VERDICTS AND SETTLEMENTS | Westrup Klick, LLP
Disclaimer: The results portrayed by these verdicts and settlements are dependent upon the facts of each case and those results will differ if based on different facts. No guarantee or warranty regarding the outcome of a specific future legal matter is intended by publication of these past results.
Wage and Hour Cases
Cicero v. DirecTV, Inc. dba DirecTV Home Services, U.S.D.C. Case No. EDCV 07-118-AC (OPx): Westrup Klick was lead counsel in this case, wherein Plaintiffs, on behalf of other current and former satellite installation and/or service technicians, alleged that Defendant failed to provide duty-free meal periods, failed to reimburse for tools, failed to pay wages for all hours worked, failed to timely pay all wages owed upon termination of employment, and failed to provide accurate wage statements. As a result of the efforts of Plaintiffs' counsel, approximately $4.4 million was made available to class members.
Wescom v. Brink’s Incorporated, Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 07AS03552: This case involved Defendant Brink’s Incorporated’s alleged failure to provide duty-free meal and rest periods to a class of drivers, messengers, and guards. As a result of the efforts of Plaintiffs’ counsel, the case settled together with Hernandez v. Brink’s Incorporated and DeLeon v. Brink’s Incorporated and provided for a $4 million non-reversionary payout to the class members.
Woodruff, et al. v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Case No. BC354272: Westrup Klick was lead counsel in this case, which was brought on behalf of former and current assistant managers, management trainees, and management assistants that worked for Enterprise from June 20, 2002 through December 14, 2007. The Plaintiffs alleged that Enterprise failed to properly compensate the class members for their missed meal breaks. After the diligent efforts of Westrup Klick, the case ultimately settled with 5,436 class members sharing the settlement proceeds of $3.7 million.
Reynolds et al. v. Dewey Services, Inc., Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding No. 4280: This case involved Defendant Dewey Services, Inc.’s alleged failure to pay overtime to approximately 136 pest control technicians. As a result of the efforts of Plaintiffs’ counsel, the parties have entered into a proposed settlement agreement whereby $2.24 million is being made available to class members.
Dotson, et al. v. Royal SunAllinace, et al., O.C.S.C. Case No. 02CC01787: Westrup Klick was co-counsel for Plaintiffs in this case, which involves Defendants’ failure to properly pay overtime compensation to its employees. As a result of the efforts of Plaintiffs’ counsel, the case settled with Defendants agreeing to pay their current and former employees up to $12,300,000.
Fowler v. Aames Acquisition, U.S.D.C. Case No. CV-01-04330 AHM (Ex) (C.D. Ca.): This case involved Defendant Aames’ alleged failure to pay overtime compensation to a class of 1,401 loan officers. As a result of the efforts of Plaintiffs’ counsel, the case was resolved and each participating class member was entitled to receive $45.00 for each week worked during the relevant class period.
Freeman v. Terminix, U.S.D.C. Case No. CV-01-1852 RMT (AlJx) (C.D. Ca.): This case involved Defendant Terminix’s alleged failure to properly calculate overtime pay and improper deductions from employees’ wages. As a result of the efforts of Plaintiffs’ counsel, the matter was resolved and $4 million was made available to class members.
Rico v. Office Depot, U.S.D.C. Case No. C-02-00563 VRW (N.D. Ca.): Westrup Klick was co-counsel for Plaintiffs in this case, which was consolidated with Gallegos v. Office Depot, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. CV 97847. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant Office Depot failed to pay overtime to managers and assistant managers. The case was resolved and, as a result of the efforts of Plaintiffs’ counsel, $9,657,242 was made available to class members on a claims made basis.
Obstaculo, et al. vs. Social Vocational Services, Inc., Case No. BC287004
Vitt, et al. vs. Electronic Data Systems Corp. aka EDS, et al., Case No. 134247
Charpentier vs. Frito Lay, Inc., U.S.D.C. Case No. SA CV06-1215 DOC (Anx)(C.D.Ca)
Krimsky vs. The Amusement Factory, LLC, Case No. 06AS00180
Harrington vs. Coinstar, Inc., U.S.D.C. Case No. 2:06-CV-01172-DFL-EFB(E.D. Ca)
Dufour v. Aramark Uniform & Apparell Inc., Case No. 104CV021852
Doglietto vs. AT Systems West, Inc., Case No. 04AS02796
Intercon Security Systems Wage Cases, J.C.C.P. No. 4500
Rodriguez, et al. vs. Brook Furniture Rental, Inc., Case No. BC400486
Westrup Klick also represented computer sales representatives in three cases based on the defendants’ alleged failure to pay overtime and provide meal and rest periods, which settled and made available approximately $1.4 million to members of the class.
Security Deposit Cases
Kitt v. JH Real Estate Partners, Inc. (O.C.S.C. No. 02CC01448), where Westrup Klick obtained a verdict in excess of $5 million (initial verdict was over $10 million) on behalf of Plaintiff and all former tenants for improper accounting of security deposits. Mr. Westrup was one of only a select number of attorneys who have personally litigated Section 17200 claims at the trial phase.
Ko v. AvalonBay Communities, Inc., L.A.S.C. Case No. BC 297004: In this case, the Plaintiff alleged that Defendant AvalonBay Communities, Inc. improperly deducted amounts for repairs from residential security deposits. Westrup Klick represented a former tenant, who brought the action on behalf of herself and as private attorneys general on behalf of the general public, against her landlord for the return of security deposits under Civil Code Section 1950.5, unfair business practices under Business and Professions Code Section 17200, and negligence. As a result of the efforts of Plaintiffs’ counsel, the parties have entered into a proposed settlement agreement whereby each class member was entitled to receive a partial refund of their security deposit in the amount of $120.00
Tovar v. L’Abri Management, L.A.S.C. Case No. BC 237666: In this case, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant L’Abri Management improperly deducted amounts for repairs from residential security deposits. As a result of the efforts of Plaintiffs’ counsel, the case was resolved with over 4,500 former tenants being entitled to participate and receive $94.00 each.
Additional Consumer Cases
Grafman, et al. v. Washington Mutual, et al., L.A.S.C. Case No. BC 218991(Consolidated with BC 240935): Westrup Klick was lead co-counsel in the case that alleged that Washington Mutual failed to timely release deeds of trust on real property. As a result of the efforts of Plaintiffs’ counsel, Washington Mutual agreed to a class of approximately 200,000 class members and approximately $15 million was made available to class members.
Botsko, et al. vs. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Case Nos. BC300136 and BC 298842
Van Riper, et al. vs. Smart Disk Corporation, Case No. BC348134
Truong, et al. vs. La Cie, Case No. BC351078
In Re Automobile Advertising Cases, Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding No. 4149.
Schwebel v. Brookstone Company, Inc., case number BC321522.
The Great Escape Promotion Cases, Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding No. 4343.
Phelps v. Provide Commerce, Inc. dba ProFlowers, case number BC340863.
Robertson v. Trimspa Corporation, case number BC315896.
Molnar v. 1-800-Flowers Retail, Inc., case number BC382828.
Consumer Cases Based on Unlawful Request for Personal Information
Decario vs. Lerner New York, Inc., case number BC317954.
Nigro vs. The Mens Wearhouse, case number 313038.
Jensen vs. Gucci, case number BC311199.
In Re Children’s Place Cases, case number JCCP 4418.
Moriel vs. Richemont North America, LLC, dba Cartier, case number 06CC00010.
Dahlerbruch vs. MontBlanc North America, LLC, case number 05CC00127.
Martinez vs. Mothers Work, Inc., case number BC341369.
Ben Bridge Jeweler Cases, case number JCCP 4474.
Buenaventura vs. Nordstrom, Inc., case number BC344932.
MAC Cosmetic Cases, Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding No. 4471.
Krimsky vs. Fry's Electronics, Inc., case no. 07AS00928.
Gianci vs. Tory Burch, LLC, case no. BC419883.
Disclaimer: The results portrayed by these verdicts and/or settlements are dependent upon the facts of each case and that result will differ if based on different facts. No guarantee or warranty regarding the outcome of a specific future legal matter is intended by publication of these past results.
