Van den Hende v. DPI Specialty Foods, Inc.
What is the Case Name?
James Van Den Hende and Fred Schroeder, et al. v. DPI Specialty Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. CIVRS1304516, pending before the San Bernardino County Superior Court
What is the Status of the Case?
The parties have reached a settlement. The court has preliminarily approved the settlement (see the court’s order below). The class members will be sent a notice of settlement that explains the terms of the settlement and how much money they are estimated to receive. The court will hold a hearing to decide whether to grant final approval of the settlement on May 13, 2015. If the court grants final approval, the settlement monies will be distributed, although it is not certain when they will be mailed. It could be as soon as three weeks after the May 13, 2015 hearing, but may be delayed for various reasons.
If you believe you qualify to be a class member or would like more information about this class action lawsuit, reach out to Strauss & Strauss, APC by calling (805) 303-8115 or contacting us online today.
What are the Claims?
The FIRST CLAIM is that Mr. Van Den Hende and Mr. Schroeder and each of you are owed monies for miles traveled in the execution of your duties as Sales Representatives. This includes miles driven above and beyond any flat rate sum given to you each pay period (whether through a paycheck or gas cards). We believe that California law requires that you be paid these amounts.
The SECOND CLAIM is that Mr. Van Den Hende and Mr. Schroeder and each of you were not paid for any overtime hours worked. We believe that your job duties required you to perform “non-sales related activities” (i.e. stocking, cleaning, facing, crediting out, discarding, unpacking, code-checking, submitting pre-determined orders) more than 50% of the time. If that is true, we believe that you are owed for overtime you worked.
The THIRD CLAIM is that Mr. Van Den Hende and Mr. Schroeder and each of you were deducted commissions on credited items (whether spoiled or otherwise returned through no fault of yours). In essence, DPI made you the insurer of its products. If so, we believe these deductions were unlawful.
The FOURTH CLAIM is that Mr. Van Den Hende and Mr. Schroeder and each of you were not paid minimum wage for tasks you performed that were completely unrelated to selling DPI’s products (which, as we understand it, was the majority of your day).
The FIFTH CLAIM is that Mr. Van Den Hende and Mr. Schroeder and each of you did not receive proper wage statements as required by Labor Code Section 226, and were unable to ascertain how the amounts you were paid were being calculated by DPI.
The SIXTH CLAIM is that Mr. Van Den Hende and Mr. Schroeder and each of you who were terminated since June 28, 2009, did not receive all the wages you were owed upon termination and/or resignation in violation of Labor Code Section 203, which provides for up to 30 days of wages as a “waiting-time” penalty.
The SEVENTH CLAIM is that DPI unfairly benefited from engaging in the above-mentioned violations of California labor laws.
The EIGHTH CLAIM is for civil penalties under the Private Attorney General’s Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), for each of the violations mentioned above.
Who is Affected?
All Sales Representatives employed by DPI Specialty Foods, Inc. (“DPI”) in California between June 28, 2009 and the present.
What Can I Do to Get Involved?
We are seeking information from you concerning the above-mentioned issues in preparation for the upcoming mediation scheduled for September 24, 2014. If you are willing to discuss these matters with us or if you have any questions about your rights/roles in this case as putative class members, please contact us. Despite what DPI, or anyone else might tell you, any communications with our office will be held in complete confidence.
Who Can I Contact About the Case?
Important Case Documents
Notice of Ruling on Motion for Preliminary Approval
Second Amended Complaint
“Strauss & Strauss represented me in several cases against a former employer. They were taking on a Fortune 500 company that employed some of the world's biggest law firms. Michael Strauss and Andrew Ellison beat them every time.”- Stephen Craig
Gonzalez v. Key Energy
Gutierrez v. Halliburton
Henson v. Seares Valley Mineral Operations, Inc.
Hiriarte v. Weatherford
Ayala v. Terminix International, Inc.
Bautista v. Alliance Environmental Group
Bognuda v. Great White Dental
Candete v. Cummins Transportation
Derousseau v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation
Dietz v. Ecolab Inc.
We Don't Give Up
If we don't get a favorable ruling the first time around, we work hard to appeal cases to ensure we do everything we can for your case.
We Exclusively Represent Employees
We fight on behalf of employees only and are not afraid of going up against the largest corporations in the country, if not the world.
We Think Outside of the Box
Our seasoned team of attorneys come up with innovative solutions unheard of in the past in order to advance their cases in court.
Over $100 Million Recovered
In the last decade, Strauss & Strauss APC has recovered over $100 million dollars for employees in California.