Caravantes v. Gil & Roy Studios $470K Wage Settlement

Case Background

David Caravantes filed a class action lawsuit against Gil & Roy Studios, LLC and Modernica, Inc. on June 5, 2023, in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles. The case centered on alleged wage and hour violations affecting hourly non-exempt employees who worked for the Defendants in California.

Caravantes worked for the Defendants as an hourly non-exempt employee from approximately January 2018. He brought the lawsuit on behalf of himself and other similarly situated workers who claimed the companies failed to follow California labor laws.

Cause

The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants engaged in systematic labor law violations against their hourly workers. The complaint accused the companies of rounding down or shaving employee work hours at clock-in and clock-out times to benefit the employers. Workers claimed they performed work duties without receiving proper compensation for all time spent under the company's control.

The lawsuit also alleged the Defendants failed to provide second meal periods to employees who worked shifts exceeding ten hours. Additionally, the complaint stated that workers did not receive third rest periods when they worked shifts longer than ten hours. The Plaintiff further claimed the companies required employees to use the "When I Work" application on their personal cell phones for work purposes without reimbursing them for cellular data costs.

Injury

The affected employees suffered financial losses from unpaid wages at minimum wage rates for all hours worked. Workers who performed overtime did not receive proper overtime compensation. Employees missed out on meal period premium wages when they did not receive legally required breaks. Rest period premium wages went unpaid when workers did not get their entitled breaks. The class members also incurred personal expenses for work-related cell phone usage that the Defendants never reimbursed.

Damages Sought

The Plaintiff and class members sought recovery of unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, meal period premium wages, and rest period premium wages. They also requested reimbursement for employment-related expenses, statutory penalties for inaccurate wage statements, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs of suit. The complaint included claims for injunctive relief and restitution under California's Unfair Competition Law.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

Plaintiff: David Caravantes, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated

·       Counsel for Plaintiff: Joseph Lavi | Vincent C. Granberry | Eric J. Naessig | Aroeste Alexander

Defendant: Gil & Roy Studios, LLC | Modernica, Inc.

·       Counsel for Defendant: John Valentine, Jr

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

The Plaintiff's attorneys argued that the Defendants maintained policies and procedures that systematically deprived workers of their rightful wages. They contended the time-rounding practices consistently benefited the employers at the expense of employees. Class counsel asserted that the settlement provided fair compensation to affected workers while avoiding the risks and delays of continued litigation.

Defense counsel maintained throughout the proceedings that the Defendants denied all alleged wrongdoing and liability. They argued the Plaintiff's claims were not appropriate for class or representative treatment. The defense asserted that the company provided meal periods as required by law and authorized employees to take rest periods in compliance with California regulations.

Claims

The complaint raised seven causes of action against the Defendants.

Minimum Wage Violations: The Plaintiff claimed the Defendants violated Labor Code sections 1194 and 1197 by failing to pay wages for all hours worked at the legal minimum wage rate.

Overtime Violations: The lawsuit alleged violations of Labor Code sections 510 and 1194 for failure to pay overtime wages for daily overtime worked.

Meal Period Violations: The complaint accused the Defendants of violating Labor Code sections 512 and 226.7 by failing to authorize or permit proper meal periods.

Rest Period Violations: The Plaintiff claimed violations of Labor Code section 226.7 for failure to authorize or permit required rest periods.

Indemnification Failures: The lawsuit alleged violations of Labor Code section 2802 for failure to reimburse employees for employment-related expenses.

Wage Statement Violations: The complaint claimed violations of Labor Code section 226 for failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements.

Unfair Business Practices: The Plaintiff alleged violations of Business and Professions Code sections 17200 for unfair competition through the above labor law violations.

Defense

The Defendants filed their answer on November 15, 2023, and denied all allegations in the complaint. They raised eighteen affirmative defenses challenging the Plaintiff's claims.

The defense argued the complaint failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. They asserted statute of limitations barred some claims and that the Plaintiff lacked standing to bring the action on behalf of others. The Defendants contended their conduct was not willful regarding waiting time penalties and that employees voluntarily waived meal and rest periods that the company provided.

The defense maintained the alleged conduct was not knowing or intentional for wage statement penalty purposes. They argued the Plaintiff could not satisfy class certification requirements and that individual issues predominated over common questions. The Defendants also claimed the business practices at issue were not unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent.

Settlement

The Court granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement on May 20, 2025. The settlement certified a class consisting of all hourly non-exempt employees who worked for the Defendants in California during the class period from June 5, 2019, through August 20, 2024.

The Defendants agreed to fund a gross settlement amount of $470,000 plus employer payroll taxes. The settlement administrator, ILYM Group, Inc., distributed notice to all class members informing them of their rights to object or exclude themselves from the settlement.

No class members objected to the settlement terms. One class member, Steven Bishop, requested exclusion from the settlement.

On November 4, 2025, Judge Elaine Lu of Department 9 granted final approval of the class action settlement. The Court found the settlement was entered in good faith and was fair, reasonable, and adequate under California law.

The settlement did not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the Defendants. The Court retained jurisdiction over all matters related to the administration and enforcement of the settlement terms. A compliance review hearing was scheduled for February 10, 2027, to confirm proper distribution of all settlement funds.

Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com