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, PAGA Actions, and Collective Actions

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

Aanerud, et al. v. Neumann LTD, et al. - Case No. 34-2014-00169720 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiffs alleged parking valets were not paid overtime and minimum wages, were subjected to unlawful deduction policies, and not provided meal and rest periods.

  • Acosta v. Acosta Sales, LLC, et al. - Case No. 2:11-CV-01796 (C.D. Cal.)
  • Plaintiffs alleged failure to pay overtime, off the clock wages, reimbursement, among other unpaid wages owed. This case was a national class action and collective action that extended beyond California and involved the Fair Labor Standards Act.

  • Acosta v. Evergreen Moneysource Mortgage Company - Case No. 34-2017-00206904 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiffs alleged the failure to pay contract wages, failure to pay all wages due at separation, the failure to provide sick time, the failure to provide accurate paystubs, and derivative violations under the Private Attorneys General Act.

  • Arnall v. North American Merchandising Service Inc. - Case No. 06AS01439 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiff alleged that employees were not paid overtime for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours per day and/or forty (40) hours per week.

  • Arrington, et al. v. Capital Express Lines, Inc., et al. - Case No. 34-2012-00134195 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiffs alleged that the employer 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. Plaintiffs also alleged the employer failed to pay wages for hours spent loading/unloading trucks or waiting in the trucks and failed to reimburse plaintiffs for expenses associated with their travel.

  • Camacho, et al. v. Z Street, Inc. d.b.a. Tower Café, et al. - Case No. 34-2014-00163880 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiffs are Spanish speakers who brought claims for meal and rest period violations and paycheck stub violations. Defendants had a policy to automatically clock out workers for 30 minutes whether they took the full meal break or not.

  • Cannon v. Miller Event Management, Inc., et al. - Case No. 34-2014-00168103 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiff and others worked as event staff at various entertainment venues. Defendant failed to pay overtime, pay minimum wages, provide meal and rest periods, and subjected employees to unlawful deduction policies.

  • Carlos v. Abel Mendoza, Inc., et al. - Case No. 34-2016-00195806 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiffs alleged they were not provided all meal and rest periods and they were not compensated for all such meal and rest periods, particularly the second meal period in a workday.

  • Clamens-Hollenback v. Atterro, Inc. - Case No. 17CV305535 (Santa Clara Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiff alleged the unlawful witholding of vacation wages at separation, failure to pay all wages at separation, the failure to maintain a lawful sick leave policy, and failure to provide compliant wage statements.

  • Colbert v. American Home Craft Inc. - Case No. 05AS05012 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • Plainitff alleged that employees, telemarketers, were not paid for all hours worked, failed to receive the correct amount of bonuses, and were forced to report to work and sent home without pay.

  • Garcia v. A-L Financial Corp. - Case No. 34-2014-00171831 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiff alleged that the employer misclassified its employees working as “collectors” and as a result failed to pay overtime and minimum wages as well as failed to pay all reimbursements owed.

  • Gerard v. Les Schwab Tires Center of California, Inc. - Case 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 managers

  • Gilliam v. Matrix Energy Services, Inc. - Case No. RG 11592345 (Alameda Sup. Court)
  • Plaintiff alleged failure to provide reimbursement expenses for use of personal vehicles, failure to pay all hours worked, and failure to pay overtime under unlawful piece rate and travel time compensation policies.

  • Gomez v. Mayflower Farms Incorporated, et al. - Case No. CV24157 (Colusa Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiff alleged the failure to pay overtime due to unlawful timekeeping policies, the failure to provide all meal and rest periods due, and other, derivative violations.

  • Hartwell v. Techforce Telecome, Inc. - Case No. 39-2014-00307197 (San Joaquin Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiff alleged that the employer’s piece rate compensation system failed to pay for overtime or for all hours worked. Plaintiff also alleged failure to pay reimbursement expenses and failure to provide meal and rest periods.

  • Heinz v. Wright Tree Services - Case No. 34-2012-00131949 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiff alleged that he and other employees in the tree trimming industry 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.

  • Hernandez v. Snyir, Inc. dba Two Men and a Truck - Case No. 34-2017-00207641 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiffs alleged the employer failed to pay all wages owed or provide all legally required meal and rest breaks due to its scheduling policies as well as its policies of deducting compensable time and requiring off-the-clock work be performed.

  • Hernandez, et al. v. MP Nexlevel of California, Inc., et al. - Case No. 3:16-CV-03015-JCS (N.D. Cal.)
  • Plaintiffs alleged nationwide collective action claims for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as California Class action for failure to pay overtime, minimum wages, provide meal and rest periods, and failure to reimburse all expenses

  • Josol v. Dial Medical Corp - Case No. 34-2008-00010040 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiff alleged unpaid overtime, unpaid reimbursements, and wage statement violations for home health workers.

  • Lynch v. Multiversal Enterprises - Tahoe Properties, LLC, dba the Landing Resort and Spa - Case No. PC20160562
  • Plaintiffs alleged a Private Attorneys General Act claim for failure to provide paystubs identifying the correct legal entity that was the employer.

  • Mejia v. Farmland Mutual insurance Company, et al. - Case No. 34-2017-00207507 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiff alleged the employer maintained unlawful vacation policies, including a use-it-or-lose it policy and failed to pay all accrued vacation wages at separation. Plaintiff also alleged the failure to provide accurate paystubs.

  • Muhieddine v. KBA Docusys, Inc., et al. - Case No. 34-2014-00164720 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiff, a technician, alleged that Defendant failed to record time accurately and misclassified him as exempt, resulting in the failure to pay overtime and minimum wages among other derivative statutory violations.

  • Rickwalt v. Direct Reconditioning, LLC, et al. - Case No. 34-2015-00175642 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiffs alleged that the employer failed to pay all overtime and minimum wages and rest period premiums due to Defendants’ piece-rate compensation system.

  • Robinson v. West of Chicago Restaurants, Inc., dba Chicago Fire - Case No. 34-2010-00082201 (Sac Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiffs alleged the employer failed to provide employees with meal and rest periods, triggering derivative penalty claims.

  • Rogers v. Les Schwab Tires Center of California, Inc. - Case 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.

  • Schechter et al. v. Isys Solutions, Inc. - Case No. RG10550517 (Alameda Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiffs were nurses who worked from home and traveled to different destinations to provide care. The Complaint alleged failure by the company to pay overtime, off the clock wages, and unreimbursed expenses.

  • Smith v. Capitol Administrators, Inc. - Case No. 34-2015-00183516 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiff alleged the employer provided non-compliant wage statements, triggering statutory and civil penalties.

  • Talent v. Leslie’s Poolmart, Inc. - Case No. 34-2012-00128539 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiffs claimed that the employer failed to provide tools and failed to reimburse employees for tools they had to purchase.

  • Toupe, et al. v. Phenomenex, Inc., et al. - Case No. 16-CV-9562 (Amador Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiffs alleged that the employer unlawfully failed to pay overtime and minimum wages, provide meal and rest periods, or provide accurate wage statements with derivative PAGA violations due to rounding, deduction, and scheduling policies.

  • Williams v. Civic Development Group - Case No. 06AS00267 (Sac. Sup. Ct.)
  • Plaintiff alleged that telemarketers were not provided full ten (10) minute rest breaks for each four (4) hours worked.