Category: Daily News

Elinton Gramajo worked as a delivery driver for Joe’s Pizza from February 2014 to June 2015.

In February 2018,he sued Joe’s Pizza on Sunset, Inc.; Joe’s Pizza on Sunset, LLC; and Giuseppe Vitale for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages (Lab. Code, §§ 510, 558, 1194), failure to provide rest and meal periods (Lab. Code, §§ 512, 226.7), failure to pay wages due at time of termination (Lab. Code, §§ 201, 202, 203), failure to reimburse for business expenses (Lab. Code, § 2802), and unfair business practices (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200). Gramajo also sought declaratory and injunctive relief.

After nearly four years of litigation and extensive discovery, the matter was set for trial in October 2021. Gramajo sought $26,159.33 in unpaid minimum and overtime wages, missed meal and rest breaks, waiting time penalties, and unreimbursed expenses. After a seven-day trial, the jury found in favor of Gramajo on his minimum wage and overtime causes of action. The jury awarded Gramajo $2.17 in unpaid minimum wages and $3,340 in unpaid overtime wages. In total, Gramajo recovered $7,659.63, consisting of the unpaid minimum and overtime wages; $2,115.59 in statutory interest; $2,100 in waiting time penalties calculated at the daily wage rate of $70 per day for thirty days per Labor Code section 203; $2.17 in liquidated damages; and $100 in statutory penalties.

Gramajo moved for attorney fees totaling $296,920 for 228.4 hours billed at $650 per hour and applying a multiplier of two. Gramajo also requested $26,932.84 in costs. Joe’s Pizza opposed the fee request and moved to tax Gramajo’s costs in their entirety.

The trial court denied Gramajo’s fee request and granted Joe’s Pizza’s motion to tax costs, ultimately awarding Gramajo nothing. The trial court found Gramajo acted in bad faith by artificially inflating his damages figure and including equity claims he never intended to pursue to justify filing the case as an unlimited civil proceeding. The trial court noted Gramajo sought $26,159.33 at trial, just over the jurisdictional amount, which included $10,822.16 in unreimbursed expenses.

In trial, however, Gramajo never introduced any evidence to support his expense claim. Similarly, Gramajo never pursued injunctive or declaratory relief at trial despite requesting that relief in his complaint. The trial court also found the case was severely over litigated, noting Gramajo had propounded 15 sets of written discovery requests and noticed 14 depositions despite only admitting 12 exhibits at trial.

On appeal, Gramajo argues the trial court should have awarded him reasonable litigation costs under Labor Code section 1194, subdivision (a), and abused its discretion by applying Code of Civil Procedure section 1033, subdivision (a), to deny those costs in their entirety.

The Court of Appeal agreed with Gramajo in the published case of Gramajo v. Joe’s Pizza on Sunset, Inc. -B322697 (March 2024).

Code of Civil Procedure section 1033 gives the trial court discretion to deny litigation costs based on the amount recovered while Labor Code section 1194 provides for a mandatory cost award regardless of that amount. Neither statute address the question of which one should control in this area of overlap.

The Court of Appeal held the “Labor Code section 1194, subdivision (a), controls given the legislative intent behind Labor Code section 1194, subdivision (a), and because that statute is more recently enacted and more specific relative to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.”

It concluded that ” employees who prevail in actions to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages are entitled to their reasonable litigation costs under Labor Code section 1194, subdivision (a), irrespective of the amount recovered.

It however expressed no opinion on the reasonableness of Gramajo’s requests for litigation costs. Accordingly, it reversed and remanded the matter for the trial court to determine a reasonable fee and cost award.

The California Flats Solar Project is a solar power facility located on privately owned land in Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties. First Solar Electric, Inc. owns the facility. A subcontractor hired George Huerta and other workers to assist CSI Electrical Contractors, the company providing “procurement, installation, construction, and testing services” at the Site. A designated road provided access between a guard shack located at the Site’s perimeter and the employee parking lots. A security gate was located on that road several miles from the guard shack; from the Security Gate, it would take Huerta approximately 10 to 15 minutes to reach the parking lots. Huerta underwent security checks at the Security Gate and was told by CSI management that this gate was the “first place” he had to be at the beginning of the workday.

In the morning, vehicles formed a long line outside the Security Gate, where guards scanned each worker’s badge and sometimes peered inside vehicles and truck beds. At the end of the day, workers again formed a long line inside the Security Gate, where the exit procedure took place. The exit procedure could take up to a minute or more per vehicle and caused delays of five to over 30 minutes. CSI told Huerta that security guards had the right to search vehicles during the entry and exit processes, and the guards visually inspected the bed of his truck for stolen tools or endangered species. Huerta was not paid for the time he spent waiting to pass through the Security Gate at the beginning or end of the workday.

Because two endangered species were present near the Site, the Department of Fish and Wildlife required First Solar to obtain an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) before work could begin on the project. The ITP imposed a speed limit of 20 miles per hour on the access road between the guard shack and the parking lots, and restricted the roads that could be taken at the Site. It also required a biologist to monitor the Site to minimize disturbances to species’ habitats. As part of this monitoring, the biologist each morning ensured that the road between the guard shack and the parking lots was clear of endangered species before anyone could enter the Site. On some occasions, this clearing process added to the time Huerta spent waiting in line to enter the worksite in the morning.

As First Solar’s subcontractor, CSI was required to abide by the ITP and was required to ensure that its employees did as well. After passing through the Security Gate each morning, Huerta was subject to the rules imposed by the ITP in addition to other rules governing his conduct. CSI required adherence to speed limits between five and 20 miles per hour; restricted travel to driving on the access road to reach the Site, thereby prohibiting employees from driving on other roads near the Site or walking or biking from the Security Gate to the parking lots; and prohibited employees from honking their horns, playing music that could be heard outside of their vehicles, or otherwise disturbing local wildlife. Violation of these rules or other Site rules could result in suspension or termination. Huerta was not paid for the time he spent driving between the Security Gate and the employee parking lots.

Huerta’s employment was governed by two collective bargaining agreements (CBAs), which specified that the standard workday included an unpaid 30-minute meal period. CSI did not allow workers to leave the Site during the workday and instructed workers to spend their meal periods at a designated area near their assigned worksite (Installation Site). In accordance with the CBAs, Huerta was not paid for his meal periods.

Huerta filed a wage and hour class action in the Superior Court of Monterey County on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against CSI, seeking payment for unpaid hours worked. The suit was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The district court granted Huerta’s motion for class certification. CSI then filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the class claims Huerta raised in his first amended complaint; that motion was granted by the district court. CSI filed a second motion for partial summary judgment on the class claim that survived the first motion for partial summary judgment. This second motion was also granted.

Huerta timely appealed the orders granting CSI’s motions for summary judgment to the Ninth Circuit, which certified three questions to the California Supreme Court which answered those questions in the case of Huerta v CSI Electrical Contractors S275431 (March 2024). The request from the Ninth Circuit was to answer three questions about Wage Order No. 16 and the scope of the term “hours worked.”  Industrial Welfare Commission wage order No. 16-2001 (Wage Order No. 16) governs wages, hours, and working conditions in the construction, drilling, logging, and mining industries. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11160.) It entitles certain employees in these industries to at least minimum wage compensation for “hours worked.”

First: “Is time spent on an employer’s premises in a personal vehicle and waiting to scan an identification badge, have security guards peer into the vehicle, and then exit a Security Gate compensable as ‘hours worked’ within the meaning of . . . Wage Order No. 16?” (Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, Inc. (9th Cir. 2022) 39 F.4th 1176, 1177 (Huerta).)

Second: “Is time spent on the employer’s premises in a personal vehicle, driving between the Security Gate and the employee parking lots, while subject to certain rules from the employer, compensable as ‘hours worked’ or as ‘employer-mandated travel’ within the meaning of . . . Wage Order No. 16?” (Ibid.)

And third: “Is time spent on the employer’s premises, when workers are prohibited from leaving but not required to engage in employer-mandated activities, compensable as ‘hours worked’ within the meaning of . . . Wage Order No. 16, or under California Labor Code Section 1194, when that time was designated as an unpaid ‘meal period’ under a qualifying collective bargaining agreement?” (Ibid.)

And the Supreme Court provided the answers to each question. “First, an employee’s time spent on an employer’s premises awaiting and undergoing an employer-mandated exit procedure that includes the employer’s visual inspection of the employee’s personal vehicle is compensable as “hours worked’ within the meaning of Wage Order No. 16, section 2(J).“

“Second, the time that an employee spends traveling between the Security Gate and the employee parking lots is compensable as ’employer-mandated travel’ under Wage Order No. 16, section 5(A) if the Security Gate was the first location where the employee’s presence was required for an employment-related reason other than the practical necessity of accessing the worksite. Separately, this travel time is not compensable as ‘hours worked’ because an employer’s imposition of ordinary workplace rules on employees during their drive to the worksite in a personal vehicle does not create the requisite level of employer control.”

“Third, when an employee is covered by a collective bargaining agreement that complies with Labor Code section 512, subdivision (e) and Wage Order No. 16, section 10(E), and provides the employee with an ‘unpaid meal period,’ that time is nonetheless compensable under the wage order as ‘hours worked’ if the employer prohibits the employee from leaving the employer’s premises or a designated area during the meal period and if this prohibition prevents the employee from engaging in otherwise feasible personal activities. An employee may bring an action under Labor Code section 1194 to enforce the wage order and recover unpaid wages for that time.”

The San Francisco District Attorney announced the arrest of 38 year old Stanley Ellicott who lives in Oakland, and who is a manager in the HR Department for the City, on 62 felony charges involving the theft of more than $627,000 directly from the Department of Human Resources’ Division of Workers’ Compensation, the very department where he worked.

A criminal complaint filed by the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office alleges that, over a four-and-a-half-year period from May of 2019 to January of 2024, Ellicott stole $627,118.86 from the City. The complaint alleges one count of grand theft (PC 487(a)) and one count of misappropriation of public money (PC 424). The complaint also alleges 10 counts of insurance fraud (PC 550(a)(5)) as well as 50 counts of money laundering (PC 186.10). Further, the complaint alleges an aggravated white collar crime enhancement (PC 186.11) and that one of the money laundering counts was committed while Ellicott was out on bail in another case (PC 120221(b)).

An affidavit filed with the Court in support of the arrest warrant explains that at the time of the crimes, Ellicott was the Assistant Director of Finance and Technology for the City’s Human Resources Department, Workers’ Compensation Division. One of his responsibilities was to oversee “the financial integrity of the Workers’ Compensation Division.”

The affidavit describes how Ellicott enlisted a friend to register a fake business in Illinois called “IAG Services” and open a bank account for the business, which she gave full control of to Ellicott. Ellicott then added this fake business as a vendor in the workers’ compensation system and over time billed more than 600 actual City workers’ compensation claims with charges for auditing services. Department archives show no evidence any auditing services were ever performed. Because the City is self-insured for workers’ compensation purposes, payments to doctors, employees, and vendors related to workers’ compensation claims come directly from the City’s coffers.

The affidavit further explains that all of the City payments to “IAG Services” were deposited into the account set up by Ellicott’s friend, then the money was systematically transferred into Ellicott’s personal checking accounts in a pattern to appear like they were payroll payments. In total, he transferred more than $488,000 from IAG’s account into accounts belonging to him.

The affidavit describes a website for the Illinois business “IAG Services” created in Oakland – where Ellicott lives – and IAG emails sent to Ellicott’s work address that appear to be created by him. The affidavit also explains that on several occasions, Ellicott emailed his subordinates and directed them to process payments to IAG that he had approved, enlisting their unknowing and unwitting assistance in his fraud.

This is a second case against Ellicott who was charged in January in a separate case for his role in a scheme to misappropriate grant funds awarded through the City’s Community Challenge Grant Program. He faces charges in court number 24001435 for misappropriating City money, aiding and abetting his co-defendant – former employee of the Office of the City Administrator Lanita Henriquez – in having a conflict of interest in contracts she entered into on behalf of the City by kicking grant money back to her, and possessing stolen property by selling electronics purchased with City funds on eBay. Local businessman and former City employee Rudolph Dwayne Jones is also a co-defendant in that case.

Ellicott was arrested without incident in Oakland this morning and will be arraigned in Department 10 of the San Francisco Superior Court on March 22, 2024. If convicted of all counts, Ellicott faces a substantial term of incarceration in state prison.

“The charges announced today reflect my Office’s continuing commitment to uncover official misconduct in San Francisco’s City government,” said District Attorney Brooke Jenkins. “My Office would like to thank the Department of Human Resources for its swift and thorough cooperation in uncovering the depths of their trusted manager’s great betrayal.”

Ellicott began working for the city in 2012, with a brief hiatus between 2015 and 2016. He was a manager at the human resources department from 2017 until January 25 of this year, when he was placed on paid leave. Transparent California lists Ellicott’s 2022 pay as $187,884, with benefits of $55,613, for a total compensation package of $243,496.t

The California Attorney General announced a settlement with Mariner Health Care, Inc. who operated 19 skilled nursing facilities in California. The settlement, which is linked to the Bankruptcy Reorganization Plan of two Mariner entities in Chapter 11, will provide injunctive relief for a minimum of five years, monitoring by an independent monitor for a minimum of three years, payment of $2.25 million in costs, and penalties of up to $15.5 million dollars for any violations of the injunction or law.

The settlement resolves allegations filed by the Attorney General and the District Attorneys of Alameda, Los Angeles, Marin, and Santa Cruz counties, alleging that Mariner violated California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law by understaffing its facilities and subjecting its patients to negligent care while inflating their skilled nursing facilities advertised ratings to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.  All 19 facilities, including their Alameda facility, were named in the settlement.

On April 8, 20t21, the Division of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse (DMFEA) and the four District Attorneys filed a civil complaint against the 19 skilled nursing facilities and their corporate management entities. The complaint sought injunctive relief and claimed Mariner Health understaffed facilities leading to resident harm, unsafely discharged residents from the facilities, and, falsified staffing numbers to CMS to advertise inflated ratings.

Understaffing allegedly left residents vulnerable and the inadequate care resulted in unnecessary amputations, the spread of diseases such as lice and pests among residents, and a high number of unreported sexual assault cases, among other issues.

On January 6, 2022 the Alameda County Superior Court granted a motion for a preliminary injunction requiring Mariner Health to comply with laws and regulations regarding the staffing of five of its facilities and with the discharges from 19 of its facilities in order to safeguard the safety and well-being of their residents.

Mariner also allegedly falsified staffing numbers to government regulators in an attempt to improve their published ratings, the complaint said

NBC Bay Area’s Investigative Unit dug into the company’s inspection records which revealed a long list of issues at 10 Bay Area facilities operated by Mariner. According to records from the California Department of Public Health, inspectors found more than 170 deficiencies at those facilities and issued seven fines totaling nearly $20,000.

In two separate cases, residents left the building without supervision. One was hit by a car, and another was found eating rocks and dirt. In another case, a resident’s foot had to be amputated after inspectors say a wound wasn’t properly treated or monitored. Other deficiencies included dirty kitchens, medication errors, and other patient care issues, according to the records.

As part of the settlement, Mariner will be required to:

– – Reform and improve its practices and the services for residents in their California skilled nursing facilities.
– – Implement an independent monitor for no less than 3 years.
– – Pay $2.25 million in costs and up to $15.5 million in civil penalties.

The California Department of Justice’s Division of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse protects Californians by investigating and prosecuting those who defraud the Medi-Cal program as well as those who commit elder abuse. These settlements are made possible only through the coordination and collaboration of governmental agencies, as well as the critical help from whistleblowers who report incidences of abuse or Medi-Cal fraud at oag.ca.gov/dmfea/reporting.

DMFEA receives 75% of its funding from HHS-OIG under a grant award totaling $87,038,485 for federal fiscal year 2024. The remaining 25% is funded by the State of California.

The California Supreme Court Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero delivered the 2024 State of the Judiciary address to the California Legislature in March 19, 2024. This is the the second year of her 12-year term of office.

Among the various topics discussed, the Chief Justice reported on Increasing transparency, improving efficiencies and increasing productivity without sacrificing quality. Caseflow management is an important process in meeting these objectives and providing timely access to justice.

The California Supreme Court, has instituted internal targets for the court to meet. It’s annual number of opinions has trended up, and it also is working its way through some important landmark new laws, such as the Racial Justice Act, which is impacting workflow.

The Courts of Appeal statewide have implemented a monitoring system to manage appellate caseload inequities and ensure that they too are promptly resolving cases.

Caseflow management and time to disposition is also an important tool for trial courts. Data management and analytics help them to manage caseloads, provide interpreter coverage, and make jury duty more efficient. It also informs how they can work best with our justice system partners.

From the clerk’s window to final dispositions – and everywhere in between – caseflow management is critical for the public.The resources the legislature provides are of course crucial.

The Chief Justice was advocating for a stable budget that the judicial branch can count on to make public access to justice a reality for all 58 counties. For this budget year, she was grateful for Governor Newsom’s continued support of her mission to advance access to justice and for protecting essential funding for critical programs and services.

She went on to discuss what is called the Strategic Plan for California’s Judicial Branch. The Strategic Plan provides is a foundational document for the court system..

Since the first strategic plan was developed in 1992, the process has served to articulate their mission and direction, set governance structures and priorities, and helped to navigate some of the most significant reforms, improvements, and challenges in the history of California’s court system.

At periodic intervals they have updated our long-term goals as California and the needs of its residents have evolved.Most recently, in December 2022, the Judicial Council amended the number one strategic goal of “Access, Fairness, and Diversity,” to add “Inclusion.”

“Although this may seem like a small change, as one of our council members shared at the time, ‘As important as diversity is, if you’re not included, it doesn’t matter.’ We saw this as an opportunity to speak out louder and make more explicit the branch’s commitment to an inclusive court system in which all individuals are – and feel – respected and engaged, and their contributions are valued.”

And this first goal guides all facets of the Judicial Council’s review, analysis, and deliberations.

On the topic of Modernization of Management and Administration, the Chief Justice has asked Administrative Presiding Justice Mary Greenwood and Judge Arturo Castro to help lead the branch’s efforts to identify the foundational questions that must be asked to consider the opportunities and challenges that are associated with AI.

Their efforts will facilitate consideration of what might be appropriate uses of AI in relation to the judiciary with the guiding principle of safeguarding the integrity of the judicial process.

No discussion of modernization is complete without a discussion of remote technology. Court users themselves are choosing to access these new services and tools – including 24/7 eFiling, access to online records and research, self-help resources, and remote appearances.

The Chief Justice said that accessing court services remotely works! “We know this from court users and staff alike.” A recent Judicial Council report on this issue showed that:

– – Approximately 150,000 remote civil proceedings are conducted statewide each month;
– – More than 90% of court users and 98% of court staff reported positive experiences; and
– – Very few technical issues were reported.

As always, more work remains to be done. “But we can build on these successes.” Addressing remote access is one example of effective three- branch solutions to better serve the state.