John P. Zaimes

Supreme Court of the United States Opinions

• Meghrig v. KFC Western, Inc., 516 U.S. 479 (1996) (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act).°
• Cory v. Western Oil & Gas Assn., 471 U.S. 81 (1985) (Commerce Clause).°

California District Court of Appeal Precedent

• Hernandez v. Vitamin Shoppe Industries, 174 Cal. App. 4th 1441 (2009) (Communications with represented class members and sanctions).°
• Trujillo v. First American Registry, 157 Cal. App. 4th 628 (2007) (The landmark 2007 consumer credit reporting act decision).°
• Gibbs v. Consolidated Disposal Service, Inc., 111 Cal. App. 4th 794 (2003) (The 2003 employment discrimination precedent on the “stray remarks” doctrine).°

Federal Court Precedents

• Goldthorpe v. Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd., 279 F. Supp. 3d 1001 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (Motion to dismiss class action claims based on Extraterritoriality Doctrine).°
• Harris v. Vector Marketing Corp., 753 F. Supp.2d 996 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (FLSA collective action certification).°
• Harris, supra, 716 F.Supp.2d 835 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (Conditional FLSA collective action certification).°
• Harris, supra, 656 F.Supp.2d 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (Summary judgment in class action/collective action).°
• Carson Harbor Village, Ltd., v. Unocal Corporation, 287 F.Supp.2d 1118 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (CERCLA summary judgment opinion).°

Additional Published Decisions

• Lead trial and litigation counsel in the following additional published decisions:
  • Harris v. Vector Marketing Corp., 2012 WL 381202, NO. C-08-5198 EMC (N.D. Cal., 2012).°
  • Harris v. Vector Marketing Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148034, NO. C-08-5198 EMC (N.D. Cal., 2011).°
  • Harris v. Vector Marketing Corp., 2011 WL 4831157, NO. C-08-5198 EMC (N.D. Cal., 2011).°
  • Harris v. Vector Marketing Corp., 2011 WL 1627973, NO. C-08-5198 EMC (N.D. Cal., 2011).°
  • Harris v. Vector Marketing Corp., 2010 WL 3743532, NO. C-08-5198 EMC (N.D. Cal., 2010).°
  • Harris v. Vector Marketing Corp., 2010 WL 2077015, NO. C-08-5198 EMC (N.D. Cal., 2010).°
  • Harris v. Vector Marketing Corp., 2010 WL 56179, NO. C-08-5198 EMC (N.D. Cal., 2010).°
  • Harris v. Vector Marketing Corp., 2009 WL 4050966, NO. C-08-5198 EMC (N.D. Cal., 2009).°
  • Harris v. Vector Marketing Corp., 2009 WL 3710696, NO. C-08-5198 EMC (N.D. Cal., 2009).°

• Tumampos v. Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd.: Putative class action on behalf of airline flight attendants alleging violations of numerous California Labor Code provisions. John and his team moved to dismiss the majority of plaintiffs’ claims under the Extraterritoriality Doctrine, which denies application of California law to employees who primarily work outside California. The plaintiffs and putative class members fly directly from LAX or SFO to Hong Kong and back, and thus work primarily outside California. The court granted the motion, and the case was resolved soon thereafter.°
• Sultan v. Medtronic, Inc. and Mitchell v. Medtronic, Inc.: Class action alleging failure to pay overtime based on improper calculation of Regular Rate of Pay and also alleging violation of California’s meal period statute. John and his team first succeeded in eliminating the overtime claim through a motion to dismiss and later defeated a motion for class certification of the remaining meal period claims. The case also effectively utilized a strategy of settling with individual putative class members before class certification, as authorized by California case law. Class certification in Sultan was later denied and affirmed on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mitchell was also appealed to the Ninth Circuit and affirmed in favor of Medtronic.°
• Steeger v. PetSmart, Inc.: FLSA nationwide collective action and Rule 23 class action alleging violations of wage and hour laws in five states. John and his team employed an aggressive, innovative strategy to resolve 85% of the putative class claims early on, following which the case was settled.°
• Laticrete International v. Mapei, Inc., et. al.: This trade secret case involved two employees who left Laticrete’s employ to work for a direct competitor, taking with them significant amounts of Laticrete’s trade secret information. John and his team promptly obtained a Temporary Restraining Order to prevent the use of that trade secret information and to require its return to the client, and he later convinced the court to issue a Preliminary Injunction against all defendants.°
• Harris v. Vector Marketing Corporation: This “bet the company” class action alleged violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code premised on claimed misclassification of over 60,000 independent contractors. John defeated several attempts to expand the geographic and substantive scope of the case and had the case pared down through a motion for summary adjudication and a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The case was then resolved via settlement.°
• Perry, et al. v. The Vitamin Shoppe: This class action, claiming misclassification of store managers and failure to provide meal and rest periods, was one of three similar class actions filed by three separate attorneys in three separate California state courts. John was able to bring one of the cases, Perry, to early mediation, thereby foreclosing any recovery in the other two related cases. The attorneys in the two remaining cases embarked on a campaign to try to undo the Perry case settlement. John fended off these attempts, and final approval of the settlement was granted in December 2007. That judgment, and a related ruling concerning misconduct by one of those counsel, was affirmed by the court of appeal in a published opinion (Hernandez v. Vitamin Shoppe Industries, 174 Cal. App. 4th 1441 (2009)) .°
• Espinoza v. Bodycote Thermal Processing, Inc. and Perea v. Bodycote Thermal Processing, Inc.: John and his team again employed an aggressive, innovative strategy to resolve roughly 90% of the potential claims early on through settlement. Plaintiffs and their counsel refused to acknowledge the validity of those settlements, but John convinced the court to issue an order approving the settlements as valid. He also defeated a motion to have the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims tried to a jury and a motion by plaintiffs to recover “catalyst” attorneys’ fees. The plaintiffs agreed to settle the remaining 10% of their potential claims on the eve of the hearing on a motion for significant sanctions.°
• Diaz v. First Advantage Corporation: This class action alleged violations of California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (a state law analogue of FCRA) for failure to provide accurate background checks. John and his team prevailed on a motion to dismiss the key class action allegations, which led to resolution of the remaining individual claims through settlement.°
• Solar Turbines v. Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement: Declaratory relief suit against the California State Labor Commissioner over interpretation of the Alternative Workweek provisions of California’s wage and hour laws. Following a bench trial, John prevailed on all counts, validating his client’s interpretation in a case with statewide implications.°

°The above representations were handled by Mr. Zaimes prior to his joining Greenberg Traurig, LLP.

• Rated, AV Preeminent^® 5.0 out of 5.0

°AV^®, AV Preeminent^®, Martindale-Hubbell Distinguished^SM and Martindale-Hubbell Notable^SM are certification marks used under license in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell^® certification procedures, standards and policies.

• Member, State Bar of California
  • Member, Labor & Employment Section