Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 07-29-2022

Case Style:

Carolyn D. Callahan v. Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc., et al.

Case Number: 20-55603

Judge: Robreno

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on appeal from the Central District of California (Los Angeles County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:



Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan

Click Here For The Best Los Angeles Employment Law Lawyer Directory


If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer for free.


Defendant's Attorney: Ryan H. Wu, Keith A. Jacoby, J. Kevin Lilly, Shannon R. Boyce, Jeffrey J. Mann

Description: Los Angeles, California employment law lawyers represented Plaintiff, who sued defendants on labor code violation theories.

Carolyn Callahan brought the action pursuant to California’s
PAGA, California Labor Code sections 2698-2699.5, which
allows aggrieved employees to recover civil penalties for
Labor Code violations on behalf of themselves, the state, or
other employees. Callahan and Brookdale agreed to a
settlement. Neverson, who was a plaintiff in an overlapping
PAGA case against Brookdale, filed a motion to intervene in
Callahan’s action to object to the PAGA settlement.

* * *

Brookdale owns and operates senior living communities
throughout the United States. Callahan worked for
Brookdale as a concierge from approximately February 2006
to February 2018. On November 26, 2018, she sent the
California Labor & Workforce Development Agency
(“LWDA”) notice of a number of Brookdale’s alleged
violations of the California Labor Code.

On November 27, 2018, Callahan filed a class action
lawsuit against Brookdale in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court. The complaint alleged violations of the
Labor Code and California’s Unfair Competition Law. She
did not initially bring a claim under PAGA.

Outcome: For the foregoing reasons, as to the first appeal, we
affirm the district court’s denial of Neverson’s motion to
intervene. We dismiss Neverson’s second appeal of the
district court’s approval of the PAGA settlement because we
conclude that she has no right to appeal

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: