Request Your Free Consultation

Our team is standing by to help. Call us at (800) 561-4887 or complete this form to schedule a free consultation with us.

Submitting this form does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Click for Your FREE Case Review Click for Your FREE Case Review

Jerusalem Beligan California Employment & Class Action Lawyer

Education and Professional Experience

California employment law attorney

Jerusalem graduated with high honors (magna cum laude) from the University of California, Riverside in June 1997 with a Bachelor of Arts in political science and a minor in sociology. He was in the Dean’s Honors List all four years. While at UCR, Jerusalem was invited and became a member of several honor societies: Phi Beta Kappa; Pi Sigma Alpha; and Golden Key National Honor Society. After UCR, Jerusalem attended law school at Southwestern University. While in law school, he clerked for the LA District Attorney’s Office (Major Fraud Division) and the LA City Attorney’s Office. Jerusalem obtained his juris doctorate in May 2000, became a member of the California Bar in December 2000, and has been practicing for 20 years.

After law school, Jerusalem worked for a defense firm, Schaffer, Lax, McNaughton & Chen, where he was first exposed to class litigation. Jerusalem then joined The Petersen Law Firm—a plaintiff firm focused primarily on the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This is where he was first exposed to plaintiff work and represented public and private employees in state and federal court for violations of the FLSA.

Following his time at The Petersen Law Firm, Jerusalem broadened his knowledge and experience in employment class actions when he joined Morey & Upton—a plaintiff firm primarily involved in California wage-and-hour class actions. There he continued to sharpen his skills as a class-action litigator.

In August 2009, Jerusalem brought the knowledge and experience he gleaned from working at these three firms to Bisnar | Chase LLP and built its Class Action Litigation Department (CALD) from the ground up.

Relatively unknown at the time, Bisnar | Chase is now well-known in the class action arena and successfully litigates both employment and consumer class actions in state and federal court.

Appellate Victories

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Jerusalem has won on the appellate level, both in federal and state court. In 2018, he reversed a district court order denying a motion for class certification in an employment case. (See Sali v. Corona Regional Medical Center, 909 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2018) (amended Nov. 27, 2018).) In Sali, he was recognized by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as “ha[ving] extensive experience litigating class-action cases in state and federal court.” Id. at 1008. For his work and remarkable win in Sali, he was nominated for the 2019 Trial Lawyer of the Year Award by the American Association for Justice (AAJ). After the appeal, Bisnar | Chase settled the matter on a class basis and the district court in Sali—who initially denied class certification—appointed Bisnar | Chase as class counsel and eventually approved the class settlement.

In another Ninth Circuit victory, Jerusalem successfully revived a consumer class action against Toyota which was dismissed by a federal district court. (See Heber, et al. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (9th Cir. 2020) 823 Fed.Appx. 512 (Heber).) In Heber, the plaintiffs allege that Toyota’s switch from plastic to soy-based wiring in its engines increased the probability of rodent-inflicted damage, resulting in millions of out-of-pocket losses for consumers and the creation of a substantial safety hazard. The district court judge held the plaintiffs could not blame Toyota for the increase in damages and safety hazards, but only the rodents. The three-judge panel in Heber held the district court judge was off the mark when he found the proposed class could not blame Toyota for damage done by a third party—the rats—saying the alleged defect was the soy-based wiring harness, not the animals. Brian Chase of Bisnar | Chase told Law360 that the Heber opinion obtained by Jerusalem was a “great victory” for Toyota owners. He also told Law360 that “[n]ow that the Ninth Circuit has revived their breach of implied warranty claims, plaintiffs can continue to fight and seek reimbursement for the money and other out-of-pocket losses they and other consumers incurred in having to repair or replace their damaged soy-based wiring.”

California Court of Appeals

In 2019, Jerusalem won an appellate victory when he affirmed a trial court’s denial of a petition to compel arbitration in an employment case. (See Velarde v. Tricor America, Inc., No. A153351, 2019 WL 1649314 (1st DCA, Div. 5, filed April 17, 2019) (a petition for review to the California Supreme Court was denied).)

In a more recent case, Jerusalem and Ian obtained a published decision clarifying what is deemed a modification of a contract for purposes of California Labor Code § 925. (See Midwest Motor Supply Co. v. Sup. Ct. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 702 (Midwest).) The issue in Midwest was whether the plaintiff could void the forum-selection clause in an employment contract under section 925, which renders such a clause in an employment contract voidable by an employee if the contract containing the clause was “entered into, modified, or extended on or after January 1, 2017.” The trial court determined plaintiff could void the forum-selection clause under section 925 because Midwest modified the compensation provision of plaintiff’s employment agreement in 2017 and again in 2018, even though the forum-selection clause itself was not modified. The appellate panel in Midwest Motor Supply agreed with the trial court and affirmed its ruling.

Leadership Roles and Recent Trial Court Victories

Employment Cases

Jerusalem is lead counsel in a wage-and-hour action titled Samantha Young v. Shipt, Inc., pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:20-cv-05858 (Young). Young is a complex case in which plaintiff is seeking to conditionally certify a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and certify an Illinois class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. In Young, the plaintiff alleges that Shipt misclassified her, and potentially hundreds or thousands of others, as independent contractors. As a result, plaintiff alleges Shipt has been able to shift its operating costs to its employees and has been avoiding paying its employees the minimum wage for all regular hours worked and overtime wages when they worked over 40 hours in a workweek.

Jerusalem is co-lead class counsel in a wage-and-hour class action against a defendant employer that settled for $8,750,000 in California superior court. The employment class action involved claims for unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, meal-and-rest break violations, and derivative claims for inaccurate wage statements and penalties for the late payment of wages due.

Jerusalem is lead trial counsel on a certified employment class action, involving nearly a thousand employees, which is proceeding to trial in May 2021. The case is titled Sarah Grant, et al. v. Car Spa, Inc., Case No. RIC1310176, and is pending in Riverside Superior Court before the Honorable Sunshine Sykes.

Jerusalem was appointed lead counsel in a wage-and-hour class action involving roughly 1,000 employees in July 2019. The case is titled Justin Dada, et al. v. CyberCoders, Inc., et al., Case No. SACV 18-01023JVS (JDEx) (Dada), and was pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Dada involved claims for unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, meal-and-rest break violations, and derivative claims for inaccurate wage statements and penalties for the late payment of wages due.

Consumer Cases

Jerusalem is co-lead counsel in a consumer class action pending against Toyota, the second largest car manufacturer in the world. The case is titled Albert Heber, et al. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-01525-CJC-JCG, pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. As discussed above, Heber involves hundreds of thousands of Toyota vehicles that allegedly contain defective soy wiring that increases the probability of rodent-inflicted damage, resulting in millions of out-of-pocket losses for consumers and creation of potential safety hazards.

Jerusalem is lead counsel in another consumer class action pending against Honda, another large car manufacturer. The case is titled Ashley Cox, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 19STCV16445 (Cox), pending in Los Angeles Superior Court. Cox involves hundreds of thousands of Honda vehicles that allegedly contain a defect in the vehicles’ Apple Play/infotainment system.

In a case involving hundreds of thousands of putative class members, Bisnar | Chase defeated Icy Hot’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim against Icy Hot for false and misleading advertising. (See Ruthie Martin v. Chattem, Inc., Case No. 19STCV17036, pending in Los Angeles Superior Court.)

Bisnar | Chase was appointed co-lead counsel In a TCPA class action involving over 700,000 class members. (See Hartranft v. TVI, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01081-CJC-DFM, Dkt. 101, at 4 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2019).)

In one of the largest data breaches in U.S. history, Bisnar | Chase was appointed co-lead counsel in Yahoo! Inc. Private Information Disclosure Cases, JCCP No. 4895 (O.C. Cal. Sup. Ct. May 26, 2017).

In a certified class action involving defective hair dryers and hundreds of thousands of class members, Bisnar | Chase was appointed co-lead counsel in Czuchaj v. Conair Corp., No. 3:13-cv-01901-BEN-RBB (S.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2015).

Awards

California employment law attorney Jerusalem was selected as one of the “2020 Top Labor & Employment Lawyers” by the Daily Journal.

Publications

Jerusalem also wrote an article published in the California Employment Lawyers Association’s (“CELA”) June 2019 Bulletin titled, Admissibility of Evidence at Class Certification After Sali v. Corona Reg’l Med. Ctr.: Know the Difference Between Federal and State Court.

Amicus Curiae Letters

Jerusalem, along with co-counsel, has also written amicus letters, on behalf of the CAOC, to depublish or, in the alternative, grant review of Felisilda v. FCA US LLC, 53 Cal.App.5th 486 (2020) (petition for review filed Sept. 23, 2020, Case No. S264619).

Memberships

Jerusalem is a member of several organizations that fight for and protect the rights of employees and consumers: the AAJ, CELA, CAOC, OCTLA, National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA), and National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA).


Sampling of Class Action Experience in Employment and Consumer Cases

A. Employment Cases:

  • (1) Brehm, et al. vs. City of Los Angeles, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, No. SACV 00-748 GLT (EEx), a FLSA action in which some 590 officers, lieutenants and detectives of the LAPD brought a claim against the City of Los Angeles for unpaid overtime;
  • (2) Casey, et al. vs. County of San Bernardino, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, No. EDCV 00-00625-VAP (Ex), a FLSA action in which sheriffs of the San Bernardino Police Department brought a claim against the County of San Bernardino for unpaid overtime;
  • (3) Thomas, et al. vs. County of San Bernardino, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, No. EDCV 00-00207-VAP (CWx), a FLSA action in which sheriffs of the San Bernardino Police Department brought a claim against the County of San Bernardino for unpaid overtime;
  • (4) Huntington Beach Police Officers’ Assoc., et al. vs. City of Huntington Beach, et al., Orange County Superior Court, No. 00CC15105, a representative action on behalf of police officers against the City of Huntington Beach for unreimbursed expenses;
  • (5) Jackson, et al. vs. Jamba Juice Company, et al., U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, No. SACV 02-381 DOC (MLGx), a FLSA action in which current and former misclassified assistant managers brought an action against Jamba Juice Company for unpaid overtime;
  • (6) Poe, et al. vs. Automobile Club of Southern California et al., Los Angeles Superior Court, No. BC274967, a representative action brought on behalf of numerous Claims Legal Investigators for unpaid overtime, violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, and conversion;
  • (7) Dellarossa, et al. vs. Pearlworks, Inc. et al., Orange County Superior Court, No. 02CC00371, a representative class action on behalf of numerous former and current employees for unpaid overtime, denial of meal-and-rest periods, violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, and conversion;
  • (8) Deyoung, et al. vs. Elite Exteriors, Inc., Orange County Superior Court, No. 05CC00229, a class action brought on behalf of former and current employees of Elite Interiors, Inc. for unpaid overtime, violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, and conversion;
  • (9) Cobb, et al. vs. Bigfish Restaurant Enterprises, LLC, et al., Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 06CC00242, a class action brought on behalf of approximately 400 former and current servers against Opah Restaurant for tip-pooling violation, unpaid overtime, minimum wage violation, denial of meal-and-rest periods, unlawful deduction of wages, failure to maintain accurate payroll records, and violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200;
  • (10) Thistlewhite, et al. vs. Platinum Equity Financial, et al., Orange County Superior Court, No. 06CC00138, a class action brought on behalf of mortgage brokers who were misclassified as independent contractors by their employer and whom sought back wages and penalties for minimum wage, unpaid overtime, denial of meal-and-rest periods, failure to maintain accurate payroll records, and violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200;
  • (11) Jones, et al. v. Agilysys, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 4:12-cv-03516-SBA, nationwide wage-and-hour class action under the FLSA and Rule 23 California class;
  • (12) Greene, et al. vs. Gino Morena Enterprises, LLC, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 13-CV-1332-JM (NLS), wage-and-hour class action;
  • (13) Grant, et al. vs. College Hospital, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court, No. BC487206, a class action on behalf of numerous former and current therapists for unpaid overtime, denial of meal-and-rest periods, inaccurate wage statements, and violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200;
  • (14) Contreras, et al. v. Orange Coast Plumbing, Inc., Orange County Superior Court, No. 30-2011-00505181-CU-OE-CXC, wage-and-hour class action;
  • (15) Pinette v. Desert Ventures South, LLC, Riverside Superior Court, No. RIC1406754, wage-and-hour class action;
  • (16) Travis v. Guild Mortgage Co., Orange County Superior Court, No. 30-2014-00727549-CU-OE-CXC, wage-and-hour class action;
  • (17) Calalang, et al. v. D&C Care Center, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court, No. BC503061, wage-and-hour class action;
  • (18) Sanchez v. Frito-Lay, Inc., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, No. 1:14-cv-00797-DAD-MJS, wage-and-hour class action;
  • (19) Nehrlich, et al. v. RPM Mortgage, Inc., Orange County Superior Court, No. 30-2013-00666783-CU-OE-CXC, wage-and-hour class action;
  • (20) Grant, et al. v Car Spa, Inc., Riverside Superior Court, No. RIC1310176, wage-and-hour class action (contested class certification motion, resulting in motion for class certification being granted and Bisnar | Chase being appointed lead class counsel);
  • (21) Dunbar v. Horizon Beverage Company, L.P., Alameda Superior Court, No. RG13691776, wage-and-hour class action;
  • (22) Chrispens, et al. v. LifeTime Fitness, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, No. 1:14-cv-06056, wage-and-hour class action;
  • (23) In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, No. 1:07-cv-01314-OWW-DLB [1:09-CV-1074-OWW-DLB (Consolidated)], a wage-and-hour class action that involved 18,000 former and current employees of Taco Bell for unpaid overtime, meal-and-rest violations, unreimbursed business expenses, and other civil penalties under the PAGA;
  • (24) Sali, et al. v. Corona Regional Medical Center, et al., U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 5:14-cv-00985-PSG-JPR, wage-and-hour class action (reversed district court order denying class certification, resulting in published opinion and successfully opposed petition for review to the Ninth Circuit);
  • (25) Padilla, et al. v. Anheuser-Busch, LLC (consolidated with Hernandez v. Anheuser-Busch, LLC), Los Angeles Superior Court, No. BC646330, wage-and-hour class action;
  • (26) Velarde v. Tricor America, Inc., San Mateo Superior Court, No. CGC-17-560118, wage-and-hour class action (affirmed trial court order denying petition to compel arbitration);
  • (27) Willner v. Axia Financial, LLC, Los Angeles Superior Court, No. BC292009, PAGA action;
  • (28) Brown v. Edelman Financial Services, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, No. 18-cv-00214, wage-and-hour class and PAGA action;
  • (29) Ramirez v. Central Transportation, LLC, et al., San Bernardino Superior Court, No. CIVS1803356, wage-and-hour class action;
  • (30) Dada, et al. v. CyberCoders, Inc., U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, No. 8:18-cv-01023-JVS-JDE, wage-and-hour class action;
  • (31) Jankeel v. Ballast Point Brewing Company, San Diego Superior Court, No. 37-2018-00052349, PAGA action;
  • (32) Orozco v. United Site Services, Inc., Los Angeles County Superior Court, No. 18STCV01830, wage-and-hour class action;
  • (33) Neseth v. Dyson, Inc., Orange County Superior Court, No. 30-2018-01033597, wage-and-hour class action;
  • (34) Biakanja v. Primal Elements, Inc., Orange County Superior Court, No. 30-2019-01047689, PAGA action;
  • (35) Owens v. Blood Bank of San Bernardino, et al., San Bernardino Superior Court, No. CIVDS 1811013, wage-and-hour class action;
  • (36) Collins v. Maximus Human Services, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court, No. 19STCV17916, wage-and-hour class action;
  • (37) Rodriguez v. Lifetime Fitness, Inc., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 18-cv-01123, wage-and-hour class action;
  • (38) Glass v. Bay-Valley Mortgage Group, Orange County Superior Court, No. 30-2019-01091653-CU-OE-CXC, wage-and-hour class and PAGA action;
  • (39) Fleming v. Mission Linen Supply, Sacramento Superior Court, No. 34-2019-00267357, wage-and-hour class action;
  • (40) Finch v. Midwest Motor Supply Co. dba Kimball-Midwest, Contra Costa County Superior Court, No. C19-02038, wage-and-hour class action;
  • (41) Nolte v. Oasis Outsourcing III, Inc., Orange Superior Court, No. 2019-01111809, wage-and-hour class action;
  • (42) Bland v. Yelp, Inc., San Francisco Superior Court, No. CGC-20-582181, wage-and-hour class action;
  • (43) Melendez v. J & B Investments, et al., Riverside Superior Court, No. RIC1806564, wage-and-hour class action; and
  • (44) Van Heel v. GCA Education Services, Inc., Central District Court of California, No. 2:20-cv-01505-AB-JEM.
  • B. Consumer Cases:

  • (45) Czuchaj, et al. v. Conair Corporation, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, No. 3:13-cv-01901-BEN-RBB, product defect class action (contested class certification, resulting in granting of class certification and Bisnar | Chase being named co-lead counsel);
  • (46) Gilsleider, et al. v. EOS Products, LLC, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, No. 8:16-cv-00283-JAK-JEM, product defect and consumer fraud class action;
  • (47) In Re Fontem US, Inc. Consumer Class Action Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, No. 8:15-cv-01026-JVS-RAO, consumer fraud class action;
  • (48) Hartranft v. Apogee, LLC, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, No. 8:15-cv-01081-CJC-DFM, TCPA consumer class action;
  • (49) Oda, et al. v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, No. 8:15-cv-02131-JLS-JCG, product defect class action;
  • (50) Minoletti v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court, No. BC636269, product defect class action;
  • (51) Yahoo!, Inc. Private Information Disclosure Cases, Orange County Superior Court, JCCP 4895, data breach class action;
  • (52) Herrera v. LG Electronics USA, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:17-cv-01039-MWF-PLA, product defect class action;
  • (53) McGovern v. NJOY, Inc., U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, No. cv-14-00428-JFW-JEMx, consumer fraud class action;
  • (54) Martin v. Chattem, Inc., et al., Los Angeles Superior Court, No. 19STCV17036, consumer fraud class action;
  • (55) Dinh v. First American Financial Corp., et al., U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, No. 8:19-cv-01105-DSF-E, data breach class action; and
  • (56) Cox v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc., et al., Los Angeles Superior Court, No. 19STCV16445, product defect class action.

Was This Page Helpful? Yes | No

Daily Journal Top Lawyer 2020
See All Ratings And Awards

Have a question that wasn't answered here?

Call Us!

(800) 561-4887

Fill Out Our

Contact Form