Claim up to $9.99 California Norms Restaurants Gift Card Class Action Settlement

Who is a Class Member

  • Class Members of the Norms Restaurants settlement include “all consumers in California who (1) possess a Norms Restaurants gift card which has a balance of less than $10.00 that was originally issued and/or activated between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2015, or (2) possessed such a gift card that was originally issued and/or activated between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2015 but disposed of it upon being informed by a Norms Restaurants employee in California that it could not be redeemed for cash.”

If you don’t qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for.


Estimated Award

  • Up to $9.99

Class Members claiming to have disposed a gift card with a remaining balance less than $10.00 as a result of being informed by a Norms Restaurants employee that redemption for cash was not permissible, will receive a gift card valued at $9.99 which can be used at any Norms Restaurants location in California, and may be redeemed for cash.


Proof of Purchase

  • N/A

Claim Form

class action lawsuits


California Norms Restaurants Gift Card Settlement Notes

  • Yordi Martinez v. Norms Restaurants LLC
  • Case No. RIC1512432
  • Pending in the California Superior Court for the County of Riverside

Plaintiff Yordi Martinez filed this class action lawsuit claiming the Norms Restaurants failed to redeem gift cards for cash, upon request, when the remaining balance on the gift card was less than $10.00. Since January 1, 2008, California law specifically requires that a gift card must be redeemed for cash, upon a customer’s request, when the gift card balance falls below $10.00.

Under the terms of the California Norms Restaurant gift card settlement, Norms will conduct at least one employee training session in all of its California locations for purposes of reviewing gift card redemption policies, update its employee manuals and website to include language that ““California law requires that a gift card must be redeemed for cash, upon a customer’s request, when the gift card balance falls below $10.00,” and also post a signage in an employee-only section of its California restaurants that includes this policy.

Norms denies any wrongdoing but concluded it is in their best interests to settle the action to avoid further litigation.

The settlement was given final approval and there is no deadline for submitting a claim form.


Important Dates

  • There is no claim form deadline.
  • The California Norms Restaurants gift card class action settlement has been given final approval.

Contact Information

  • N/A

Class Counsel

  • N/A

Settlement Website

Amazon Warehouse Worker Class Action Lawsuit Alleges “Modern Day Sweat Shop”

Amazon is facing a proposed state-wide class action lawsuit over allegations that the working conditions at its California warehouses are like a “modern day sweat shop”.

Plaintiff Romeo Palma filed the employee class action lawsuit against Golden State FC LLC, the entity that operates several fulfillment centers in California, alleging multiple violations of state labor laws. Specifically, Palma contends Amazon regularly fails to provide its non-exempt employees with a third rest break or pay overtime when they work over 10 hours at the company’s fulfillment center warehouses.

According to the Amazon Warehouse Worker class action lawsuit, Palma and his co-workers are scheduled for 10 hour shifts, but are actually required to work longer, often by 5-15 minutes more without compensation or third rest break – a violation of California labor law. This, reportedly, is directly caused because Amazon requires its non-exempt employees to clock-in at a specific location at their large fulfillment center, and then travel or walk to the location to report for their work shift. Essentially, the lawsuit contends Amazon does not allow adequate time for its fulfillment center workers to clock in and arrive at the location to report for their shift, or clock out after their shift.

Furthermore, Palma alleges that he and similarly situated class members were not given a third rest break, as required by California overtime law, when their shifts exceeded 10 hours.

“We have been learning of sweat-shop like conditions for workers, who work long shifts and have not been able to get the appropriate rest breaks and overtime that is required,” said Joshua Haffner, one of the attorneys representing Palma and the proposed class of workers.

“It’s unfair to the workers who are low paid and working as hard as they can to make ends meet and be good employees,” said Haffner. “Providing the short break required by law isn’t too much to ask.”

The complaint goes onto say Amazon has “caused Plaintiff and Class members damages including, but not limited to, loss of wages and compensation… Failing to pay overtime wages, failing to pay premium wages for missed meal and rest breaks and failing to pay all wages owed on each pay period.”

California labor code provides that “Any work in excess of eight hours in one workday and any work in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek …shall be compensated at the rate of no less that one and one-half times the regular pay rate for an employee”.

“This lawsuit is being filed to vindicate workers’ rights under California law,” said Haffner in an email. “The defendant is pushing the labor laws right up to and past the line, requiring employees to work long hours, yet short-changing them on rest breaks and associated overtime. These are workers who make just above minimum wage and are entitled to these very simple requirements, such as a third rest break.”

Amazon is no stranger to allegations of labor law violations at its warehouses. A complaint filed in Kentucky federal court accusing the company of failing to pay workers for time spent going through security checks was dismissed in June. Amazon has also been accused of misclassifying its delivery drivers as independent contractors in another recently filed complaint in San Diego Superior Court.

Palma is seeking to represent a class comprised of all current and former California residents who worked for Amazon as non-exempt employees at any time beginning 2013 to present. He is requesting among other things, one hour of wages due to each Class member for each missed and/or uncompensated rest period, all unpaid overtime wages, as well as an order enjoining Amazon from further “unfair and unlawful business practices.”

Palma and the proposed class are represented by Joshua H. Haffner and Abraham G. Lambert of Haffner Law PC and Jimmy Hanaie of Legalclear.

The California Amazon Warehouse Worker Class Action Lawsuit is Romeo Palma et al v. Golden State FC, LLC dba Amazon.com et al, filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento. A case number was not available at the time of publish.

Tesla Slammed With Class Action Lawsuit Alleging Racial Discrimination

Tesla has been slammed with a proposed class action lawsuit over allegations its California production plant is a “hotbed for racist behavior.”

Filed Monday in California Superior Court in Oakland, the racial discrimination class action claims that black employees were addressed using racial slurs that included the routing use of the “n-word” and were told to suck it up when they complained about the offensive language.

Plaintiff Marcus Vaughn, a former General Assembly Associate for Tesla for a period of 6 months who filed the complaint, says he was targeted and harassed because of his race, according to the Tesla racial discrimination class action lawsuit. “Supervisors regularly witness employees engaging in offensive racist conduct, and also engage in race harassment themselves, therefore giving license to subordinates to do the same,” the lawsuit claims.

According to the proposed class action lawsuit, these alleged actions on the part of Tesla “have created an intimidating, hostile, and offensive work environment for African-American employees” at Tesla’s production facility in Fremont, California.” The suit goes on to say that Vaughn observed other African-American co-workers being subjected to the same racial slurs.

Shortly after filing a written complaint to Human Resources and Tesla CEO Elon Musk regarding the alleged racism directed at him and his co-workers, Vaughn says he was terminated on October 31, 2017 for “not having a positive attitude,” the complaint states.

He goes on to state that back in May, Musk reportedly told factory employees to essentially just deal with it if they were called racial slurs. “Part of not being a huge jerk is considering how someone might feel who is part of [a] historically less represented group,” Musk wrote in an email. “Sometimes these things happen unintentionally, in which case you should apologize. In fairness, if someone is a jerk to you, but sincerely apologizes, it is important to be thick-skinned and accept that apology.”

This marks the third lawsuit filed this year accusing the electric car manufacturer of racial discrimination. In March, Plaintiff DeWitt Lambert filed a lawsuit in Alameda County Court, saying he was sexually and racially harassed at the Fremont plant. He is currently suspended with pay pending an investigation into the allegations. In October, three former employees also filed racial discrimination claims against the company. Vaughn’s lawsuit, however, is the first to bring the alleged racial discrimination claims on behalf of a large class of African-American workers.

Vaughn is seeking to represent a class comprised of African-Americans who are current and former employees working on the production floor at the Tesla Factory at any time from November 9, 2016 to the present. He is requesting damages, including punitive and compensatory, under California’s anti-discrimination law.

Vaughn and the putative class are represented by Lawrence Organ and Navruz Avloni of California Civil Rights Law Group and Bryan Schwartz and Logan Starr of Bryan Schwartz Law.

The Tesla Racial Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit is Marcus Vaughn et al vs. Tesla Inc., Case No. RG17882082 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda.