Recent Cases & Investigations

In Re Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP") of K-M Industries Holding Co., Inc. Partial Settlement of ESOP Class Action Preliminarily Approved January 23, 2009.

Ammari v. Pacific Bell Directory (Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. RG05198014).
Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall, along with co-counsel, represent a certified class of advertisers seeking reimbursement for advertising expenses resulting from Defendant's failure to distribute yellow pages directories as contractually obligated. Trial is scheduled for March 9, 2009. For further information about the case, please contact Steven Tindall.

Kairy, et al. v. SuperShuttle Inc., et al., Case No. 08-02993 JSW, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP, along with co-counsel, represent current and former SuperShuttle California van drivers. Plaintiffs contend that SuperShuttle has misclassified the van drivers as "franchisees" and/or "independent contractors" rather than as employees. As a result of this misclassification, Plaintiffs claim that SuperShuttle has violated California law and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by failing to pay overtime and minimum wage, failing to reimburse the drivers for business expenses, taking wrongful deductions from drivers' pay, and forcing drivers to make certain purchases from Defendants.

On April 9, 2009, the Court conditionally certified the federal FLSA claims in this lawsuit as an opt-in collective action of individuals who drove passenger vehicles for SuperShuttle in California during the period commencing April 9, 2006 to the present.

For more information, contact Peter Rukin or Angela Perone, or review the case documents below.

Complaint: Describing all of Plaintiffs’ claims against SuperShuttle.

Order Granting Motion to Facilitate Collective Action Notice: Court Order conditionally certifying FLSA claims a collective action.

Court approved Notice explaining rights and procedures regarding whether and how to join FLSA claims.

Vargas v. Super Center Concepts, Inc. (Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC 401835).
Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall, along with co-counsel, have brought this action on behalf of a class of meat managers and assistant meat managers employed by Defendant Superior Grocer's. Plaintiffs claim that they were required to work off-the-clock and denied meal and rest breaks in violation of California law. For more information, please contact Peter Rukin.

Flynn v. Angel Studios/Rockstar Games (San Diego Superior Court, Case No. RG05220096).
Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall, along with co-counsel, have brought this case against Defendant, an interactive software game developer, on behalf of 3D artists who contend that they were misclassified as exempt and denied overtime wages in violation of California law. The Court has granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement. The final approval hearing is scheduled for March 13, 2009 at 1:30 pm. For further information about the case, please contact Peter Rukin.

Martinez v. Bank of the West (San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. CGC-06-454959).
Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall and the Law Office of Greg Mayeda brought this action on behalf of a class of Information Technology Professionals who Plaintiffs alleged were misclassified as exempt from overtime wages. Plaintiffs sought to recover the overtime wages due the IT workers as a result of the misclassification. The Court finally approved the class action settlement on October 31, 2008, and settlement proceeds were distributed to the Settlement Class in December 2008. For further information about the case, please contact Peter Rukin.

Broome v. Google, Inc. (Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 108 CV112386).
Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall brought this action on behalf of a class of contract SRE Sourcers at Mountain View-based Google who Plaintiffs alleged were required to work overtime hours off-the-clock in violation of California law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Court finally approved the class action settlement on December 5, 2008, and settlement proceeds were distributed to the Settlement Class on December 29, 2008. For further information about the case, please contact Peter Rukin.

In Re Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) Antitrust and Patent Litigation (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, MDL No. 05-1671 CAS VBK).

Plaintiffs allege that Union Oil Company of California illegally monopolized and attempted to monopolize the technology market for CARB-compliant summertime reformulated gasoline in violation of federal antitrust law and the California UCL. The Court finally approved the $40 million class action settlement on December 8, 2008. The matter is now on appeal.

Vedachalam, et al v.Tata American International Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd and Tata Sons, Ltd. (United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. C 06-0963 VRW): Defendants Order Denying Tata Motion to Compel Arbitration in India; Order Denying Tata Motion to Compel Beri Arbitration in India; Order Granting Motion for Class Certification; Press Release: Federal Court Denies Tata America