On March 20, 2013, a proposed class action lawsuit was filed by former hourly employee in the Los Angeles County Superior Court –Stanley Mosk Courthouse, against Wilshire Kingsley, Inc. dba BCD Tofu House ("BCD Tofu House:Hee-sook Lee"). On August 1st, Hee-sook Lee, the owner and operator of the BCD Tofu House restaurants, was added as a defendant, along with alleged additional joint employers, B.C.D. Tofu House, Inc. and BCD Food, Inc.
On June 6, 2013, a second proposed class action lawsuit was filed in the Los Angeles Superior court by former hourly employees against owner and operator Hee-sook Lee, B.C.D. Tofu House, Inc., BCD Food, Inc., Irvine BCD, Inc., Fullerton BCD, Inc., and Cerritos BCD, Inc. ("BCD Tofu House:Hee-sook Lee"). On August 13, 2013, the Court permitted the hourly employees to add BCD Restaurants, Inc. as an additional Defendant.
The lawsuits, now consolidated, have been certified as a class action on behalf of all non-exempt individuals employed at a BCD Tofu House restaurant owned by Defendants in the State of California at any time during the period of March 20, 2009 through December 31, 2014, excluding those: (i) those who have a pending lawsuit against Defendants (other than the Plaintiffs in this lawsuit) asserting one or more of the Released Claims; and/or (ii) who have executed, and been provided separate consideration for, a release of one or more of the Released Claims.
(1) BCD Tofu House:Hee-sook Lee's failure to pay minimum wages for all hours worked as a result of one or more of the following unlawful practices:(a) deducting money from employee's wages supposedly for taxes but, instead, keeping the money for themselves and/or having the money that they deducted applied to BCD-Tofu House:Hee-sook Lee's own tax obligations instead of the employee's; (b) "rounding down" the amount of time the employee actually worked in a pay period; and/or (c) requiring employees to clock out at the end of their shift but continue to work for approximately thirty minutes further cleaning and stocking their stations, preparing for the next shift, as well as pooling tips for redistribution, etc.
(2) BCD Tofu HouseL:Hee-sook Lee's failure to pay all earned overtime wages;
(3) BCD Tofu House:Hee-sook Lee's failure to pay employees one additional hour of minimum wage when the employee is required to work a split shift which is where the employee works more than one shift on a given day and the shifts are separated by more than one hour.
(4) BCD Tofu House:Hee-sook Lee's failure to provide half-hour, uninterrupted, meal breaks during shifts in excess of 5 hours;
(5) BCD Tofu House:Hee-sook Lee's failure to permit paid ten minute, uninterrupted breaks during shifts of 3.5 hours or more;
(6) BCD Tofu House:Hee-sook Lee's failure to pay one hour of premium pay for each work day that an earned rest period is not permitted and/or a meal period is not provided;
(7) BCD Tofu House:Hee-sook Lee's failure to pay the hourly employees all of their earned minimum wages, split shift wages, overtime wages, and premium pay at the time they are discharged or quit;
(8) BCD Tofu House:Hee-sook Lee's failure to provide wage statements which accurately show all hours worked and all lawful deductions;
(9) BCD Tofu House:Hee-sook Lee's policy and practice to intentionally withhold from Plaintiffs and their fellow members of the Putative Class all their earned minimum/overtime/split-shift wages/premium pay wages and instead, convert the employee's wages for themselves;
(10) BCD Tofu House:Hee-sook Lee engaging in Unlawful Business Practices; and
(11) Pursuing penalties on behalf of the employees under the Private Attorney General Act against BCD Tofu House and Hee-sook Lee.
SEON OK JIN, et al. v. WILSHIRE KINGSLEY, INC., et al.
COURT: Los Angeles Superior Court - Central Civil West
CASE FILED: March 20, 2013 CASE NUMBER: BC503349
ASSIGNED TO: Judge Elihu M. Berle DEPT: 323
Defendants: WILSHIRE KINGSLEY, INC., IRVINE BCD, INC., FULLERTON BCD, INC., CERRITOS BCD, INC., TORRANCE BCD, INC., COLIMA ROWLAND HEIGHTS, INC., B.C.D. TOFU HOUSE, INC., BCD FOOD, INC., BCD RESTAURANTS, INC., and HEE SOOK LEE
CURRENT STATUS (as of May 5, 2015):
On March 20, 2013, a class action lawsuit was filed by workers on behalf of all hourly employees (servers, cooks, busboys, etc.) against the owners and operators of the 8 BCD Tofu House restaurants operated in California.
On January 15, 2015, the Court issued PRELIMINARY APPROVAL of a three million dollar ($3,000,000) settlement with the owners of the BCD Tofu House restaurants to settle the claims asserted in the class action.
On May 5, 2015, the Court granted Final Approval of the global settlement in the consolidated class actions.
HUNDREDS OF EMPLOYEES SUBMITTED THEIR CLAIM FORMS TO THE INDEPENDENT ADMINISTRATOR, CPT GROUP! WELL OVER ONE AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS WAS CLAIMED BY THOSE EMPLOYEES.
ON NOVEMBER 2, 2015, SETTLEMENT CHECKS WERE ISSUED AND MAILED BY THE SETTLEMENT ADMINSTRATOR TO THE HUNDREDS OF BCD TOFU HOUSE EMPLOYEES WHO SUBMITTED CLAIM FORMS IN CONNECTION WITH THE APPROVED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. THESE CHECKS REMAIN VALID FOR 180 DAYS AFTER ISSUANCE SO DEPOSIT YOUR CHECKS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
FUTURE HEARINGS (as of November 4, 2015): .
The Court has scheduled a hearing for December 2, 2015 to confirm that the settlement checks have been mailed to those Class Members who timely submitted valid Claim Forms and that they have cashed their checks.
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE LAWSUIT AND/OR THE SETTLEMENT, YOU MAY SPEAK, AT NO COST TO YOU, WITH CLASS COUNSEL PRELIMINARILY APPROVED BY THE COURT TO REPRESENT THE BCD TOFU HOUSE EMPLOYEES.
ATTORNEYS APPROVED BY THE COURT TO REPRESENT THE EMPLOYEES:
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. SKRIPKO, JR., APLC
Robert W. Skripko, Jr., Esq.
1323 North Broadway, 2nd Floor
Santa Ana, California 92706
Telephone: (714) 543-6200; Fax: (714) 543-6140
PETER BECK, APLC
Peter I. Beck, Esq.
3580 Wilshire Boulevard, 17th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90010
Telephone: (213) 385-8088; Fax: (213) 637-02460
NOTE: This website is intended to merely communicate information regarding an existing proposed California class action which may affect individuals' labor law rights. It is neither intended, nor shall operate, as a solicitation concerning the availability for professional employment of a member or a law firm.