We'll email you when something changes in this case, such as a settlement or a date to file a claim.
By signing up, you agree to get emails from Chimo about this case and about other class actions and settlements. You can unsubscribe at any time.

The two sides have agreed to settle, but a judge has to approve the settlement before anyone can file a claim. Sign up below and we will email you when claims open.
A lawsuit says La Parrilla, Inc. shorted its California hourly workers on pay. Javanna Rodriguez, a former hourly employee, sued the company on March 4, 2025, in the Stanislaus County Superior Court (case number CV-25-002051), and added a claim under California's Private Attorneys General Act in an amended complaint on April 24, 2025. That law, known as PAGA, lets a worker sue an employer for penalties on behalf of the state.
According to the complaint, La Parrilla did not pay for all hours worked, including overtime, and sometimes paid less than minimum wage. The lawsuit also says workers were not given the meal and rest breaks California law requires, were not reimbursed for work expenses, and received wage statements that left out required details. It says final wages were not paid on time when people left, and that pay did not arrive twice a month as the law requires.
La Parrilla denies the allegations and denies any liability. The court never decided who was right: both sides agreed to settle after an all-day mediation on January 21, 2026. Judge David I. Hood granted preliminary approval, and an amended order was filed on October 1, 2026.
La Parrilla agreed to settle the case for $592,397.85, while denying the allegations and any liability. The settlement started at $500,000. After the company handed over its payroll data, the administrator found more weeks had been worked than the agreement assumed, which triggered a clause that raises the fund, and La Parrilla chose to pay the extra $92,397.85.
The court's amended order lists what comes out of the fund before workers are paid: up to $197,446.20 in attorneys' fees (up to 35%), up to $25,000 in litigation costs, a $10,000 award to the worker who sued, a $50,000 PAGA payment and up to $12,000 for the administrator. That leaves $297,951.65 for class members. Of the $50,000 PAGA payment, $32,500 goes to the state's Labor and Workforce Development Agency and $17,500 to workers employed from February 13, 2024, onward. None of the money goes back to La Parrilla.
The administrator's notices were first mailed on October 15, 2026. The deadline to object, dispute your weeks worked or ask to be excluded is November 30, 2026. The final approval hearing is December 18, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 18 of the Stanislaus County Superior Court in Modesto.
The $297,951.65 left for class members is split by weeks worked. Each worker's share is the net amount divided by all the weeks worked by everyone in the class, times that worker's own weeks. Workers employed from February 13, 2024, onward also share $17,500 in PAGA money, split by pay periods worked. No claim form is needed: the settlement agreement says the money is paid without anyone having to file a claim, by check mailed to each class member who does not ask to be excluded.
Chimo estimates an average of about $660 per class member. That is the $297,951.65 net amount divided among the approximately 450 class members the settlement agreement counted, who worked about 30,019 weeks through January 21, 2026, or roughly $10 per week worked. The administrator later found more weeks than that, so the real average is likely somewhat lower, and someone who worked a few weeks would get far less than someone who worked for years. The mailed notice shows each worker's own estimated payment and weeks.
The company is paying the fund in installments over about two years, so the agreement splits payments into two rounds. Checks can be voided after 180 days, and uncashed money goes to the California State Controller's unclaimed property fund in the worker's name.
The settlement covers everyone who worked for La Parrilla, Inc. in California as an hourly or non-exempt employee at any time from March 4, 2021, through July 16, 2026, the date the court granted preliminary approval. Non-exempt means the job is paid by the hour and qualifies for overtime.
Workers employed from February 13, 2024, through the same date are also part of the PAGA group, which shares a separate $17,500.
The court has given only preliminary approval. Whether the settlement takes effect is decided at the final approval hearing on December 18, 2026.
No. The settlement agreement says the money is paid without anyone having to submit a claim. If the court gives final approval, the administrator mails checks to class members who did not ask to be excluded, based on the weeks each person worked.
The final approval hearing is December 18, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 18 of the Stanislaus County Superior Court. The judge can approve the settlement, ask for changes or reject it, and the hearing date can move. Sign up for updates and we will tell you what happens.
Not right away. La Parrilla is paying the fund in installments over about two years, and the agreement splits payments into two rounds as the money comes in. Timing depends on final approval and the payment schedule, so it can take a year or more for the full amount to go out.
The settlement administrator, ILYM Group, mailed notices starting October 15, 2026, and checks go to the address it has on file. If you worked for La Parrilla in California during the class period and moved, contact ILYM Group so it can update your address before checks are mailed.
Class members can object to the settlement, dispute the number of weeks the notice says they worked, or ask to be excluded. Each of these has a deadline of November 30, 2026, which is extended by 14 days for anyone whose notice was mailed a second time. The notice explains how to do each one.
No. La Parrilla denies the allegations in the lawsuit and denies any liability. The court never ruled on who was right. Both sides agreed to settle after a mediation in January 2026, and the settlement is not a finding that the company broke the law.