A long-standing legal battle over wage-and-hour violations has taken another turn as the California Court of Appeal reverses a significant judgment. The complaint, initially filed by Lorenzo Benton in 2006 against Telecom Network Specialists, Inc. (TNS), was heard in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County on August 19, 2024.
Benton's class action lawsuit represented several hundred technicians who serviced equipment at cell sites across California. The case has seen multiple appeals and judgments over the years. In 2012, the trial court denied Benton's motion for class certification, which was later reversed on appeal in 2018. On remand, the trial court granted Benton’s motion for class certification and summary adjudication on some causes of action but found in favor of TNS on others. Both parties appealed these decisions.
The crux of Benton’s complaint centered around allegations that TNS failed to provide meal and rest breaks, did not pay overtime compensation, and issued inaccurate wage statements—violations under various sections of the California Labor Code. Specifically, Benton argued that TNS violated sections 203 and 226 by failing to furnish accurate wage statements and waiting time penalties.
In a complex series of rulings, the trial court initially awarded the class $9,494,585 for prevailing on certain claims but ruled against them on others. This judgment was again reversed by the appellate court in October 2028 due to errors in granting summary adjudication related to meal and rest breaks.
During this ongoing litigation, Benton also sought attorneys’ fees and costs under section 1194 for work performed before February 2019 when summary adjudication was granted. The trial court awarded over $17 million in attorneys' fees plus $700,000 in costs based on a lodestar multiplier of 2.0. However, both parties contested this award—Benton arguing it was insufficient and TNS claiming it was excessive.
In its latest ruling, the appellate court reversed the fee award along with other parts of the judgment due to unresolved material facts about whether class members were informed about their rights to breaks or actually took them. This reversal necessitates a reevaluation of attorneys' fees since much of the original award hinged on now-contested claims.
Representing Benton were Randall B. Aiman-Smith from Aiman-Smith & Marcy and Jared E. Peterson from his law offices. McDermott Will & Emery's Pankit J. Doshi led TNS's defense alongside Greenberg Traurig's Ronald Holland. Judge David S. Cunningham III presided over this multifaceted case identified as BC349267.