Buckingham Property Management, the Clovis-based residential manager that oversees more than 7,500 units across California, has been the subject of several lawsuits in recent years. The disputes are mostly brought by current and former employees and cluster around three themes: unpaid wages under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), disability and pregnancy discrimination tied to leave requests, and retaliation for raising complaints. Two of the wage cases have settled. At least two discrimination suits remain active as of early 2026.
Ferrell: The $600,000 Wage Class Action
The most fully documented case is Ferrell et al. v. Buckingham Property Management, filed in 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. Kevin Ferrell and Cheryl Baker sued on behalf of non-exempt property employees, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and bringing claims under PAGA.1GovInfo. Ferrell et al. v. Buckingham Property Management
The parties reached a settlement of up to $600,000, but in August 2021 District Judge Dale A. Drozd rejected it. The deal contained a reversionary clause that would have sent unclaimed funds, including a portion tagged for PAGA civil penalties, back to Buckingham. Under California law, 75 percent of PAGA penalties go to the state Labor and Workforce Development Agency and 25 percent go to affected workers. Judge Drozd ruled that letting the employee-side penalties revert to the employer violated public policy and the statute’s deterrent purpose.2Justia. Ferrell et al. v. Buckingham Property Management, Order Denying Final Approval
The court rejected the parties’ argument that the funds were “fungible” and that other settlement money could stand in for the PAGA distribution. The denial came without prejudice, letting the parties fix the reversion mechanism. Apart from the PAGA problem, Judge Drozd found the settlement fair, reasonable, and free of collusion.2Justia. Ferrell et al. v. Buckingham Property Management, Order Denying Final Approval
An amended agreement followed. Judge Drozd granted final approval, calling the revised deal “reasonable and adequate” and noting it came from arms-length negotiations after meaningful discovery, with no objections from class members. The class covered all current and former non-exempt property employees in California between August 2010 and July 2020. Payments were calculated by the number of workweeks each member had worked.3GovInfo. Ferrell et al. v. Buckingham Property Management, Final Approval Order
Rivas: A Second PAGA Settlement in 2025
Johnny Rivas v. Buckingham Property Management was filed in August 2023 in Kings County Superior Court. The action covered 506 employees and roughly 44,000 workweeks. The available filings do not detail the specific labor code violations alleged.4CABIA. Johnny Rivas v. Buckingham Property Management
The case settled in October 2025 for a gross amount of $300,000, broken down as follows:
- $105,000 in attorney fees
- $26,000 in litigation expenses
- $15,000 in PAGA penalties
- $10,000 to the settlement administrator
- $5,000 to the named plaintiff
Preliminary approval was granted in January 2026, with a final approval hearing scheduled for April 30, 2026.5UniCourt. Rivas v. Buckingham Property Management4CABIA. Johnny Rivas v. Buckingham Property Management
Serratos: Five On-Site Managers Fired the Same Day
Johana Serratos et al. v. Buckingham Property Management et al., filed in March 2024 in Los Angeles County Superior Court, is the most serious active case. Five former on-site property managers — Johana Serratos, Maria Nunez Barrueta, Edith Nava Mar, Johanna Gonzalez, and Blanca Ramirez-Guerra — say they were all fired on the same day, March 31, 2023, after complaining about unpaid overtime and requesting medical leave or accommodations.6UniCourt. Serratos et al. vs. Buckingham Property Management et al.
The complaint brings claims for retaliation under Labor Code Section 1102.5, discrimination and failure to accommodate under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, violations of the California Family Rights Act, and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The plaintiffs’ medical circumstances included a high-risk pregnancy (Serratos), a family leave request to care for a mother with cancer (Barrueta), accommodations tied to a hip replacement and kidney transplant (Mar), and a pregnancy (Ramirez-Guerra). All say their requests were denied.6UniCourt. Serratos et al. vs. Buckingham Property Management et al.
The Abhay Gokani Corporation is a co-defendant, and its sole shareholder, Abhay Gokani, figures directly in the allegations. According to the complaint, Gokani told Serratos to “find a new job” and personally denied the accommodation and leave requests of Serratos, Barrueta, and Mar. In an April 2025 ruling, Judge Tiana J. Murillo let punitive damages claims proceed as to those three plaintiffs, finding Gokani’s personal involvement sufficient under California’s standard for corporate punitive liability. The court struck the punitive claims for Gonzalez and Ramirez-Guerra but gave them 30 days to amend. Buckingham’s misjoinder challenge was overruled; the court found the plaintiffs shared enough common facts to proceed together.6UniCourt. Serratos et al. vs. Buckingham Property Management et al.
The plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to submit a fourth amended complaint in November 2025. A hearing on that motion is set for February 25, 2026.6UniCourt. Serratos et al. vs. Buckingham Property Management et al.
Chacon: Disability and Race Discrimination in Fresno
Marlys Lynn Chacon filed suit in September 2024 in Fresno County Superior Court against Buckingham Property Management and an individual named Jennie Reed. The complaint alleges disability discrimination, race discrimination, harassment, whistleblower retaliation, failure to prevent discrimination, negligent supervision, breach of employment contracts, wrongful termination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.7Trellis Law. Chacon v. Buckingham Property Management, Complaint
Judge Lisa M. Gamoian is presiding. The parties executed an alternative dispute resolution stipulation in May 2025, indicating agreement to pursue mediation or arbitration. The case remains active as of May 2026.8Trellis Law. Marlys Chacon vs. Buckingham Property Management
Tenant Complaints and the Wallace Federal Case
The Better Business Bureau profile for Buckingham lists 14 complaints filed within a recent three-year window. Several describe habitability issues: mold growth after water leaks, delayed window replacements during cold weather, a fire in a unit where the tenant said the smoke detector was not working, and a malfunctioning air conditioner during extreme heat.9Better Business Bureau. Buckingham Property Management Complaints
One federal case brought by tenants, Wallace v. Buckingham Property Management, was filed in 2016 in the Eastern District of California. The plaintiffs alleged the company conspired with unknown individuals to install surveillance devices in their apartment and hack their electronics. A magistrate judge recommended dismissal with prejudice in February 2017, finding the claims “conclusory” and lacking plausible support, and the court granted Buckingham’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.10CaseMine. Wallace v. Buckingham Property Management
A Similarly Named Case That Is Not This Company
A 2016 Fair Housing Act suit involving a “Buckingham Apartments Tenants’ Association” in Redwood City is sometimes confused with the Clovis company. That case targeted 180 Buckingham Property LLC and Trion Properties, not Buckingham Property Management, and settled in early 2017.11CourtListener. Buckingham Apartments Tenants’ Association v. Trion Properties Inc.