News

Each year the San Francisco Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild honors lawyers, legal workers, and law students who have dedicated themselves to the struggle for justice.  This year, the Guild is honoring Carpenter & Mayfield and Peter Franck.  We cannot think of anyone who deserves the title of “Champions of Justice” more than these folks.  Congratulations and we look forward to seeing you on April 29, 2017, at the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts.

On April 8, 2017, the Alameda County Superior Court granted final approval of a $1.25 million settlement in the case of Kostyuk v. Golden State Overnight, Inc.

This litigation involved two related putative class actions on behalf of approximately 1,435 putative class members.  Kostyuk was filed in Alameda County Superior Court on May 29, 2014.  Melgar was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on July 14, 2015 and was subsequently deemed related to Kostyuk and transferred to Alameda County.

Golden State Overnight Delivery Service, Inc. (“GSO”) is an overnight courier delivery service, serving all of California and select metropolitan areas in Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico.  Plaintiffs and the putative class members are current and former non-exempt delivery drivers who were paid on a piece-rate system, i.e. per delivery/stop completed.

The Plaintiffs alleged that each driver starts the workday at an office or “base,” where the driver receives his or her route for the day, scans the packages and loads them into his or her vehicle, maps out the route, and then proceeds on the delivery route.  Drivers often work two routes in the same day.  In such instances, a driver will return to the “base” after completing the first route, load up his or her vehicle with the packages for the second route, and then proceed on the second route.  At the end of the final route of the day, if any packages are undeliverable, or if the driver has picked up a package along the route, the driver will return to the base with the undeliverable packages or the packages that were picked up.  If all packages were delivered successfully and no packages were picked up, then the driver will drive home from his or her last delivery.  Drivers also used their personal vehicles to make deliveries.

Each of the lawyers at Hunter Pyle has been recognized by Super Lawyers in 2017.  Tanya Tambling and Chad Saunders have been designated as Rising Stars.  That award is limited to the top 2.5 percent of lawyers under 40 in California. Hunter Pyle has been designated as a “Super Lawyer” every year since 2011.  That designation is limited to the top 5 percent of attorneys in California.

For the seventh consecutive year, Mr. Pyle been selected to the 2017 Northern California Super Lawyers list, an honor reserved for those lawyers who exhibit excellence in practice. Only 5% of attorneys in Northern California receive this distinction.

Hunter Pyle Law is proud to announce that Liz Sanchez has gotten in to Berkeley Law School for the fall of 2017!  While we are sad to see her go, we look forward to the great things that she is going to do as a lawyer.  Congratulations Liz!

We are proud to announce that Chad Saunders had been selected to the 2017 Northern California Rising Stars list, an honor reserved for those lawyers who exhibit excellence in practice. Only 2.5% of attorneys in Northern California receive this distinction.  Congratulations Chad!

We are proud to announce that senior associate Tanya Tambling had been selected to the 2017 Northern California Rising Stars list, an honor reserved for those lawyers who exhibit excellence in practice. Only 2.5% of attorneys in Northern California receive this distinction.  Great work Tanya!

The Daily Journal published an opinion piece by Mr. Pyle regarding a recent 9th Circuit decision regarding the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).  FCRA prohibits employers from obtaining background checks, also known as consumer reports, unless two things have occurred:  (1) the employer has made a clear disclosure, in a writing of that consists solely of that disclosure, that it intends to obtain such a report, and (2) the person who is the subject of the report has authorized it in writing.  California law contains similar requirements.

Employers sometimes flout these requirements and include other types of information in their disclosures.  However, the recent Ninth Circuit case of Syed v. M-I, LLC, case no. 14-17186, indicates that when employers ignore FCRA’s plain language, they do so at their peril.  That is so even in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo v. Robins, which raised several questions about Article III standing for FCRA claims.

For the second year, Mr. Pyle has been invited to speak at the law school at the University of Lausanne in Lausanne, Switzerland in June 2017.  Mr. Pyle will discuss how courts have addressed the gig economy in California, including the Uber and Lyft cases.

Mr. Pyle has been invited to join The National Advocates – Top 100 Lawyers in the field of Employment Law, a professional honorary organization comprised of America’s top attorneys who represent individuals in the American legal system.