Byrne v. Santa Barbara Hospitality Services Settlement

Welcome to the Official Byrne v. Santa Barbara Hospitality Services Settlement Website

Plaintiffs contend that entertainers performing for customers at the adult clubs doing business as Spearmint Rhino, Blue Zebra, and Dames N Games, in the states of California, Idaho, Iowa, Florida, Kentucky, Minnesota, Oregon and Texas owned by City of Industry Hospitality Venture, Inc. (Spearmint Rhino – City of Industry, CA), Farmdale Hospitality Services, Inc. (Blue Zebra – North Hollywood, CA), High Expectations Hospitality, LLC (Spearmint Rhino – Dallas, TX), Inland Restaurant Venture I, Inc. (Spearmint Rhino – Van Nuys, CA), Kentucky Hospitality Venture, LLC (Spearmint Rhino – Lexington, KY), L.C.M., LLC (Spearmint Rhino – Boise Idaho), Midnight Sun Enterprises, Inc. (Spearmint Rhino – Torrance, CA), Nitelife, Inc. (Spearmint Rhino – Minneapolis, MN), Olympic Avenue Venture, Inc. (Spearmint Rhino – Los Angeles, CA), The Oxnard Hospitality Services, Inc. (Spearmint Rhino – Oxnard, CA), Rialto Pockets, Incorporated (Spearmint Rhino – Rialto, CA), Rouge Gentlemen’s Club, Inc. (Dames N Games – Van Nuys, CA), Santa Barbara Hospitality Services, Inc. (Spearmint Rhino – Santa Barbara, CA), Santa Maria Restaurant Enterprises, Inc. (Spearmint Rhino – Santa Maria, CA), Sarie’s Lounge, LLC (Spearmint Rhino – Omaha, NE), Washington Management, LLC (Dames N Games – Los Angeles, CA) Wild Orchid, Inc. (Spearmint Rhino – Portland, OR), World Class Venues, LLC (Spearmint Rhino – Omaha, NE), (the “Clubs”) should have been treated as employees rather than as owners (i.e., members of limited liability companies), and as a result were entitled to but did not receive adequate compensation and benefits in exchange for the services they provided to the Club(s).  Plaintiffs further contend that Defendants failed to pay overtime, failed to provide meal and rest periods, failed to provide accurate, itemized wage statements, that Defendants were engaged in unlawful tip-sharing arrangements with the entertainers and that Defendants violated the Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) (Cal. Labor Code §§ 2699, et seq.).  Defendants in the Action dispute and deny any and all claims asserted in the Action.  Defendants deny that they engaged in any wrongdoing, and deny that they are liable to the Class Members in any way.

Intervenors are current entertainers who have declined employment status and entered into individual LLC agreements to become Owners and/or LLC members to perform at any of the above-referenced Clubs.  Intervenors seek an order and/or injunctive relief preserving their ownership status and their rights to continue to perform at Clubs pursuant to the individual LLC agreements as Owners and/or LLC Members.  Intervenors seek to remain classified as Owners and/or LLC Members and not to be classified as employees. 

The United States District Court for the Central District of California has not ruled on the merits of the foregoing claims.

More information for this case can be found on the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) website for the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Important Deadlines

Date

Claim/Credit Benefit Form submission

October 29, 2018

Request for Exclusion

October 29, 2018

Objections

October 29, 2018

Final Approval Hearing

December 10, 2018