Attorneys at Sundeen Salinas & Pyle currently represent plaintiffs in class actions and multi-plaintiff lawsuits, as well as individual cases. What follows is a partial list of some of our active cases:

Class Actions and Multi-Plaintiff Lawsuits

Randolph v. AT&T: We are California counsel In this class action alleging that AT&T engaged in fraudulent advertising and breach of contract by unlawfully charging its California customers a surcharge that AT&T did not disclose prior to the sale of its services. In 2007, the Court granted class certification on all of Plaintiffs’ claims. As a result, we now represent approximately ten million current and former AT&T customers in this ongoing litigation.

For more information on this case, see www.awsclassaction.com

Hall v. AIMCO, Inc.: We represent 27 Plaintiffs claiming that they had wages unlawfully withheld and were subjected to a hostile work environment and adverse employment decisions in which race was a motivating factor.

For more information on this case, see www.sfweekly.com/2008-03-26/news/building-racism/

Beasley v. Allied Cash Advance: In this class action we represent a group of employees at a check-cashing company who have been deprived of their meal periods and rest breaks.

Rojas et al. v. Somerset Studios: In this case, we represent nine workers who allege that they were denied overtime compensation despite the fact that they worked seven days a week and up to 13 hours per day. Our clients also claim they were harassed because of their race (Latino) and that, among other things, they were called "wetbacks," "dwarves," and "lazy."

Aburto et al. v. Wong, et al.: The 23 Plaintiff-tenants allege that the defendants were landlords in San Francisco who rented them unlivable spaces such as the attic, basement and garage.  Plaintiffs further allege that despite numerous notices of violation and to abate from the City, the landlords continued to collect rent without improving the conditions such as no heat and raw sewage backing up into the basement.  Plaintiffs claim that at one point their entire water supply was terminated and that the City now pays for the utilities after the landlord stopped doing so.  Finally, Plaintiffs claim they were threatened with eviction.

Schakow v. New York & Company: In this class action we represent a group of workers at a retail clothing chain who have been deprived of their meal periods and rest breaks.

Avila v. Local 87: In this case, 6 former employees have sued their former employer for breach of contract.

Single Plaintiff Cases

Ortega v. Contra Costa County Community College District: We represent Jose Ortega, the former Head Football Coach at the College, who was demoted out of coaching and then terminated one year later. Mr. Ortega claims that race was a motivating factor in these adverse decisions. These companion cases were dismissed by the trial court but reversed on appeal. The College’s request to de-publish the decisions was denied and are now pending in Contra Costa Superior Court (MSC04-01379.)

For more informtion on this case see:
appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=65229&doc_no=A113341

Streeter v. The Oakland Raiders and Allen Davis: In this case, the plaintiff alleges that he was fraudulently induced to move to California by Al Davis, who falsely promised him a one-year term of employment.

Gomez v. AB&I: In this case, the plaintiff was terminated on the same day that she complained about unlawful discrimination in the workplace. She has brought claims for wrongful termination as well as for failure to pay overtime.

Sever v. Remedy Temporary Services:Plaintiff Terri Sever was employed by Remedy, which is a resource for temporary workers.  Plaintiff alleges that she suffered from severe psoriatic arthritis and that management knew this yet failed to accommodate her.  Notwithstanding, Ms. Sever performed her job duties satisfactorily.  Yet, Plaintiff was terminated and she alleges that her disability was a factor in the decision to terminate her because her manager knew of the disability but did not discuss it with Ms. Sever.  Plaintiff also claims that witnesses heard management make statements indicating that age was a factor in the firing.

Attorneys at Sundeen Salinas & Pyle also represent numerous other workers and tenants in a variety of cases.