Wang v. Chinese Daily News

Wang v. Chinese Daily News

If you worked as an employee of Chinese Daily News in Monterey Park, California, at any time from March 5, 2000, until July 1, 2005, you may have rights affected by the class action lawsuit, Wang v. Chinese Daily News.

This lawsuit arises from allegations and claims that Chinese Daily News failed to provide employees with meal and rest breaks, to pay vacation time at the proper rate, to issue accurate wage statements, to pay wages owed to terminated employees, and to pay proper wages, including overtime. The case has gone to trial and a judgment has been entered in favor of the members of the class in the amount of $5,291,365.74.

The court has appointed a special master, Lester J. Levy, Esq., to handle the claims and opt-out process and to determine the amount each member of the class is entitled to receive in this lawsuit. If you believe that you are an employee whose rights are affected by this lawsuit, please review the attachments and submit a claim form by no later than Wednesday, October 22, 2008.

Please be advised that Chinese Daily News, its employees, agents and attorneys have been ordered not to communicate with class members regarding the lawsuit or the claims and opt-out process. In addition, Chinese Daily News may not retaliate against any individual for filing a claim to participate in the lawsuit. Your decision as to whether or not to participate in or opt out of this lawsuit will remain confidential and will not be shared with Chinese Daily News.

Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai LLP, continues to represent a class of 200 employees in a long-running dispute with their employer, defendant Chinese Daily News in Monterey Park, California. The class includes hourly workers, reporters and salespeople. This lawsuit arises from Chinese Daily News’ failure to pay overtime, provide employees with meal and rest breaks, to pay vacation time at the proper rate, to issue accurate wage statements, and to pay wages owed to terminated employees.

On Jan. 10, 2007, after a three-week trial, a federal court jury found that Chinese Daily News violated state and federal wage and hour laws and awarded damages of $2.5 million to its employees. The jury found that Chinese Daily News failed to pay overtime and to allow rest and meal breaks to a plaintiff class of more than 200 employees at its Monterey Park facility. The jury found for the class on all of the claims and determined that Chinese Daily News had “willfully” failed to pay overtime to its reporters, salespeople and hourly employees. In August 2007, the second phase, a bench trial, was held before the District Court. The court found in favor of the employees on all of the claims, including the failure to pay overtime to the reporters, salespeople and hourly employees. All post-trial motions were denied, and the court entered judgment in the amount of approximately $5.1 million.

Chinese Daily News appealed the judgment to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. On Nov. 27, 2010, the 9th Circuit denied the appeal and affirmed the judgment in its entirety. Chinese Daily News then petitioned for relief from the United States Supreme Court. While the petition was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in the Dukes v. Walmart case and ordered the 9th Circuit to review its Nov. 27, 2010, ruling in this case in light of the Dukes decision. On remand, the 9th Circuit reversed the District Court’s original certification of class and asked the District Court to reconsider its findings of commonality under Rule 23(b)(3). A hearing was held in front of the District Court on Jan. 9, 2014, and on April 16, 2014, the District Court again certified the class as proper for resolution as a class action.

A copy of that order is attached.

For a free evaluation of your potential employment law, civil rights or class action case, we invite you to contact us

Contact Us Today

  • Please enter your first name.
  • Please enter your last name.
  • Please enter your phone number.
    This isn't a valid phone number.
  • Please enter your email address.
    This isn't a valid email address.
  • Please make a selection.
  • Please make a selection.
  • Please enter a message.