Jonathan M. Lebe is the founder and managing attorney of Lebe Law. Mr. Lebe has represented hundreds of employees and whistleblowers in single-plaintiff lawsuits and class actions.
In 2018, 2019 and 2020, Mr. Lebe was selected as a Super Lawyer Rising Star based on nominations from his peers, a distinction only received by 2.5% of attorneys. He is an active member of the California Employment Lawyers Association, an organization for plaintiff-side employment attorneys.
Before starting his own firm, Mr. Lebe was Deputy County Counsel with the Santa Clara County Counsel’s office, an attorney at a litigation firm representing public and private employers, and an attorney at a litigation firm representing employees in class actions.
He received his Juris Doctorate from Santa Clara University School of Law. While in law school, he was a legal extern to the Hon. Nandor J. Vadas of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. Before going to law school,Mr. Lebe graduated from Northwestern University with Bachelor of Arts degrees in Political Science and International Studies.
Some of Mr. Lebe’s representative matters include:
- Ortega v. Carson Wild Wings, LLC (Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC677388): Mr. Lebe obtained a unanimous jury verdict holding his client’s former employer responsible for wrongful termination and retaliation. In its verdict, the jury awarded Ms. Ortega $300,000 in lost earnings, emotional distress damages, punitive damages and penalties. The Court also awarded the firm $291,948 in attorneys’ fees.
- Schmitz v. Health IQ Re, Inc. (Santa Clara Superior Court, Case No. 18CV337951): Mr. Lebe obtained a class action and Private Attorney General Act settlement in which the average class member received $13,684.61 and the highest class member recovery was $50,003.76. In the trial court’s order approving the settlement, the Hon. Thomas E. Kuhnle held that “Plaintiffs’ counsel achieved a very good result for the class.”
- Finch v. Midwest Motor Supply Co., A160096: In its published opinion, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to dismiss or stay action for forum non conveniens because Defendant’s purported forum selection clause was unenforceable under Labor Code section 925.
- Zakaryan v. The Men’s Wearhouse, Inc., 33 Cal. App. 5th 659: In its published opinion, Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court’s denial of an employer’s motion to compel arbitration (disapproved on another ground in ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court (2019) 8 Cal.5th 175).
- Mcqueen v. City of Santa Monica (Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC627227): In its order, the trial court overruled Defendant’s demurrer and held that the public entity was not immune from all causes of action under the Labor Code. Defendant filed a writ of mandate which was denied by the Court of Appeal.
We are very proud of our successes. However, they do not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.
- Santa Clara University School of Law, Juris Doctor, 2012
- Northwestern University, Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and International Relations, 2008
- California Bar (SBN 284605)
- Northern, Southern, Central and Eastern District Courts of California