Wang v. 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.