Steak 48 Settles Wage & Hour Class Action for $252,000

Case Background

This class action lawsuit emerged from the consolidation of two separate legal complaints filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. The litigation targeted the employment practices of Steak 48 Beverly Hills, LLC, a high-end dining establishment, regarding its treatment of hourly, non-exempt staff members. The legal battle began when Cassandra Hall-LePrevost filed her initial complaint on August 14, 2023, followed by a second complaint from Marina Durham on November 20, 2023. These actions were eventually merged into a single operative complaint representing a class of workers employed by the defendant between November 20, 2019, and June 27, 2024.

Cause

Two former employees, Marina Durham and Cassandra Hall-LePrevost, initiated legal action against their former employer, Steak 48 Beverly Hills, LLC, a high-end steakhouse operating in Los Angeles County. The dispute arose from the employment practices at the restaurant, specifically concerning the treatment of non-exempt, hourly workers. Marina Durham worked as a server for the Defendant from approximately October 2022 to November 2023. The Plaintiffs alleged that the restaurant management engaged in systematic violations of California labor laws. The core of the complaint centered on the employer's alleged failure to authorize and permit required rest periods and meal breaks, as well as failures regarding overtime compensation, minimum wage payments, and the maintenance of accurate payroll records.

Injury

The workforce at the steakhouse reportedly suffered economic harm due to these practices. The Plaintiffs contended that the restaurant's policies deprived them and approximately 200 other similarly situated employees of their lawful wages. Specifically, the employees claimed they experienced financial losses because they performed work off-the-clock without compensation, missed meal and rest breaks without receiving the statutory premium pay, and incurred unreimbursed business expenses for cleaning their uniforms. The alleged lack of accurate wage statements further compounded these injuries, as employees could not easily determine if they received fair payment for all hours worked.

Damages Sought

The Plaintiffs sought to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages for all hours worked, including time spent working during mandated break periods. They demanded premium pay—one hour of wages for each day a rest or meal break was not provided—as stipulated by the California Labor Code. Additionally, the legal action requested reimbursement for business-related expenses, specifically the costs associated with maintaining and cleaning uniforms. The lawsuit also pursued statutory penalties for the alleged failure to pay wages timely upon termination and for inaccurate wage statements, alongside attorneys' fees, litigation costs, and restitution under California’s Unfair Competition Law.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

Plaintiff(s): Marina Durham, individually and on Behalf of all others

·       Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Amir Seyedfarshi | Tatiana Hernandez | Mark Ozzello | David Greifinger | Calvin Marshall.

Defendant(s): Steak 48 Beverly Hills, Llc, And Does 1 To 100, inclusive

·       Counsel for Defendant(s): Ian B. Wieland | Megan K. Dutra.

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

Claims

Rest and Meal Period Violations The legal team for the Plaintiffs argued that the restaurant failed to authorize and permit the amount of rest time required by law. They asserted that the employer maintained a uniform policy that did not allow for a net ten-minute rest period for every four hours of work. Furthermore, they claimed that employees frequently worked shifts longer than five hours without receiving an uninterrupted thirty-minute meal period, and shifts longer than ten hours without a second meal period. The complaint emphasized that understaffing and heavy workloads often forced employees to work through these mandated breaks.

Unpaid Wages and Overtime Counsel for the Plaintiffs contended that the Defendant failed to pay minimum and overtime wages for all hours worked. They alleged that the restaurant utilized a rounding policy that worked to the detriment of the employees and failed to record all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day. Consequently, the workers did not receive the overtime and double-time pay rates entitled to them by state law.

Wage Statement and Record-Keeping Failures A significant portion of the argument focused on the accuracy of payroll records. The Plaintiffs argued that the wage statements provided to employees lacked essential information, such as the correct amount of gross and net wages earned and the applicable hourly rates. They asserted that these violations were knowing and intentional, preventing employees from accurately monitoring their compensation.

Business Expense Reimbursement The Plaintiffs also raised the issue of indemnification for business expenses. They argued that the employer violated the Labor Code by failing to reimburse employees for necessary expenditures incurred in the direct consequence of their duties, specifically referencing the costs for cleaning uniforms required for their job.

PAGA Penalties The lawsuit included claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The Plaintiffs sought civil penalties for the alleged Labor Code violations, acting as proxies for the state’s labor law enforcement agencies to collect penalties for the various wage and hour infractions.

Defense

General Denial and Compliance In response to the allegations, Steak 48 Beverly Hills, LLC filed an answer that generally denied each and every allegation made by the Plaintiffs. The defense argued that the restaurant had acted in good faith at all times and maintained a reasonable belief that its practices complied with all applicable laws and Wage Orders.

Affirmative Defenses The defense team raised numerous affirmative defenses to counter the claims. They asserted that the Plaintiffs could not satisfy the prerequisites for a class action, arguing that individual questions dominated the case and that the Plaintiffs were not adequate representatives of the proposed class. They further argued that any work allegedly performed off-the-clock was de minimis (too trivial to merit legal consideration) and that the employees had engaged in such activities without the employer’s knowledge or permission.

Good Faith and Lack of Willfulness Regarding the penalties sought for wage statement errors and waiting time violations, the defense argued that any alleged failures were not knowing, willful, or intentional. They maintained that they had provided all meal and rest periods as required by law and that any missed breaks were due to the employees' voluntary choices or failure to notify management, rather than company policy. The defense also claimed that any expenses incurred by employees were not necessary or directed by the employer.

Settlement

Settlement Agreement and Approval

The case did not conclude with a jury verdict but rather with a court-approved settlement. On April 17, 2025, the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, granted final approval to a class action and PAGA settlement between the parties. The court found that the settlement was fair, adequate, and reasonable, noting that it offered significant monetary recovery to the class members while avoiding the risks and delays associated with further litigation.

Financial Terms and Distribution

The total Gross Settlement Amount (GSA) agreed upon by the defendant was $252,000.00. This amount served as the all-inclusive fund to cover payments to the class members, attorneys' fees, and other associated costs. The defendant admitted no liability or wrongdoing by agreeing to this settlement.

Class Member Allocation After deducting fees and costs, the Net Settlement Amount available for distribution to the class was calculated at approximately $107,566.88. The settlement defined the class as all non-exempt hourly-paid individuals employed by the defendant in California between November 20, 2019, and June 27, 2024. The court ordered the Settlement Administrator, ILYM Group, Inc., to distribute individual settlement payments to the 478 participating class members based on the number of workweeks they worked during the class period.

Attorneys' Fees and Costs The court approved a payment of $84,000.00 to the Class Counsel for attorneys' fees, which represented one-third of the total settlement fund. Additionally, the court awarded $11,433.12 to reimburse the counsel for actual litigation costs incurred during the prosecution of the case.

Service Awards The named plaintiffs, Marina Durham and Cassandra Hall-LePrevost, received Class Representative Service Payments of $7,500.00 each, totaling $15,000.00. These awards recognized their role in initiating the action and their service on behalf of the settlement class.

PAGA Penalties The settlement allocated $25,000.00 toward penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. In accordance with state law, 75% of this amount ($18,750.00) went to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA), while the remaining 25% ($6,250.00) was designated for distribution among the aggrieved employees.

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