workers for multiple wage theft violations. These violations include unpaid wages, failure to pay overtime, unpaid contract wages, liquidated damages, and incomplete wage statements.

Additionally, the LCO filed a lawsuit for $575,803, seeking unpaid wages, damages, and penalties for the employer’s failure to comply with paid sick leave laws. The lawsuit also addresses violations such as denying workers access to paid sick leave, failing to document sick leave availability on pay stubs, leaving workers uninformed about their legal rights, and not providing supplemental paid sick leave during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In total, these violations impacted at least 90 workers at the restaurant.

Background on Paid Sick Leave

Under California’s Healthy Workplace, Healthy Families Act of 2014, employees who work at least 30 days in a year are entitled to paid sick leave, accruing one hour for every 30 hours worked. Employees can begin using their sick leave after 90 days of employment, with employers allowed to limit usage to 40 hours (five days) per year. Paid sick leave can be used for personal or family health care needs, including preventive care. Accrued balances may carry over, up to a cap of 80 hours (ten days). Certain employees, such as those covered by collective bargaining agreements, may be exempt. Refer to our FAQs regarding sick leave for additional information.

About the Labor Commissioner’s Office

DIR’s Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (California Labor Commissioner’s Office) combats wage theft and unfair competition by investigating allegations of illegal and unfair business practices. More information about wage theft is available at www.wagetheftisacrime.com.

The Labor Commissioner’s Office is urging current and former employees of Food Source LLC to come forward to support ongoing legal actions and to ensure they receive compensation. Workers who believe they were denied paid sick leave or other wages are encouraged to contact the confidential Paid Sick Leave Hotline at 855-526-7775. Employees can also reach out to the Labor Commissioner’s Office for questions or assistance with filing a wage claim at 833-LCO-INFO (833-526-4636) between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.

The LCO in 2020 launched an interdisciplinary outreach campaign, “Reaching Every Californian.” The campaign amplifies basic protections and builds pathways to affected populations, so workers and employers understand legal protections and obligations, as well as the Labor Commissioner’s enforcement procedures.

California Labor Commissioner Lilia García-Brower said “Employees should not be forced to choose between their health and earning a livelihood. My office is committed to ensuring workers are properly paid for their labor and receive all the benefits they earn and rightfully deserve.”

Brian Ranger was a maintenance worker for the Alamitos Bay Yacht Club. As part of his duties, he painted, cleaned, maintained, and repaired the Club’s fleet of vessels. He also was tasked with hoisting the Club’s vessels in and out of navigable waters and mooring them.

On August 28, 2018, Ranger was assigned to lower a vessel into navigable waters using “a hoist, boom and hook, and thereafter to moor the vessel in navigable waters.” Once the vessel had been lowered into the water, Ranger boarded to unlock the vessel from the boom and moor it to the dock. Ranger alleges that he was required to board “directly onto an uneven, slippery and sloped surface at the bow of the vessel without adequate means of maintaining balance and stability,” causing him to slip and fall, “proximately causing him to sustain serious injuries and damages.”

Ranger applied for state workers’ compensation and then sued the Club in superior court. Ranger’s second amended complaint asserted two claims under general maritime law, which is “a species of judge-made federal common law.”

The first cause of action asserted that the Club negligently failed to provide Ranger with adequate training, policies and procedures for safe docking and boarding, and safe access to the vessel. The second cause of action asserted that the Club caused the vessel to be “unseaworthy, dangerous, unsafe and hazardous to employees . . . who were required to board said vessel.”

The trial court sustained the Club’s demurrer without leave to amend on the ground Ranger had failed to allege facts to implicate federal admiralty jurisdiction. In 2023 The Court of Appeal affirmed in the published case of Ranger v. Alamitos Bay Yacht Club (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 240, 242.

The California Supreme Court reversed in its 2025 opinion in Ranger v. Alamitos Bay Yacht Club -S282264 (February 2025)

The Club argues that Ranger is barred from asserting these federal common law claims because he does not qualify as a statutory “employee” within the meaning of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA; 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq.). The LHWCA, as amended in 1984, excludes from the federal workers’ compensation scheme individuals who (like Ranger) are employed by “a club” and “are subject to coverage under a State workers’ compensation law.” (33 U.S.C. § 902(3)(B).)

The Court of Appeal agreed with the Club and affirmed the order sustaining the Club’s demurrer to Ranger’s complaint without leave to amend. The California Supreme Court reversed, and concluded the Court of Appeal erred.

The 1984 amendments to the LHWCA specify which workers’ compensation scheme – federal or state – applies, but they did not themselves purport to abrogate available general maritime remedies for those outside the LHWCA’s scope. Nor, under the supremacy clause of the federal Constitution, may the exclusive-remedy provision in California’s workers’ compensation scheme be applied to deprive a plaintiff of a substantive federal maritime right.

The exclusive-remedy provision in California’s workers’ compensation law would conflict with the established maritime claim for negligence, a tort that maritime law has recognized. Numerous federal courts have held that state workers’ compensation exclusive-remedy provisions cannot preclude a worker’s general maritime claims for relief.

Scholarly commentary, too, supports the conclusion that general maritime law trumps state workers’ compensation exclusivity provisions. (See Sturley et al., Recent Developments in Admiralty and Maritime Law at the National Level and in the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits (Summer 2024) 48 Tul. Mar. L.J. 329, 336-337.”

“Whether Ranger’s general maritime claims might be barred under other provisions of the LHWCA – and whether Ranger’s claims properly invoked admiralty jurisdiction in the first place – are issues the Court of Appeal has not yet addressed.”

Packers Sanitation Services Ltd., LLC is a food safety solutions company that employed Jose A. Parra Rodriguez (Parra) in California from April 2019 to July 2021.

In February 2022, Parra – acting “in a Representative Capacity only” – filed a complaint against Packers for civil penalties under PAGA based on violations of the Labor Code and California Code of Regulations, including provisions dealing with overtime and meal and rest period requirements. Parra alleged Packers committed these violations against Parra “and all other aggrieved employees.”

In March 2022, Packers moved to compel arbitration based on an agreement Parra assertedly signed shortly after he was hired. Packers filed its motion before the United States Supreme Court decided  Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana(2022) 596 U.S. 639 (Viking River).

Apparently anticipating that Viking River would require wholesale enforcement of contractual waivers of the right to assert representative claims, Packers argued the action had to be dismissed because it was a “PAGA claim[ ]” and in the arbitration agreement Parra had waived his right to assert “representative claims, including under PAGA.” As an alternative to dismissal, Packers asked the trial court to stay the action pending a decision in Viking River.

The trial court held an evidentiary hearing during which the parties presented conflicting evidence on the genuineness of the electronic signature on the arbitration agreement. The trial court denied the motion. Although it found Parra electronically signed the agreement, it interpreted “current law” to mean the law as it stood in 2019, when the parties entered the agreement.

The Court of Appeal affirmed in the published case of Rodriguez v. Packers Sanitation Services -D083400 (February 2025).

Packers contends on appeal that the trial court erred because it incorrectly equated “current law” with Iskanian’s rule (Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348) against splitting PAGA claims into their individual and non-individual components.

It argues that Viking River held the Iskanian anti-splitting rule was preempted by the FAA, and preemption holdings are retroactive. In Packers’ view, Viking River simply announced how the FAA has always operated, such that its holding should be considered “current law” in 2019, when the parties entered their agreement. Packers argues that the arbitration agreement therefore requires arbitration of Parra’s individual PAGA claim.

Parra responds that Packers’ interpretation of “current law” is incorrect because the phrase is ambiguous and the ambiguity should be construed against the drafter (i.e. Packers). He also contends Packers’ characterization of his complaint is incorrect.

The Court of Appeal wrote that “An individual PAGA claim is the component of a PAGA claim that seeks civil penalties based on Labor Code violations sustained by the plaintiff. (Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104, 1119 (Adolph); Gregg v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 786, 792.) A non-individual PAGA claim is the component of a PAGA claim that seeks civil penalties based on Labor Code violations sustained by current and former employees other than the plaintiff. (Adolph, at p. 1119; Gregg, at p. 792.)”

In a part of the Viking River decision that has been characterized as “dicta” the Supreme Court stated that when an individual PAGA claim is compelled to arbitration, the non-individual PAGA claims that remain should be dismissed for lack of statutory standing. In Adolph, the California Supreme Court, which has the last word on interpretation of state law standing, disagreed. The Adolph court held that an employee who has been compelled to arbitrate individual PAGA claims maintains statutory standing to pursue non-individual PAGA claims in court.

Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting, Inc. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 533, 536 (Balderas) took the implications of Adolph a step further. It explained that under Adolph, there are only two standing requirements, and an individual action seeking PAGA relief is not a standing requirement. And after reviewing Parra’s complaint, the Court of Appeal found that “aspects of the complaint are consistent with Parra’s position that he has not asserted an individual PAGA claim.”

The Court of Appeal affirmed the order on the ground that Parra is not asserting individual PAGA claims in this case, and the trial court therefore could not have erred by failing to compel such claims to arbitration.

The California Insurance Commissioner has expanded emergency insurance protections for Southern California homeowners affected by recent wildfires to include those impacted by the Hughes Fire. The Commissioner’s latest Bulletin includes ZIP Codes for those residents near the Hughes Fire who are now covered under the mandatory one-year moratorium on insurance non-renewals and cancellations, ensuring more wildfire survivors have continued access to coverage.

This moratorium order shields those within the perimeters or adjoining ZIP Codes of the Hughes Fire in Los Angeles County for one year from the Governor’s Executive Order N-14-25 on January 27, 2025. This is in addition to the Commissioner’s moratorium orders in January which protect residents in and adjacent to ZIP Codes of the Palisades, Eaton, Hurst, Lidia, Sunset, and Woodley fires in Los Angeles County, regardless of whether they suffered direct property loss.

With ongoing recovery efforts across the region, the Commissioner said he remains committed to issuing additional supplemental bulletins as necessary to cover more areas in Los Angeles and Ventura counties impacted by wildfires.

Residents can go to the Department of Insurance website to see if their ZIP Code is included in the mandatory moratorium. Consumers should contact the Department of Insurance at 800-927-4357 at insurance.ca.gov if they believe their insurance company is in violation of this law, or have additional claims-related questions.

In addition, given the overwhelming support by local elected leaders and consumers for the residential moratorium law that Commissioner Lara has implemented since 2019 to protect millions of homeowners across the state, Commissioner Lara is sponsoring the Business Insurance Protection Act (SB 547) this year jointly authored by Senator Sasha Renée Pérez and Senator Susan Rubio to expand this law to include commercial policies. This measure will cover businesses, homeowners’ and condominiums associations, affordable housing units and residential developments, and non-profits, among other essential businesses.

Since these wildfires started, the Insurance Commissioner claims to have taken multiple actions to speed recovery and prevent fraud including:

– – Increasing insurance coverage in high-risk areas: Commissioner Lara, as part of his Sustainable Insurance Strategy, issued his Net Cost of Reinsurance in Ratemaking Regulation and Catastrophic Modeling in Ratemaking Regulation which require insurance companies — for the first time — to increase coverage in high-risk areas, ensuring more options for Californians while limiting the costs passed on to consumers. These regulations work hand-in-hand with other reforms that Commissioner Lara has spearheaded that will have the effect of maintaining and increasing insurance coverage options for Californians across the state. Under the regulations, insurance companies using reinsurance costs and/or catastrophic modeling must increase coverage in wildfire-prone regions.
– – Pause on non-renewing and cancelling policies: Commissioner Lara issued a Notice calling on all insurance companies to stop any pending non-renewals or cancellations for any properties located near wildfires, if they are not already protected by the mandatory moratorium. This includes non-renewals issued up to 90 days prior to January 7, but taking effect after the start of the wildfires. This pause on non-renewing and cancelling policies would last six months as impacted communities begin the recovery process. In addition, Commissioner Lara called on insurers to offer beyond the 60-day grace period under existing law for policyholders in the immediate affected wildfire areas, to pay their home insurance premiums given the challenges that many policyholders in these areas are having right now.
– – Insurance support workshops: Commissioner Lara announced two more insurance support workshops on March 8 in Los Angeles and March 15 in Pasadena to help survivors understand their insurance policies and the claims process, while also providing information about available resources for rebuilding and recovery. These workshops are open to all those impacted by the recent wildfires. Call 800-927-4357 to schedule a one-on-one appointment with a Department of Insurance expert.
– – Protecting Access to Medically Necessary Health Care and Medication: Commissioner Lara issued a Notice directing companies to submit emergency plans detailing how they will ensure continued access to medically necessary health care services, including prescription drugs, for the duration of the declared State of Emergency due to the Palisades, Eaton, and other fires.
– – Cracking Down on Fraud: Commissioner Lara sent the Department’s enforcement team to safeguard Angelenos from fraudsters who are targeting wildfire survivors and issued a warning against illegal activities including soliciting by public adjusters for seven days after evacuation orders end.
– – Alerting Residents to Evacuation Benefits: Many consumers are unaware that they may have coverage under their homeowners’ and renters’ insurance policies to help them with evacuation and recovery expenses. Commissioner Lara reminded residents in Los Angeles County who have been ordered to evacuate due to the wildfires that their homeowners’ or renters’ insurance may help with evacuation and relocation costs under Additional Living Expenses coverage, known as ALE. ALE coverage typically includes food and housing costs, furniture rental, relocation and storage, and extra transportation expenses, among other costs. Also, those with uninhabitable homes — even if there is no wildfire damage — could have coverage under ALE.
– – Ensuring no out-of-pocket insurance costs for debris removal: Commissioner Lara worked closely with local, state, and federal leaders to ensure that the program’s costs are not deducted from a policyholder’s primary insurance benefits needed to rebuild. He also issued a Consumer Alert and Notice detailing how the program will interact with insurance — a benefit available to all eligible property owners who choose to participate in the 2025 Los Angeles Wildfires Debris Removal Program.