$250K Wage Settlement Hits Tijuanazo Restaurant Group
Table of Contents
Case Background
The legal proceeding, designated CIVSB2404841, originated in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Bernardino. This matter was a wage and hour dispute, structured as a class and representative action, filed on February 6, 2024. The named Plaintiff, Jose Ivan Arroyo, acted both individually and on behalf of a proposed class of former and current employees. The suit alleged that a group of restaurants and corporate entities had routinely failed to compensate their workers according to California labor laws. This case became a significant focal point in the regional dialogue concerning employee rights and the responsibilities of service industry employers.
Cause
The core of the lawsuit targeted systemic violations of the California Labor Code. Plaintiff Arroyo asserted that the Defendants had implemented policies that illegally deprived employees of proper wages and mandated break times. These failures included denying employees the required fifteen-minute rest periods and thirty-minute meal periods. Furthermore, the complaint alleged that the Defendant companies failed to fully pay workers for all hours worked, including overtime hours, and neglected to provide accurate, itemized wage statements as state law required.
Injury
The injuries alleged were primarily financial and personal. Employees suffered immediate monetary harm from unpaid wages, unpaid overtime premiums, and the lack of mandated compensation for missed rest and meal breaks. Beyond financial losses, the complaint argued that the constant denial of mandatory rest and meal periods constituted a violation of the basic working conditions intended to protect employee health and welfare.
Damages Sought
The Plaintiff demanded several forms of financial relief on behalf of the class. These included recovery of all unpaid straight wages and overtime wages. Additionally, the suit sought statutory damages in the form of premium pay for all missed meal and rest periods, along with financial penalties for the failure to provide accurate wage statements. Finally, the Plaintiff requested recovery of all related legal costs, including attorneys’ fees, and an order granting declaratory relief to force the restaurant group to immediately cease the alleged unlawful employment practices.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
The parties engaged seasoned legal counsel for the complex wage and hour litigation:
Plaintiff(s): Jose Ivan Arroyo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Scott Ernest Wheeler | Justin A. Wheeler
Defendant(s): Tijuanazo Inc | El Tijuanazo Corp | Birrieria El Tijuanazo | Does 1-50
Counsel for Defendant(s): John W Fagerholm
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
The legal teams framed their arguments sharply, setting the stage for a potential Courtroom battle.
Claims
Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the evidence clearly showed the restaurant group operated under a culture of non-compliance, prioritizing operational efficiency over employee welfare and legal obligation. They stated that payroll records, where they existed, and employee testimony demonstrated a consistent pattern of workers remaining on premises and working "off-the-clock" during times designated for breaks. The attorneys emphasized that the class action mechanism was necessary because the individual damages suffered by each worker were small, but the collective harm was substantial, representing a massive failure by the Defendants to respect California’s fundamental labor protections.
Defense
Defense attorneys strongly contested the allegations of willful misconduct. They maintained that any instances of missed breaks or recording errors were isolated incidents, not part of a company-wide scheme or policy. The defense argued that the entities had provided policies that allowed for meal and rest periods, and that if employees chose to waive or skip those periods, the fault did not rest entirely with management. They focused on narrowing the scope of the class, attempting to reduce the number of affected workers and thereby reducing the overall financial exposure for back wages and penalties.
Settlement
The Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, granted final approval of the class and PAGA settlement in Arroyo v. Tijuanazo Inc., El Tijuanazo Corp, Birrieria El Tijuanazo, et al., Case No. CIVSB2404841, on July 1, 2025. The lawsuit, brought by plaintiff Jose Ivan Arroyo on behalf of all non-exempt hourly employees who worked for the defendant restaurant entities in California between February 6, 2020, and December 31, 2024, alleged multiple wage and hour violations, including unpaid overtime, missed meal and rest periods, and inaccurate wage statements. The court approved a non-reversionary gross settlement fund of $250,000, meaning no portion of the settlement will revert to the defendants.
In approving the settlement, Judge Joseph B. Widman found the resolution to be fair, reasonable, and adequate under California law. The decision followed arm’s-length negotiations between the parties, informed by discovery and expert analysis of payroll and time records. The court noted that there were no objections, no requests for exclusion, and no disputes from any class members. The notice was distributed in both English and Spanish, satisfying due process requirements. As part of the judgment, all settlement class members have fully released the defendants from all claims arising during the covered period.
Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com