---
title: "Jury Verdict | Blog | Exlitem"
meta:
  "og:title": " Jury Verdict | Blog | Exlitem"
---

Jury Verdict Categories

### **Jury Verdict Articles**

Explore jury verdict articles and case studies.

## **Search**

## **Filters**

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/Steak_48_Settles_Wage_Hour_Class_Action_for_252_0001.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/steak-48-settles-wage-hour-class-action-for-252000-)

[**Labor and Employment Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law) [**Wage and Hour Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law)

April 14, 2026

###### [Steak 48 Settles Wage & Hour Class Action for $252,000](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/steak-48-settles-wage-hour-class-action-for-252000-)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/steak-48-settles-wage-hour-class-action-for-252000-)

On April 17, 2025, the Los Angeles County Superior Court granted final approval for a class action settlement between plaintiffs Marina Durham and Cassandra Hall-LePrevost and defendant Steak 48 Beverly Hills, LLC. The litigation, which consolidated two separate complaints, alleged that the high-end dining establishment engaged in systematic labor violations, including the failure to authorize required rest periods and meal breaks, and the failure to pay minimum and overtime wages for all hours worked. The plaintiffs, representing a class of non-exempt employees who worked at the restaurant between November 20, 2019, and June 27, 2024, also claimed the employer failed to reimburse business expenses related to uniform cleaning and provided inaccurate wage statements. Under the terms of the agreement, Steak 48 will pay a Gross Settlement Amount of $252,000 to resolve the claims without admitting liability. The settlement also includes $25,000 in PAGA penalties and attorney fees for class counsel.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/DAN_BECK_ET_AL1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/38m-wage-class-action-settlement-approved-by-sf-court)

[**Labor and Employment Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law) [**Wage and Hour Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law)

April 10, 2026

###### [$3.8M Wage Class Action Settlement Approved by SF Court](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/38m-wage-class-action-settlement-approved-by-sf-court)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/38m-wage-class-action-settlement-approved-by-sf-court)

The University of San Francisco reached a court-approved $3,888,888 resolution in a long-running wage and hour class action brought by two former employees on behalf of hundreds of part-time adjunct instructors and remote workers. Filed in early 2021 in the San Francisco County Superior Court, the lawsuit alleged that the University systematically violated California labor laws by failing to properly calculate overtime pay, denying mandatory meal and rest breaks, issuing inaccurate wage statements, and shorting departing employees on their final paychecks. Plaintiffs Dan Beck and Bienvenida Salazar argued that the school's payroll system excluded non-discretionary compensation from the "regular rate of pay," resulting in years of underpayment for non-exempt workers who kept the campus running. After extensive discovery and arm's-length negotiations, the parties reached a comprehensive settlement that received final approval from Judge Ethan P. Schulman on February 14, 2025. The Gross Settlement Amount of $3,888,888.00, inclusive of the Defendant's share of payroll taxes, covers three distinct classes: an Unpaid Wage Class of part-time adjunct instructors employed between January 4, 2017 and September 8, 2020, a Wage Statement Class covering adjuncts from January 4, 2020 through September 8, 2020, and an Expense Reimbursement Class for employees who worked remotely in California between March 11, 2020 and July 31, 2021. No class members objected, and only five individuals opted out.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/Cardenas.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/flsa-overtime-pay-lawsuit-jury-verdict-and-case-summary-)

[**Labor and Employment Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law) [**Wage and Hour Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law)

April 3, 2026

###### [FLSA Overtime Pay Lawsuit: Jury Verdict and Case Summary](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/flsa-overtime-pay-lawsuit-jury-verdict-and-case-summary-)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/flsa-overtime-pay-lawsuit-jury-verdict-and-case-summary-)

Misael Cardenas Rico, a long-time employee of Performance Auto Wholesalers LLC, filed a federal lawsuit alleging that his employers failed to pay him overtime wages for a decade of service. Cardenas, who worked as a car detailer, claimed that he regularly exceeded 40 hours per week while cleaning vehicles for interstate sale. He pointed to a fragmented payment system involving multiple bi-weekly and monthly checks as evidence of a scheme to mask his true hours. The Defendants, led by Fernando Ivan Prado and Mateo Prado, denied the allegations, arguing that the business was exempt from federal overtime laws and that Cardenas had not worked the extra hours claimed. Following a trial in March 2026, a Miami jury sided with the Defendants, finding no violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/RANKIRITLANE.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/live-in-caregiver-overtime-class-action-fails-at-jury-trial)

[**Labor and Employment Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law) [**Wage and Hour Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law)

March 30, 2026

###### [Live-In Caregiver Overtime Class Action Fails at Jury Trial](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/live-in-caregiver-overtime-class-action-fails-at-jury-trial)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/live-in-caregiver-overtime-class-action-fails-at-jury-trial)

A live-in caregiver who worked 24-hour shifts caring for a 94-year-old client sued her employer for unpaid overtime, alleging the agency paid a flat daily rate with no overtime, excluded sleep and meal time without written agreements, and ignored her nightly sleep interruptions. The jury found the caregiver failed to prove her actual hours worked exceeded forty per week and returned a defense verdict on all counts.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/HARRIS1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/harris-v-rl-liquidators-500000-paga-labor-settlement)

[**Labor and Employment Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law) [**Wage and Hour Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law)

February 24, 2026

###### [Harris v. RL Liquidators: $500,000 PAGA Labor Settlement](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/harris-v-rl-liquidators-500000-paga-labor-settlement)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/harris-v-rl-liquidators-500000-paga-labor-settlement)

Anthony Harris, Elijah Mayorga, and Limmie Propps led a representative action against RL Liquidators, LLC, alleging systemic violations of the California Labor Code. The plaintiffs contended that the liquidation company failed to pay proper minimum and overtime wages, neglected to provide mandated meal and rest periods, and issued inaccurate wage statements to its hourly workforce. While RL Liquidators denied all allegations of wrongdoing, the parties ultimately reached a $500,000 global settlement. Approved by the Sacramento County Superior Court in October 2024, the settlement provided significant civil penalties to the State of California and recovery for the aggrieved employees, resolving claims spanning from June 2021 through February 2024.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/Charles.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/charles-v-varsity-tutors-2m-misclassification-settlement)

[**Labor and Employment Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law) [**Wage and Hour Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law)

February 24, 2026

###### [Charles v. Varsity Tutors: $2M Misclassification Settlement](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/charles-v-varsity-tutors-2m-misclassification-settlement)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/charles-v-varsity-tutors-2m-misclassification-settlement)

Alexander Charles and Henry Mulak challenged Varsity Tutors LLC’s business model, arguing that the company’s "Independent Contractor Agreement" was a legal workaround to avoid paying overtime and travel expenses. The tutors alleged they spent significant unpaid hours navigating California traffic and preparing materials without compensation. While the company defended its practices by citing tutor flexibility, the litigation exposed the high risks of misclassifying gig-economy workers. After years of legal maneuvering over arbitration clauses, the parties reached a $2 million settlement to resolve claims involving over 500 California-based tutors.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/Abdelmalak_1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/prime-healthcare-183m-paga-settlement-for-wage-violations-)

[**Labor and Employment Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law) [**Wage and Hour Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law)

February 24, 2026

###### [Prime Healthcare $1.83M PAGA Settlement for Wage Violations](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/prime-healthcare-183m-paga-settlement-for-wage-violations-)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/prime-healthcare-183m-paga-settlement-for-wage-violations-)

Christina Abdelmalak, a former employee of Prime Healthcare Anaheim, LLC (doing business as West Anaheim Medical Center), initiated a representative legal action under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The lawsuit alleged that the healthcare facility systematically failed to compensate non-exempt employees for all hours worked, including mandatory off-the-clock COVID-19 health screenings. Furthermore, the Plaintiff contended that heavy workloads led to chronic missed meal and rest periods, and that the company failed to properly calculate overtime rates by excluding non-discretionary bonuses. To avoid the rising costs of a prolonged legal battle, both parties agreed to a $1,835,000 settlement, which received final Court approval in early 2026.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/Navarro.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/navarro-v-floor-decor-california-paga-settlement)

[**Labor and Employment Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law) [**Wage and Hour Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law)

February 9, 2026

###### [Navarro v. Floor & Decor: California PAGA Settlement](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/navarro-v-floor-decor-california-paga-settlement)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/navarro-v-floor-decor-california-paga-settlement)

Rafael Navarro, a former cashier at Floor and Decor in Oxnard, California, led a representative enforcement action under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) against the national retailer. The lawsuit alleged that the company maintained centralized corporate policies that systematically violated California labor laws, including failing to pay overtime, denying proper meal and rest periods, and issuing inaccurate wage statements. A significant portion of the claim focused on the company’s failure to provide stools or seats for cashiers, despite the work allowing for a seated position. To resolve the litigation, Floor and Decor agreed to a settlement.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/TRICIA_YEOMANS.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/65m-settlement-in-wfg-insurance-misclassification-case)

[**Labor and Employment Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law) [**Wage and Hour Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law)

January 30, 2026

###### [$65M Settlement in WFG Insurance Misclassification Case](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/65m-settlement-in-wfg-insurance-misclassification-case)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/65m-settlement-in-wfg-insurance-misclassification-case)

In a major resolution for California labor rights, World Financial Group (WFG) agreed to a $65 million settlement to resolve long-standing allegations of worker misclassification. The lawsuit, spearheaded by Tricia Yeomans, represented a class of approximately 25,000 associates who claimed the insurance giant treated them as employees while denying them basic legal protections. The Plaintiffs argued that under California’s "ABC test," WFG exercised excessive control over their work methods and corporate policy adherence. By labeling them independent contractors, the company allegedly avoided paying minimum wages, overtime, and business expenses. After nearly seven years of litigation and extensive discovery, Judge Christine Van Aken approved the settlement in early 2025, providing significant recovery for unpaid wages and PAGA penalties.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/DEMETRIUS1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/radin-logistics-settles-watson-wage-claim-for-120000)

[**Labor and Employment Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law) [**Wage and Hour Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law)

January 19, 2026

###### [Radin Logistics settles Watson wage claim for $120,000.](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/radin-logistics-settles-watson-wage-claim-for-120000)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/wage-and-hour-law/jury-verdict/radin-logistics-settles-watson-wage-claim-for-120000)

Demetrius Watson filed a class-action lawsuit against Radin Logistics LLC, alleging the company systematically violated California labor laws. Watson, an hourly employee, claimed that the logistics firm failed to provide mandatory meal and rest periods, neglected to pay earned overtime wages, and required staff to use personal cell phones for work without reimbursement. The complaint described these actions as a broader corporate strategy to minimize costs at the expense of worker rights. To avoid the complexities of a prolonged trial, Radin Logistics agreed to a $120,000 settlement to compensate Watson and other affected "aggrieved employees" for unpaid wages and statutory penalties.

1

2

3

4