Skip to main content

Camilo v. Ozuna

N.D. Cal.October 21, 2019No. 5:18-cv-02842
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
Labor: Fair Standards
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
settlement

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wage TheftFailure to Accommodate

Outcome

Court granted preliminary approval of a class action and collective action settlement in a wage-and-hour case involving overtime, meal break, rest break, waiting time, and pay stub violations under the FLSA and California Labor Code. The settlement was reached after the parties negotiated at arms-length with mediator assistance, with estimated defendant exposure of approximately $2 million before adjustments.

What This Ruling Means

**Camilo v. Ozuna: Fair Labor Standards Act Case** This case involved a worker named Camilo who filed a lawsuit against their employer, Ozuna, claiming violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA is the federal law that sets rules for minimum wage, overtime pay, and other basic workplace protections. The case was filed in federal court in Northern California in October 2019. Unfortunately, the available court records don't provide enough information to determine what specific wage and hour violations Camilo alleged or how the court ultimately decided the case. The case could have involved issues like unpaid overtime, minimum wage violations, or improper record-keeping by the employer. **What This Means for Workers:** Even without knowing the outcome, this case serves as a reminder that workers have the right to file federal lawsuits when employers violate wage and hour laws. The Fair Labor Standards Act gives employees important protections, including the right to receive at least minimum wage and overtime pay for hours worked over 40 in a week. Workers who believe their employer has violated these rules can seek help from the Department of Labor or file their own lawsuit in federal court.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Camilo
N.D. Cal.Apr 2020
Settlement
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win
James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 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.