What People Say About Us

I have known Galen for over 8 years. He is an honest, diligent, and intelligent attorney, and I would (and have) recommended him to my closest friends.
I wouldn't hesitate to call the Shimoda Law Group in the future, if the need for assistance arises.

Galen and the team at Shimoda Law were recommended to me, and I'm glad I took that advice.

I had never been thru any kind of legal conflict like this. Their experience working for the" little guy" was very helpful. For the most part Galen was able to tell me what to expect as we moved thru the process. I don't know how individuals would get any kind of legal help, if it were not for offices like Shimoda Law Corp. We were successful in getting a settlement that was better for me and helped to offset some of the loss I experienced.

If you need help with employment law, and you have to go up against a large company by yourself, Shimoda Law are the people you need to talk to.

When I made an appointment with your office to ask an employment related question, I walked out of your office with information regarding the law in CA that I was not aware of and ended up with a substantial settlement . . . you recognized an employment situation that had been occurring for 13 yrs that was unlawful in the State of California. I was astonished and very pleased with the outcome! Throughout the process, you and your staff treated me extremely special and always professional and caring.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude for standing by my side in my case. My experience with this legal matter was at minimal stress for me. You assured me that my case had precedence. You were unwavering in your representation of my case. I felt as if I was solving my legal matters with friends. Your staff is exceptional. I will not hesitate in referring others for legal advice. Thank you for caring about me. With great appreciation

I approached Shimoda Law with a case of employer discrimination due my affiliation with the National Guard. Galen listened to my concerns and accepted my case. He was forthright and told me he only accepts cases that have merit and that he believes he could win in front of a jury. Our initial meeting and his acceptance of my case began a legal process that lasted over a year but that resulted in a very satisfactory settlement.

In taking my case Galen explained the differences between how laws were written, how courts interpret them, and how a jury (and even the opposing attorney) might view the law relative to the "sexiness" and/or technical merits of the case. This was valuable to understand how the legal system really works and reassuring that Galen and his team knew how to operate within the system.

Through every phase of the case - filing, discovery, deposition, mediation, and ultimately settlement - Galen and Justin were careful to explain the process and ensure we were level - set on reasonable expectations regarding potential outcomes. There were no surprises or disappointments. During the actual mediation and settlement discussions Galen was able to accurately anticipate counter arguments and, relying on his vast experience, predict where the opposing attorneys would want to settle and, more importantly, how far above that point to push for the final settlement amount.

I highly recommend Shimoda Law and I wouldn't hesitate to contact them for any future employment law concerns. The team at Shimoda Law clearly explained the law related to my case, set reasonable expectations, and diligently worked to execute the case to a satisfactory conclusion.

Class Actions

The Shimoda Law Corp. has settled and is litigating the following class action lawsuits on behalf of employees in California:

Camacho v. Z Street, Inc. d.b.a. Tower Café No. 34-2014-00163880
  • Plaintiffs are Spanish speakers who brought claims for meal and rest period violations and paycheck stubs. Defendant had a policy to automatically clock out workers for 30 minutes whether they took the full meal break or not. The case is currently being litigated.

  • Muhieddine v. KBA Docusys, Inc., et al. No. 34-2014-00164720
  • Plaintiff, a technician, alleged that Defendant failed to record time accurately and misclassified him as exempt. Plaintiff claimed overtime, meal period violations, wages and penalties. The case is currently being settled.

  • Cielito v. Fortune Senior Enterprises, et al. No. 34-2014-00164697
  • Plaintiffs were care home workers who did not receive overtime pay for time spent at the clients’ homes despite working 24 hour shifts. Defendant had a policy to deduct eight hours per night automatically despite being on shift. Plaintiffs seek minimum and overtime, meal and rest period wages, penalties, and interest as damages. The case is currently being litigated.

  • Aanerud v. Neumann LTD, et al. No. 34-2014-00169324
  • Plaintiffs worked as hourly valet servicers and limousine drivers who failed to receive any overtime. Plaintiffs also claim that they were not relieved so as to take meal and rest breaks. The case is currently being litigated.

  • Cannon v. Miller Event Management, Inc., et al. No. 34-2014-00168103
  • Plaintiff worked as event workers at different entertainment venues. Defendant failed to provide accurate pay stubs and did not keep time records. Plaintiff alleges that class members were thus deprived of all wages, including overtime and minimum wages. They also seek meal and rest break wages and penalties. This case is currently being litigated.

  • Malonson v. Michael Keith Lanham d.b.a. Marketing Source, et al. No. 34-2014-00164702
  • Plaintiffs failed to receive any overtime wages. After informing Defendant of their intent to sue, Defendant paid a number of employees overtime wages. Plaintiffs still seek full compensation for all class members for Defendant’s failure to pay overtime wages, as well as penalties under the Private Attorney General Act. This case is currently being litigated.

  • Roane v. Metrocell Construction, Inc. No. CIVDS1500324
  • Plaintiff alleges that he was not paid for all hours worked. Further the time cards Plaintiff kept did not match the paychecks provided to him. Plaintiff seeks payment for all wages as well as penalties. This case is currently being litigated.

  • Alvarez v. All Maintenance Inc., No. 34-2013-00156386 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiff has brought class and PAGA claims for overtime wages, minimum wages, and reimbursement for misclassifying him and others as independent contractors. This case has settled and is currently in administration.

  • Hartwell v. Techforce Telecome, Inc., 39-2014-00307197 (San Joaquin Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiff alleges that he and others were not paid overtime wages, minimum wages, reimbursement expenses, among others. This case has settled and is currently in administration.

  • Heinz v. Wright Tree Services, No. 34-2012-00131949 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiffs allege that he and other putative class members worked in the tree trimming industry, that they worked under several prevailing wage classifications without being paid the prevailing wage for each type of work performed, and that they were required to work prior to the official start of their work day, thereby incurring additional overtime hours that were uncompensated. The case has settled and is currently in administration.

  • Arrington v. Capital Express Lines, Inc., et al.,No. 34-2012-00134195 (Sac. Sup. Ct)
  • Plaintiffs allege that Defendant paid truck drivers under a piece rate system (where Plaintiffs earned money based only on miles driven) that did not comply with California’s minimum wage law. Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs wages for hours spent loading/unloading trucks or waiting in the trucks and failed to reimburse Plaintiffs for expenses associated with their travel.

  • Talent v. Leslie’s Poolmart, Inc., Case No. 34-2012-00128539 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiffs claimed that Defendant failed to provide tools and failed to reimburse employees for tools they had to purchase. This case has settled and is closed.

  • Gasbarro v. Kovars, Inc., Case No. 34-2011-00097883 (Sacramento Sup. Court)
  • Plaintiff alleges Defendant required all employees to sign a covenant not to compete in violation of the California Business and Professions Code section 16600. This case has resolved.

  • Gilliam v. Matrix Energy Services, Inc., Case No. RG 11592345 (Alameda Sup. Court)
  • Plaintiff is alleging failure to provide reimbursement expenses for use of personal vehicles, failure to pay all hours worked, and failure to pay overtime.
  • This case has settled for $450,000 and payments have been mailed to class members.

  • Acosta v. Acosta Sales, LLC, et al., No. Case No. 2:11-CV-01796 (C.D. Cal.)
  • Plaintiffs allege failure to pay overtime, off the clock wages, reimbursement, among other wages owed. This case is a multi-national class action that extends beyond California and involves the FLSA.
  • This case has settled for $9.9 million dollars and payments have been mailed to class members.

  • Schechter et al. v. Isys Solutions, Inc., Case No. RG10550517 (Alameda Sup. Ct.)
  • This case involves nurses who work from home and travel to different destinations. The Complaint alleges failure by the company to pay overtime, off the clock wages, and reimbursement wages.
  • This case has settled for $900,000 and payments have been mailed to class members.

  • Robinson v. West of Chicago Restaurants Inc. (dba as Chicago Fire), Case No. 2010-00082201 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiff alleges that the company failed to provide him and other similarly situated employees meal and rest periods as required by law. This case settled and Plaintiff is preparing for preliminary approval of settlement.
  • This case has settled and payments have been mailed to class members.

  • Fowler v. Huisman Auction, Inc. Case No. 34-2009-00058597 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • This case is an individual action brought on behalf of “similarly situated” employees under the Private Attorney General Act (Labor Code section 2699 et al.). Plaintiff has alleged violations of overtime, meal and rest breaks, and inaccurate paystubs.
  • This case settled.

  • Colbert v. American Home Craft Inc., No. 05AS05012 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • This case involved telemarketers who were not paid for all hours worked, failed to receive the correct amount of bonuses, and were forced to report to work and then sent home without pay.
  • The case settled and was approved by the Sacramento Superior Court. The settlement included monetary and non-monetary relief including immediate compliance with wage and hour laws.

  • Williams v. Civic Development Group, No. 06AS00267 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiff alleged that telemarketers were not provided full 10 minute breaks for each four hours worked and not paid for their rest breaks. This case has resolved and the Sacramento Superior Court approved monetary and non-monetary relief as part of the settlement to putative class members.

  • Arnall v. North American Merchandising Service Inc., No. 06AS01439 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiff alleged that employees were not paid overtime for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day and/or 40 hours per week. This case has resolved and the Sacramento Superior Court approved monetary relief for class members.

  • Gerard v. Les Schwab Tires Center of California, Inc., No. 34-2007-30000003 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiff alleged that salaried employees unlawfully lost vacation pay based on a use-it or lose-it policy and that Defendant misclassified Store Manager. Plaintiff’s Motion for Certification was granted as to the vacation pay issue. This case settled.

  • Rogers v. Les Schab Tires Center of California, Inc. No. 34-2009-00066320 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiff alleged that he and other assistant managers were misclassified and failed to receive proper overtime and meal and rest breaks. This case settled for $5 million dollars and monies have been disbursed.

  • Aymer v. Sutter Health et al., No. 34-2008-00003432 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiff alleges that hourly employees including nurses were not provided meal and rest breaks in violation of California law. This case is currently being consolidated with other similar class actions filed. The case is currently in discovery.
  • Certification was denied by the Court and is up on appeal.

  • Josol v. Dial Medical Corp., No. 34-2008-00010040 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiff alleges that hourly employees including nurses were not reimbursed for mileage, overtime, and hours worked in violation of California law. The Court granted certification in this case.
  • This case has settled and the parties are working on dispositional papers for the Court.