MichaelAfar

Partner

Labor & Employment

mafar@seyfarth.com

Los Angeles - Century City

+1 (310) 201-9301

RETURN TO PEOPLE

PROFILE

EXPERIENCE

NEWS & INSIGHTS

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Michael defends high-stakes, high-profile class action cases. He's at his best being his clients' right-hand attorney and the go-to for all things litigation.

More About Michael

Michael has significant experience handling and managing complex class action matters under California law, including wage-and-hour class and representative action cases. He has dedicated his career to developing his skills to defend class actions. These are often high-profile, high-exposure "bet the company" cases. Clients turn to Michael for aggressive, practical solutions to fight such matters and obtain winning results. He doesn't look to settle early or back away from a fight.

Michael has been with Seyfarth for a decade. He started at the firm in 2009 as a class action clerk, where he worked full-time for two years before going to law school. He returned to Seyfarth for his 1L summer, his 2L summer, and worked part-time during his 3L year. Michael then became an associate in September 2014 after taking the California bar. Given his extensive history with the firm, Michael has been one of the key members of the trial teams in three jury trials, including two that resulted in full-defense verdicts. He has significant experience in trial preparation, including overall defense strategy, jury selection and voir dire, mock trials and focus groups, video deposition presentation, graphic presentation, and motions in limine.

For two cases in particular, after class certification was granted, Michael developed the necessary evidence and obtained class-wide summary judgment. Rather than waving the white flag after certification, or rushing to settle, he fought and found creative ways to win. Other examples include going out into the field, gathering declarations and taking depositions, and aggressively denying class certification in cases involving mileage reimbursement expenses and employee misclassification. In Michael's practice, it's not over until it's over. Clients appreciate that his ultimate goal is to win and get the best result, even in the face of setbacks.

Michael has developed many skills in the class action context, including document review and preparation, data analytics and calculations, and trial graphics creation. This came from being a class action clerk and being engrained in the class action world prior to his time as an associate. Michael offers value to clients based on his knowledge and significant experience in these fields, among others, as well as a deep understanding of managing cases through trial. He also prides himself on developing long-term, portfolios-style relationships with clients, in which he handles multiple cases over multiple years for the same client and develops a deep understanding of their business. This delivers additional value for clients and makes Michael an indispensable, recurring member of their legal teams.

Michael is proud of the culture and the people at Seyfarth. In his words: "We breathe the same air as our clients, and we care as much about their cases as they do."

Education

JD, Loyola Law School - Los Angeles
Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review, managing editor
BA, University of California, Los Angeles
History
Magna cum laude

Admissions

California

Courts

US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
US District Court, Central District of California
US District Court, Eastern District of California
US District Court, Northern District of California
US District Court, Southern District of California

Related Services

EXPERIENCE

Ariola v. Raytheon CA Techs. Corp., 2023 WL 5764296 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2023) (denying plaintiff’s motion to remand in wage-hour class action on the grounds that LMRA Section 301 preempts claims, and granting defendant’s request for consolidation of separately filed class and PAGA actions)
Hartstein v. Hyatt Corp., 2022 WL 456538 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2022) (granting summary judgment for the employer against a certified class of over 15,000 employees; holding that (1) indefinite layoffs or furloughs did not constitute a “termination” for purposes of vacation wage payouts under Labor Code 227.3, and (2) complimentary hotel rooms provided to employees are not “wages” within the meaning of the California Labor Code, and therefore do not need to be included in calculating the regular rate of pay nor paid out upon separation of employment)
Madeira v. Converse, Inc., 2022 WL 109365 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2022) (granting summary judgment for the employer as to claims for meal and rest period violations, unlawful “rounding” of time punches, and failure to pay the “regular rate” when calculating overtime wages)
In re Southern California Pizza Wage and Hour Cases, 2021 WL 4571227 (Cal. Sup. Ct. September 3, 2021) (granting the employer’s motion for decertification of a class of 42,000 employees of one of the largest Pizza Hut franchisees; the court held that class certification could not be maintained based on the theory that the employer had a policy that did not explicitly tell employees they were allowed to leave the premises for rest periods; court held that an employer’s “silent” policy cannot support class certification, absent classwide evidence of harm)
Brumbach v. Hyatt Corporation, 2021 WL 2850448 (S.D. Cal. July 8, 2021) (granting defendant’s motion to stay based on first-filed rule)
Tapia v. Hyatt Corporation, 2021 WL 3076650 (C.D. Cal. June 30, 2021) (granting defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on issue of equitable tolling)
Southern California Pizza Wage and Hour Cases, 2021 WL 2980120 (Cal. Super. June 28, 2021) (granting motion for judgment on pleadings on issues of American Pipe tolling of class claims, and holding that rest period violations do not give rise to derivative waiting time penalties claim)
Southern California Pizza Wage and Hour Cases, 2021 WL 2549103, at *3 (Cal. Super. June 14, 2021) (denying class certification of expense reimbursement claims for pizza delivery drivers; “Plaintiffs still must establish that class members' actual expenses were indeed less than the lump sums paid. Proof would hinge on numerous individualized inquiries, such as the age and condition of each class member's car; his or her gasoline, maintenance, and insurance costs (and the portion of each properly attributed to work-related driving); the number of miles he or she drove; and the number of deliveries he or she made, including whether multiple deliveries were made to the same location”)
Brumbach v. Hyatt Corporation, 2021 WL 926692 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2021) (denying plaintiff’s motion for remand and holding that the employer’s assumptions and evidence on removal supported a plausible amount in controversy for purposes of the Class Action Fairness Act)
Madeira v. Converse, Inc., 2020 WL 6128990 (9th Cir. Oct. 19, 2020) (granting defendant’s appeal; reversing district court’s order remanding case to state court following denial of class certification, and holding that the district court retains jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s individual and PAGA claims)
Hensley v. Lazer Spot, Inc., 2020 WL 1922167, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2020) (denying Plaintiff’s motion to remand)
Madeira v. Converse, Inc., 2020 WL 1265428 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2020) (denying Plaintiff’s motion for class certification in full, involving claims for alleged meal period violations, unlawful meal period waivers, unlawful rest period violations and failure to provide third rest periods, illegal “rounding” of time punches, and failure to include bonuses in the regular rate of pay for overtime)
Chavez v. Converse, Inc., 2020 WL 1233919 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2020) (granting partial summary judgment for Defendant as to Plaintiff’s claims for penalties under California Labor Code 203 and 226; holding that a “good faith dispute” exists as to whether time spent in exit inspections or bag checks is compensable, which precludes recovery of penalties)
Heredia v. Eddie Bauer, LLC, 2020 WL 127489 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2020) (granting decertification of class action case involving thousands of retail store employees in California, based on claims for unpaid wages for time spent in bag checks and exit inspections)
Tincher v. Hurley Int'l, LLC, 2019 WL 7171557 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2019) (denying Plaintiff’s motion for relief from Local Rule 23-3’s “90-day rule” for class certification)
Dillon v. T.J. Maxx of CA, LLC, Orange County Superior Court (July 31, 2019) (granting motion to compel arbitration)
Lara v. Lazer Spot, Inc., 2019 WL 2023728 (C.D. Cal. May 7, 2019) (denying Plaintiff’s motion for remand)
Elguea v. Southern California Pizza Company, LLC, Case No. B281867 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight; June 13, 2018) (successfully argued in front of Court of Appeal on behalf of respondents and obtained order affirming trial court’s judgment on the pleadings)
Elguea v. Southern California Pizza Company, LLC, 2017 WL 978860 (Los Angeles Superior Court 2017) (granting judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend in a FEHA wrongful termination lawsuit)
Bryant v. NCR Corp., --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2018 WL 1084102 (SD Cal. Feb. 22, 2018) (denying plaintiff’s motion for remand on the grounds that employer showed by preponderance of the evidence that amount in controversy exceeded $5 million jurisdictional minimum)
Rodriguez v. Nike Retail Services, Inc., 2018 WL 420027 (ND Cal. Jan. 16, 2018) (affirming Nike’s position and holding that federal law governs the award of standard costs, not California Labor Code section 218.5, and awarding $19,316.00 to Nike as prevailing party)
Chavez v. Converse, Inc., 2017 WL 6620877 (ND Cal. Dec. 22, 2017) (affirming Converse’s position and holding that federal law governs the award of standard costs, not California Labor Code section 218.5, and awarding $24,600.15 to Converse as prevailing party)
Rodriguez v. Nike Retail Services, Inc., 2017 WL 4005591 (ND Cal. Sept. 12, 2017) (granting summary judgment against the certified class of over 10,000 individuals on the grounds that the time spent in connection with bag checks/exit inspections was de minimis and not compensable)
Chavez v. Converse, Inc., 2017 WL 4552083 (ND Cal. Oct. 11, 2017) (granting summary judgment against the certified class of more than 2,000 individuals on the grounds that the time spent in connection with bag checks/exit inspections was de minimis and not compensable)
Morales v. Southern California Pizza Company, LLC, 2017 WL 384289 (Orange County Superior Court 2017) (sustaining special demurrer to stay putative class action under the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction, without leave to amend)
Hamid v. Nike Retail Services, Inc., 2017 WL 2561091 (CD Cal. 2017) (denying plaintiff’s motion for remand on the grounds that the local controversy exception or the home state controversy exception under CAFA did not apply, and the amount in controversy was met)
Confidential Arbitration Matter, 2016 WL 5105861, at *12 (American Arbitration Association, Aug. 9, 2016) (represented financial services client against claims brought by former financial analyst for misclassification, wrongful termination, and breach of contract; and recovered nearly $17,000 in costs for client as prevailing party)
Chavez v. Converse, Inc., 2016 WL 4398374 (ND Cal. 2016) (granting summary judgment for the employer in a potential class action, alleging failure to properly pay overtime wages based on the calculation of the “regular rate of pay” to include employee bonuses)
Southern California Pizza Wage and Hour Cases, 2016 WL 3513505 (Orange County Superior Court 2016) (denying class certification in a case filed on behalf of 25,000 employees of one of the largest franchisees of Pizza Hut restaurants, alleging failure to reimburse expenses for making pizza deliveries; the court denied class certification on the grounds that individualized matters predominated regarding any alleged underpayment of actual expenses incurred by each employee)
Patel v. Nike Retail Services, Inc., 2016 WL 1241777 (ND Cal. 2016) (denying class certification based on alleged misclassification of over 100 assistant store managers as exempt employees)
Bicek v. C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 2014 WL 1415974 (ED Cal. 2014) (granting the employer’s preemptive motion to deny class certification as to all class-wide claims for “misclassification” of exempt employees, unpaid overtime, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to provide itemized and accurate wage statements, failure to pay accrued wages at the time of termination, and PAGA penalties)

Related Trends

PAGA Claims in California

Related News & Insights

View All

Select Recognition

Recognized as a "Ones to Watch" lawyer by Best Lawyers in America (Woodward/White Inc.) for Labor and Employment Law - Management and Litigation - Labor and Employment (2021-2024)
Recognized as a " Top Labor & Employment Lawyers for 2023" by Daily Journal

Leadership & Professional Affiliations

The State Bar of California, Labor and Employment Law Section
Los Angeles County Bar Association, Labor and Employment Law Section

Publications

Co-Presenter, “Time Well Spent Session 7: Compensable Work Time,” Webinar, Seyfarth Shaw LLP (July 11, 2024)
Editor-in-Chief, Litigating CA Wage & Hour Class and PAGA Actions, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 23rd Edition (2024)
Co-Author, "The California Supreme Court Pulls The Carpet Out From Underneath Employers," Legal Update, Seyfarth Shaw LLP (January 18, 2024)
Co-Author, "Uber Hits California Court Speedbump in Labor Case," Corporate Compliance Insights, (July 24, 2023)
Co-Author, "PAGA Plaintiffs Can Still Pursue Representative Claims Despite Individual Arbitration," Legal Update, Seyfarth Shaw LLP (July 17, 2023)
Editor-in-Chief, Litigating California Wage & Hour Class and PAGA Actions, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 22nd Edition (2022)
Co-Author, "SCOTUS Bids FAArewell to Prohibition of Representative PAGA Waivers Contained in Arbitration Agreements," Legal Update, Seyfarth Shaw LLP (June 15, 2022)
Contributing Author, "Now Available! FLSA Handbook February 2021," Employment Law Lookout Blog, Seyfarth Shaw LLP (February 11, 2021)
Author, "Do Improper Overtime Pay Calculations Automatically Equal Class Certification? Don’t Bank On It, Says The Ninth Circuit," Wage & Hour Litigation Blog, Seyfarth Shaw LLP (November 23, 2020)
Editor, Litigating California Wage & Hour Class and PAGA Actions, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 20th Edition (2020)
Editor, Litigating California Wage & Hour and Labor Code Class Actions, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 19th Edition (2019)
Editor, Litigating California Wage & Hour and Labor Code Class Actions, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 18th Edition (2018)
Editor, Litigating California Wage & Hour and Labor Code Class Actions, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 17th Edition (2017)
Co-Author, "California Supreme Court Invalidates Contractual Waivers Of Public Injunctive Relief," Management Alert, Seyfarth Shaw LLP (April 11, 2017)
Co-Author, "Better Sit Down for This… or Stand and Rejoice? California Supreme Court Clarifies 'Suitable Seating' Rules," Wage & Hour Litigation Blog, Seyfarth Shaw LLP (April 12, 2016)
Co-Author, "Better Sit Down For This: Court Clarifies 'Suitable Seating' Rules," One Minute Memo, Seyfarth Shaw LLP (April 6, 2016)
Co-Editor, Litigating California Wage & Hour and Labor Code Class Actions, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 15th Edition (2015)

Presentations

Co-Speaker, “Point Two L&E Nation: Key Developments in PAGA Cases,” Podcast, Seyfarth Shaw LLP (April 30, 2024)
Co-Presenter, "Time Well Spent: Session 3: Certification and Decertification," Webinar, Seyfarth Shaw LLP (November 16, 2023)
“Addressing Compensability of Small Increments of Time” Seyfarth Shaw LLP, National Wage and Hour Litigation Practice Group Meeting (December 12, 2022)
“The Use of Merits Arguments at the Certification Stage” Seyfarth Shaw LLP, National Wage and Hour Litigation Practice Group Meeting (November 17, 2021)
Co-Presenter, "California Wage & Hour Class Action Litigation: Recent Key Developments and Trends," Webinar, Seyfarth Shaw LLP (November 19, 2020)
Co-Presenter, "PAGA Webinar Series 3: Novel PAGA Theories and Discretionary Reductions in Penalty Awards," Webinar, Seyfarth Shaw LLP (November 10, 2020)
"Wage Hour Issues in a COVID-Recovering World," National Wage and Hour Litigation Practice Group Meeting, Seyfarth Shaw LLP (May 20, 2020)

Media Mentions

Quoted, "3 Upcoming Wage-Hour Oral Arguments To Watch," Law 360 (September 19, 2023)
Quoted, "Arbitrating employee claims after California’s Adolph v. Uber ruling," Legal Dive (July 25, 2023)

Civic & Charitable

Alliance for Children's Rights, National Adoption Day pro bono work (2015)

Kudos

"All the credit goes to you and Brian [Long]. We are extremely grateful for the time and energy that you both put into this matter. We appreciate your excellent representation and look forward to working with you on other matters as they inevitably arise…Thanks again!" —Client feedback

"Jon Meer and his team (Leo Li and Michael Afar) are fantastic." —Client feedback

"Thank you so much for your work and excellent communication style. We really appreciate it. If I have not mentioned before, [the general counsel] relies on me to keep on top of deadlines and case statuses so this outline you provided below is just perfect. Thank you!" —Client feedback

"I want to say thank you for all your diligent work and effort over the last couple of years that led to bringing these class actions to closure this week. Your and your team's professionalism is much appreciated, especially in times when my frustration led to some moments where my language and frustration boiled over the top." —Client feedback

"Michael was the driving force behind much of the work, and kept everyone organized." —From Chambers

"Afar is a star!" —Client feedback

"I wanted to pass on a huge THANK YOU from my team. I have gotten nothing but great feedback from the team on the training you provided—both the materials and the delivery. It was informational, interactive, and engaging. They learned and they enjoyed it! I so appreciate your willingness to work with the team. Thank you so much for your time and wisdom!" —Client feedback

"The job all of you did under extreme circumstances was amazing." —Client feedback

"I wanted you to know how much I was impressed by, and appreciative of, Brian and Michael’s efforts at the mediation yesterday. We achieved a great result because of the hard work and skill they put into preparing for the mediation and running the case overall." —Client feedback

"Michael did a spectacular job. He was super prepared. I would absolutely work with him again." —Client feedback

Michael defends high-stakes, high-profile class action cases. He's at his best being his clients' right-hand attorney and the go-to for all things litigation.

More About Michael

Michael is proud of the culture and the people at Seyfarth. In his words: "We breathe the same air as our clients, and we care as much about their cases as they do."

Education

JD, Loyola Law School - Los Angeles
Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review, managing editor
BA, University of California, Los Angeles
History
Magna cum laude

Admissions

California

Courts

US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
US District Court, Central District of California
US District Court, Eastern District of California
US District Court, Northern District of California
US District Court, Southern District of California

Related Services

EXPERIENCE

Ariola v. Raytheon CA Techs. Corp., 2023 WL 5764296 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2023) (denying plaintiff’s motion to remand in wage-hour class action on the grounds that LMRA Section 301 preempts claims, and granting defendant’s request for consolidation of separately filed class and PAGA actions)
Hartstein v. Hyatt Corp., 2022 WL 456538 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2022) (granting summary judgment for the employer against a certified class of over 15,000 employees; holding that (1) indefinite layoffs or furloughs did not constitute a “termination” for purposes of vacation wage payouts under Labor Code 227.3, and (2) complimentary hotel rooms provided to employees are not “wages” within the meaning of the California Labor Code, and therefore do not need to be included in calculating the regular rate of pay nor paid out upon separation of employment)
Madeira v. Converse, Inc., 2022 WL 109365 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2022) (granting summary judgment for the employer as to claims for meal and rest period violations, unlawful “rounding” of time punches, and failure to pay the “regular rate” when calculating overtime wages)
In re Southern California Pizza Wage and Hour Cases, 2021 WL 4571227 (Cal. Sup. Ct. September 3, 2021) (granting the employer’s motion for decertification of a class of 42,000 employees of one of the largest Pizza Hut franchisees; the court held that class certification could not be maintained based on the theory that the employer had a policy that did not explicitly tell employees they were allowed to leave the premises for rest periods; court held that an employer’s “silent” policy cannot support class certification, absent classwide evidence of harm)
Brumbach v. Hyatt Corporation, 2021 WL 2850448 (S.D. Cal. July 8, 2021) (granting defendant’s motion to stay based on first-filed rule)
Tapia v. Hyatt Corporation, 2021 WL 3076650 (C.D. Cal. June 30, 2021) (granting defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on issue of equitable tolling)
Southern California Pizza Wage and Hour Cases, 2021 WL 2980120 (Cal. Super. June 28, 2021) (granting motion for judgment on pleadings on issues of American Pipe tolling of class claims, and holding that rest period violations do not give rise to derivative waiting time penalties claim)
Southern California Pizza Wage and Hour Cases, 2021 WL 2549103, at *3 (Cal. Super. June 14, 2021) (denying class certification of expense reimbursement claims for pizza delivery drivers; “Plaintiffs still must establish that class members' actual expenses were indeed less than the lump sums paid. Proof would hinge on numerous individualized inquiries, such as the age and condition of each class member's car; his or her gasoline, maintenance, and insurance costs (and the portion of each properly attributed to work-related driving); the number of miles he or she drove; and the number of deliveries he or she made, including whether multiple deliveries were made to the same location”)
Brumbach v. Hyatt Corporation, 2021 WL 926692 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2021) (denying plaintiff’s motion for remand and holding that the employer’s assumptions and evidence on removal supported a plausible amount in controversy for purposes of the Class Action Fairness Act)
Madeira v. Converse, Inc., 2020 WL 6128990 (9th Cir. Oct. 19, 2020) (granting defendant’s appeal; reversing district court’s order remanding case to state court following denial of class certification, and holding that the district court retains jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s individual and PAGA claims)
Hensley v. Lazer Spot, Inc., 2020 WL 1922167, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2020) (denying Plaintiff’s motion to remand)
Madeira v. Converse, Inc., 2020 WL 1265428 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2020) (denying Plaintiff’s motion for class certification in full, involving claims for alleged meal period violations, unlawful meal period waivers, unlawful rest period violations and failure to provide third rest periods, illegal “rounding” of time punches, and failure to include bonuses in the regular rate of pay for overtime)
Chavez v. Converse, Inc., 2020 WL 1233919 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2020) (granting partial summary judgment for Defendant as to Plaintiff’s claims for penalties under California Labor Code 203 and 226; holding that a “good faith dispute” exists as to whether time spent in exit inspections or bag checks is compensable, which precludes recovery of penalties)
Heredia v. Eddie Bauer, LLC, 2020 WL 127489 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2020) (granting decertification of class action case involving thousands of retail store employees in California, based on claims for unpaid wages for time spent in bag checks and exit inspections)
Tincher v. Hurley Int'l, LLC, 2019 WL 7171557 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2019) (denying Plaintiff’s motion for relief from Local Rule 23-3’s “90-day rule” for class certification)
Dillon v. T.J. Maxx of CA, LLC, Orange County Superior Court (July 31, 2019) (granting motion to compel arbitration)
Lara v. Lazer Spot, Inc., 2019 WL 2023728 (C.D. Cal. May 7, 2019) (denying Plaintiff’s motion for remand)
Elguea v. Southern California Pizza Company, LLC, Case No. B281867 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight; June 13, 2018) (successfully argued in front of Court of Appeal on behalf of respondents and obtained order affirming trial court’s judgment on the pleadings)
Elguea v. Southern California Pizza Company, LLC, 2017 WL 978860 (Los Angeles Superior Court 2017) (granting judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend in a FEHA wrongful termination lawsuit)
Bryant v. NCR Corp., --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2018 WL 1084102 (SD Cal. Feb. 22, 2018) (denying plaintiff’s motion for remand on the grounds that employer showed by preponderance of the evidence that amount in controversy exceeded $5 million jurisdictional minimum)
Rodriguez v. Nike Retail Services, Inc., 2018 WL 420027 (ND Cal. Jan. 16, 2018) (affirming Nike’s position and holding that federal law governs the award of standard costs, not California Labor Code section 218.5, and awarding $19,316.00 to Nike as prevailing party)
Chavez v. Converse, Inc., 2017 WL 6620877 (ND Cal. Dec. 22, 2017) (affirming Converse’s position and holding that federal law governs the award of standard costs, not California Labor Code section 218.5, and awarding $24,600.15 to Converse as prevailing party)
Rodriguez v. Nike Retail Services, Inc., 2017 WL 4005591 (ND Cal. Sept. 12, 2017) (granting summary judgment against the certified class of over 10,000 individuals on the grounds that the time spent in connection with bag checks/exit inspections was de minimis and not compensable)
Chavez v. Converse, Inc., 2017 WL 4552083 (ND Cal. Oct. 11, 2017) (granting summary judgment against the certified class of more than 2,000 individuals on the grounds that the time spent in connection with bag checks/exit inspections was de minimis and not compensable)
Morales v. Southern California Pizza Company, LLC, 2017 WL 384289 (Orange County Superior Court 2017) (sustaining special demurrer to stay putative class action under the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction, without leave to amend)
Hamid v. Nike Retail Services, Inc., 2017 WL 2561091 (CD Cal. 2017) (denying plaintiff’s motion for remand on the grounds that the local controversy exception or the home state controversy exception under CAFA did not apply, and the amount in controversy was met)
Confidential Arbitration Matter, 2016 WL 5105861, at *12 (American Arbitration Association, Aug. 9, 2016) (represented financial services client against claims brought by former financial analyst for misclassification, wrongful termination, and breach of contract; and recovered nearly $17,000 in costs for client as prevailing party)
Chavez v. Converse, Inc., 2016 WL 4398374 (ND Cal. 2016) (granting summary judgment for the employer in a potential class action, alleging failure to properly pay overtime wages based on the calculation of the “regular rate of pay” to include employee bonuses)
Southern California Pizza Wage and Hour Cases, 2016 WL 3513505 (Orange County Superior Court 2016) (denying class certification in a case filed on behalf of 25,000 employees of one of the largest franchisees of Pizza Hut restaurants, alleging failure to reimburse expenses for making pizza deliveries; the court denied class certification on the grounds that individualized matters predominated regarding any alleged underpayment of actual expenses incurred by each employee)
Patel v. Nike Retail Services, Inc., 2016 WL 1241777 (ND Cal. 2016) (denying class certification based on alleged misclassification of over 100 assistant store managers as exempt employees)
Bicek v. C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 2014 WL 1415974 (ED Cal. 2014) (granting the employer’s preemptive motion to deny class certification as to all class-wide claims for “misclassification” of exempt employees, unpaid overtime, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to provide itemized and accurate wage statements, failure to pay accrued wages at the time of termination, and PAGA penalties)

Related Trends

PAGA Claims in California