No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Class action settlement approved in wage-and-hour litigation against Leprino Foods Company. Multiple consolidated cases involving California Labor Code violations, meal/rest break violations, off-the-clock work, and PAGA claims were settled with defendant agreeing to pay settlement amounts, attorneys' fees, costs, and enhancement awards.
Vasquez v. Leprino Foods Company Settlement
What Happened
Workers at Leprino Foods Company filed a class action lawsuit claiming the company violated California labor laws. The employees alleged they were not paid for all hours worked, weren't given required meal and rest breaks, and had to work off the clock without compensation.
What the Court Decided
The court approved a settlement requiring Leprino Foods to pay $2,270,375.94 to affected workers. The company also agreed to cover attorney fees and court costs. Multiple similar cases against the company were combined and resolved through this single agreement.
Why This Matters for Workers
This settlement shows that companies can be held accountable when they fail to follow California's strict wage-and-hour laws. Workers who believe their employer hasn't paid them properly, denied breaks, or required unpaid work should know they have legal options. Class action lawsuits allow groups of employees to challenge unfair practices together, making it easier to fight back against wage theft—even when individual amounts might seem small.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Other orders and opinions in Vasquez from the same court.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.