The court denied plaintiff's motion to quash subpoenas issued to third parties (plaintiff's former employers), but imposed protective conditions on document production to address privacy concerns.
Estrada v. Avalon Health Care: Healthcare Worker Wage Dispute
This case involved a healthcare worker who sued Avalon Health Care Hearthstone LLC over unpaid wages. The employee claimed the company violated federal wage and hour laws, specifically the Fair Labor Standards Act, which requires employers to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation. The case also involved claims related to the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The lawsuit was heard by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers several western states including California. However, the specific outcome of this case is not available in the court records provided.
What This Means for Workers:
Even without knowing the final result, this case highlights important workplace rights. The Fair Labor Standards Act protects all workers by requiring proper payment for hours worked, including overtime pay for time worked beyond 40 hours per week. Healthcare workers, who often work long or irregular shifts, are particularly vulnerable to wage violations. Workers who believe their employer has failed to pay proper wages can file complaints with the Department of Labor or pursue legal action in court. It's important for all employees to track their hours worked and understand their rights to fair compensation.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Other orders and opinions in Estrada 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.