#PICKUP STIX CODE#

Stix moved for summary judgment of the complaint, claiming the releases barred recovery by the Chindarah plaintiffs.

#PICKUP STIX CODE#

The Chindarah plaintiffs moved for summary adjudication of the cross-complaint, claiming the releases they signed were void under Labor Code sections 206 and 206.5.

Stix then filed its answer to the second amended complaint, pleading the release as an affirmative defense. 1 Stix filed a cross-complaint against them, alleging breach of contract and breach of the settlement agreement and seeking declaratory relief. Eight current and former Stix employees who had signed the settlement agreements joined the proposed class action as plaintiffs (the Chindarah plaintiffs).

Shortly after the settlement agreements were signed, the original plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint including allegations that the settlement agreements violated numerous provisions of the Labor Code. By signing the agreement, the employee acknowledged that he or she had spent more than 50% of the time performing managerial duties, released Stix from all claims for unpaid overtime and any other Labor Code violations during the relevant time period, and agreed “not to participate in any class action that may include ․ any of the released Claims․” It offered each of them an “amount ․ based upon a figure ․ Stix had previously offered at the mediation.” Over two hundred former and current employees accepted the offer and signed a settlement agreement, which included a general release. Stix then decided to attempt settlement with as many putative class members as possible. Stix's attempt to settle the lawsuit through mediation failed. The complaint was amended in July 2003 to allege a proposed class action to recover unpaid overtime on behalf of the plaintiffs and all other current and former general managers, assistant managers, and lead cooks employed by Stix between Februthrough September 2003. In February 2003, two former employees of Pick Up Stix (Stix) filed a complaint against their former employer alleging claims for unpaid overtime, penalties and interest due to the misclassification of their jobs as exempt from overtime pay. Escobar, Newport Beach, for The Employers Group as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.

Schramm, San Jose, for California Employment Lawyers Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants. Employment Rights Attorneys and Richard D. Shea Stokes, Shea Stokes Roberts & Wagner, Maria C. Gigliotti, Fullerton Ginez, Steinmetz & Associates, Rudolfo Ginez and John F. PICK UP STIX, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 3, California.īoonchai CHINDARAH et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.

Pickup stix