Recent Trials & Appeal Results

Since 2018 Only

2018

Atempa Trial Results Affirmed on Appeal in Published Opinion

After obtaining a plaintiffs’ verdict totaling $958,834 (with $736,337 of that against the individual owner, Pedrazzani) and $197,434 awarded pursuant to the California Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) in 2015 (Marco Atempa and Keilyn Reyes v. PAMA Inc., and Paolo Pedrazzani, SDSC Case No. 37-2013-00058208-CU-OE-CTL), the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment on appeal in 2018. The decision was published in Atempa v. Pedrazzani (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 809, which held that the individual business owner could be held personally liable. The judgment included awards for unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, meal and rest period violations, falsified pay records, PAGA penalties, etc. The judgment was satisfied in 2019, after a judgment lien was placed on the legal malpractice action filed by Pedrazzani against his defense counsel. This would not have been possible without the PAGA. The matter would have settled for $15,000 at the outset of litigation, but the defense made no offer until a few days before trial of $50,000.

2019

Mid-Trial Settlement of Wage/PAGA Case

After several hours of cross-examination of the defendant business owner during trial, the defendants settled for 20 times more than they offered before trial, in a wage/PAGA case (aka “PAGA +1”) the terms of which were put on the record. Cubias, et. al. v. Protein for Pets, LLC, et. al. SDSC Case No. 37-2016-00045232-CU-OE-CTL.

2020

$4.25 Million Recovery After Four-Week Trial

After a four-week trial, in 2019, we obtained a verdict which eventually totaled ~$2.5 million in a PAGA+2 case (PAGA claims, plus sexual harassment and misclassification) involving outside salespeople. Settlement of the individual wage claims for other “aggrieved employees” pursuant to the PAGA raised the total recovery to ~$4.25 million in 2020, when the judgment was fully satisfied.

2022

Plaintiff’s Verdict for Individual Wage Case (Phase I)

After a two-week jury trial, we received another favorable verdict on behalf of our client for unpaid wages, liquidated damages, records violations and waiting time penalties. The PAGA penalties could not be determined by the jury based upon the applicable law. See, Barragan v. LNG Logistics, Inc., et. al. SDSC Case No. 37-2017-00023393-CL-OE-CTL.

2024

Fourth PAGA Trial – Results Pending (Phase II)

Because we prevailed on the individual claims, our client, Ismael Barragan, obtained standing to proceed with his PAGA claims which could only be determined by the court, not a jury. At the end of January, we proceeded with two additional days of (a bench) trial. Closing briefs are to be submitted in March and the results of the PAGA claims we tried are currently pending. See, Barragan et. al. v. LNG Logistics, Inc. and Luis Gomez SDSC Case No. 37-2017-00023393-CL-OE-CTL.