MarLu Restaurant Group Unpaid Overtime Class Action Settlement (California Only)
You are a Class Member, and therefore part of the settlement, if you meet one or more of the following definitions:
- Employed by Defendant as an hourly employee in California from November 7, 2013 through February 9, 2017;
- Employed by Defendant as a General Manager in California from November 7, 2010 through February 9, 2017;
- Employed by Defendant as a Manager or a Shift Lead in California from August 17, 2012 through February 9, 2017; or
- Employed by Defendant and worked any overnight shifts at any of Defendant’s Jack-in-the-Box locations in California, during the period beginning August 17, 2012 until February 9, 2017.
The amount you are entitled to receive if you file a Claim Form before the deadline depends on several factors including: how many weeks you worked during the period covered by the settlement, the job in which you worked, and how many other Class Members file Claim Forms before the deadline. Please note that for workweeks in which you were a member of more than one of the designated subclasses herein, the workweek totals as well as the corresponding payments you are eligible for will be apportioned to the subclass with the largest monetary payout. You can look on the Claim Form that was attached to your Notice to see an estimate of the amount you might receive if you file a Claim Form before the deadline.
Proof of Purchase
Evidence of Employment
Richard Barajas, et al. v. Marlu Restaurant Group Inc., et al. and Joe Ortiz v. Marlu Restaurant Group Inc., et al.,Case No. SACV14-01790 DOC (DFMx),District Court for the Central District of California
Plaintiff Joe Ortiz filed a complaint against Defendant on November 7, 2014 in the United States District Court. Ortiz made four claims: 1) that Defendant required some employees to work off the clock and failed to pay these employees straight or overtime wages for this off the clock work; 2) that Defendant failed to properly record employee work hours. 3) that Defendant failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements to its employees. 4) that Defendant failed to reimburse its employees for work-related expenses. The paystub claims apply to all hourly employees. The other claims deal with managers.
On August 17, 2016, the Plaintiffs in Barajas filed a complaint against Defendant in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. In addition to the issues in Ortiz, the Barajas Plaintiffs claim that 1) Defendant failed to provide some employees with meal breaks and failed to pay the extra wages due for preventing the employees from taking their meal breaks. 2) that Defendant required some employees to be paid their wages through paycards without providing the option of payment by check; and that Defendant failed to provide appropriate seating for its employees at cash register locations. The meal break claims apply to Manager and Shift Lead employees and employees who worked overnight shifts. The paycard claims apply to employees at Jack in the Box locations operated by any Defendant. On December 27, 2016, the claims asserted by Plaintiff Joe Ortiz were added to the Barajas v. Marlu case in the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Defendant denies the allegations. Defendant contends its policies, practices, and procedures were and are fully compliant with all applicable requirements of state and federal law. The Court has not made any ruling on the merits of this case. The attorneys for Plaintiffs and Defendant have agreed to settle the Action, subject to the approval of the Court.