Proudly Serving Clients Throughout California
Zavala v. Resource Staffing Inc.

Join us in the fight for workers' rights. Get in touch today.

Zavala v. Resource Staffing, Inc.

What Is The Lawsuit About?

This lawsuit claimed that Defendants Resource Staffing, Inc. and Pactiv Packaging, Inc. improperly took deductions from employees’ pay by charging “Placement Fees” from the earnings of the employees in violation of California law, for the time period of December 24, 2008 through March 18, 2014. Specifically, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (a copy of which is below) states:

15. Defendant RSI is an employment agency, staffing service and recruitment company which, among 
other things, is in the business of placing persons seeking employment into positions with various 
companies located throughout California. Upon placing a prospective employee into a position of 
employment, defendant RSI maintains a practice of deducting a “placement fee” from said employees 
wages earned. These deductions are taken from the initial pay periods of the successfully-placed 

Plaintiff alleged that Defendants Resource Staffing, Inc. and Pactive Packaging, Inc. were her joint employers and, therefore, both jointly liable.

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.

Why Is This A Class Action?

This case is a class action. In a class action, one or more people, called Class Representatives (in this case, Leticia Zavala), sue on behalf of people who have similar claims. All these people are a Class or Class Members. One case resolves the issues for all Class Members, except for those who exclude themselves from the Class. The court in charge of this case is Kern County Superior Court, and the case is known as Zavala v. Resource Staffing, Inc., et al., Case No. S-1500-CV-278358 LHB.

Did The Case Settle?

Yes, the case settled.

Why Is There A Settlement?

The Court did not decide in favor of Plaintiff or Defendants. The Plaintiff thinks she could have won at trial. Defendants think the Plaintiff would not have won anything. But there was no trial. Instead, both sides agreed to a settlement. That way, they avoid the cost of litigation, and the people affected will get compensation. The Class Representative and the attorneys think the settlement is best for the Class Members.

Who Is Part Of The Settlement?

Everyone who fits this description is a Class Member:

All current and former employees of Resource Staffing, Inc. (“RSI”) and any joint employer(s), including but not limited to Pactiv Packaging, Inc. (“Pactiv”), during the period of December 24, 2008 and through the preliminary approval, who work or worked in California, and paid RSI, through a payroll deduction, any money or other valuable consideration for accepting employment with RSI and/or who were not paid for the attendance of any employment orientation programs at the commencement of their employment.

What Does The Settlement Provide?

Defendants have agreed to pay $440,000.00 (“Maximum Settlement Amount”), out of which will be paid (a) approximately $ $254,800.00 to Class Members who can be located and who do not exclude themselves from the settlement; (b) Claims Administrator Costs not to exceed $15,000.00; (c) an enhancement to Plaintiff Anita May not to exceed $7,500.00 (“Service Payment”); (d) Class Counsel’s attorney’s fees not to exceed $145,000.00; and (e) Class Counsel’s litigation costs not to exceed $10,00.00. A payment of $7,500.00 also will be made to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, a state agency that assists with workforce oversight and enforcement of labor laws. Class Counsel’s attorney’s fees and costs and Plaintiff’s Service Payment remain subject to Court approval.

How Much Will My Payment Be?

A Class Member’s share of the settlement will depend on the number of Class Members who exclude themselves from the settlement, the number of Class Members who cannot be found after a diligent search for correct addresses by the Claims Administrator, and your W-2 earnings during the class period. Each Class Member’s estimated payment will be printed on the Class Member Information Form that he/she should have received. Assuming that all Class Members can be located, each class member should receive approximately $439.31.

Did The Court Approve The Settlement?

Yes, the Court approved the settlement in all respects. Payment is imminent.

Who Do I Contact About My Share Of The Settlement Or An Address Change?

Please contact the court-appointed claims administrator, CPT Group, Inc. for information about your settlement share or if your address changes.

Important Case Documents

First Amended Complaint

View PDF

Final Judgment

View PDF

Our Notable Class Action Cases

  • 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.

What Makes Strauss & Strauss APC Different

  • 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.

We Seek Justice for Employees Throughout California