Case Update - Potential Mediation - Informal Resolution

In California, class certification requirements are found in the case law. Sav-On Drug Stores v. Superior Court, 34 Cal. 4th 319, 326 (2004). The plaintiff must establish the existence of “an ascertainable class” and a “well-defined community of interest among class members.” Id. The “community of interest” criteria is comprised of three factors, mirroring some Rule 23 requirements: (1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class. Id. The attorney seeking to certify the class must obtain information satisfying these requirements. 

California law has not expressly adopted the federal law requirement that a class action satisfy one of three types of class actions defined in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b). However, plaintiffs are required to show that class treatment would “provide substantial benefits” to both the courts and the litigants, a showing that California courts have recognized is akin to the ‘superiority’ prong of Rule 23(b)(3). Bell v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 15 Cal.App.4th 715, 741 (2004). 

As is common in large complex cases the parties are informally discussing resolution of the matter.  Stay tuned to this blog for more information. 

Investigation and Counsel Involved

In furtherance of our investigation efforts, we are looking to interview other employees who experienced similar mistreatment or former employees or former assistant managers who have information regarding this conduct. If you would like a copy of the Complaint or have any questions regarding this case please contact:

Richard E. Quintilone II, Esq.
Quintilone & Associates
22974 El Toro Road, Suite 100
Lake Forest, CA 92630-4961
Telephone: 949.458.9675
Facsimile: 949.458.9679
Email: req@quintlaw.com    
Legal Assistant
Fernando Guzman
Se Habla Español

California employers are prohibited from retaliating against employees who participate in wage and hour complaints or investigations. If you feel you have been retaliated against, please feel free to contact any of the above-listed law firms or the California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement for information. http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/HowToFileRetaliationComplaint.htm

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Ashley Furniture

After arm’s length negotiations, the parties have reached a settlement of the pending Class Action.  Plaintiff Israel Andrews (“Plaintiff”) has filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action settlement.   The Motion will be heard on November 2, 2017 , at 8:30 AM at S an Bernardino Justice Center, 247 W. Third Street, San Bernardino, CA. 92415 .  Plaintiff, will move the Court pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 3.769(c), for an entry of an Order: 1.       Preliminarily approving the Settlement as set forth in the parties’ Joint Stipulation for Class Action Settlement (the “Settlement Agreement”), which is attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Class Counsel, Richard E. Quintilone II, Esq., on file with the Court; 2.       Conditionally certifying a Settlement Class defined in the Settlement Agreement; 3.       Appointing Plaintiff as the Cla...
Read more

Background of the Case and Investigation

Quintilone & Associates has filed a class action where Plaintiff Israel Andrews (“Plaintiff”) seeks reimbursement for expenses incurred while working as a Sale Associate for Stoneledge Furniture LLC.  Stoneledge sells furniture under the Ashley Furniture brand of stores throughout California. Ashley Furniture Industries Inc. is the sole member of Stoneledge Furniture LLC, the Limited Liability Company that employed Plaintiff and the other class members.  ("Stoneledge" “Ashley Furniture” or "Defendants").  Please see https://www.ashleyfurniturehomestore.com/ Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a sales associate from October 20, 2015 through October 8, 2016.  Similar to the other aggrieved and similarly situated sales associates, Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee in the state of California who was required by to use his personal cell phone to make both customer loyalty calls and general sales calls, and to send text messages, as part of his daily job duty r...
Read more