EXHIBIT A - Class Actions Lawsuits€¦ · Case 2:19-cv-00932-RSWL-E Document 1-1 Filed 02/06/19...

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:19-cv-00932-RSWL-E Document 1-1 Filed 02/06/19 of 21 Page ID #:13

Service of ProcessTransmittal12/31/2018CT Log Number 534658781

TO: Jan AbbsElement Materials Technology2740 E W T Harris Blvd Ste 102Charlotte, NC 28213-4372

RE: Process Served in California

FOR: Element Materials Technology Huntington Beach LLC (Domestic State: NC)

Page 1 of 1 / MN

Information displayed on this transmittal is for CTCorporation's record keeping purposes only and is provided tothe recipient for quick reference. This information does notconstitute a legal opinion as to the nature of action, theamount of damages, the answer date, or any informationcontained in the documents themselves. Recipient isresponsible for interpreting said documents and for takingappropriate action. Signatures on certified mail receiptsconfirm receipt of package only, not contents.

ENCLOSED ARE COPIES OF LEGAL PROCESS RECEIVED BY THE STATUTORY AGENT OF THE ABOVE COMPANY AS FOLLOWS: TITLE OF ACTION: ROGER FLORES, ETC., PLTF. vs. ELEMENT MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY HUNTINGTON

BEACH LLC, ET AL., DFTS.

DOCUMENT(S) SERVED: LETTER, COMPLAINT

COURT/AGENCY: Los Angeles County - Superior Court, CACase # None Specified

NATURE OF ACTION: Employee Litigation - Wrongful Termination

ON WHOM PROCESS WAS SERVED: C T Corporation System, Los Angeles, CA

DATE AND HOUR OF SERVICE: By Certified Mail on 12/31/2018 postmarked: "Illegible"

JURISDICTION SERVED : California

APPEARANCE OR ANSWER DUE: None Specified

ATTORNEY(S) / SENDER(S): JESSICA L. CAMPBELLAEGIS LAW FIRM, PC9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100Irvine, CA 92618949- 379-6250

ACTION ITEMS: CT has retained the current log, Retain Date: 01/01/2019, Expected Purge Date:01/06/2019

Image SOP

Email Notification, Jan Abbs [email protected]

Email Notification, Tom Cox [email protected]

Email Notification, NEIL MACLENNAN [email protected]

SIGNED: C T Corporation SystemADDRESS: 818 West Seventh Street

Los Angeles, CA 90017TELEPHONE: 213-337-4615

Exhibit A

Page 12


nI

^tSPOSs

%

4ie:mca'rzKsmssfPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA pit n£y b oWE

S007.3(7D16 DbaO DODD 7̂3□ 6518 02 iPOOOOP430SS DEC 28 20 MAILED FROM2IP C.ODE926

>

'2/f '

Ae g is La w9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100

Irvine. California 92618

CT Corporation (CO 168406) 818 West Seventh Street, Suite 930

Los Angeles, CA 90017

•ii

t

i

: 9

i

I 't • 1 .

Exhibit A

Page 13


AEG IS LAW FIRM , PC

9811 Irv ine Center D rive, Suite 100 Irv ine, Califo rn ia 92618 Telephone: 949.379.6250 Facsim ile: 949.379.6251 www .aegislaw firm .com

Ae g is La wDecember 28, 2018

VIA ONLINE SUBMISSION

Califo rn ia Labor and Workforce Development Agency

A ttn ': PAGA Adm in istrator

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL (RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED)

Agent fo r Service of Process fo r E lement Materia ls Technology Huntington Beach LLC :

CT Corporation (CO 168406)

818 West Seventh Street, Suite 930

Los Angeles, CA 90017

Roser Flores v. Element Materials Technology Huntington Beach LLCRe:

Dear Labor and Workforce Development Agency and E lement Materia ls Technology Huntington

Beach LLC :

P lease allow th is correspondence to serve as w ritten notice requ ired by Califo rn ia Labor

Code § 2699.3(a)(1) of the specific prov isions of the Labor Code allegedly v io lated by E lement

Materia ls Technology Huntington Beach LLC (“ E lement” ) and the facts and theories in support

of said allegations. This f irm represents Roger F lores (“C laimant”); we hereby notify you that

C laim ant in tends to seek penalties against E lement under the Private A ttorneys General Act of

2004, Cal. Lab. Code §§ 2698 et seq., on behalf of him self and all other aggrieved employees.

Specific Prov isions of the Califo rn ia Labor Code A lleged ly V io lated bv E lement

The specific prov isions of the Labor Code alleged ly v io lated by E lement and the

prov isions under which C laim ant subm its th is correspondence inc lude the fo llow ing: §§ 201-203,

204, 210, 226, 226.3 , 226.7 , 512, 558.

Facts and Theories Supporting the A llegations Against E lement

C laim ant and other aggrieved employees worked fo r E lement as non-exempt employees in

Califo rn ia. C laim ant was employed by E lement in Califo rn ia w ith in the past year. E lement

prov ides testing, inspection, certif ication and calib ration serv ices in Califo rn ia.

Throughout the course of C laimant’ s employment. E lement fa iled to prov ide 30-m inute

unin terrupted meal periods w ith in the appropriate tim e in tervals to C laimant and other aggrieved

employees as requ ired by Labor Code section 512 and section 11 of the applicab le Wage Order.

C laimant and other aggrieved employees frequently worked sh ifts over f ive hours and did not

receive law fu l meal periods because E lement requ ired its employees to work th rough their meal

periods and/or caused therh to not be able to take all meal periods at the requ ired in tervals. Further,

C laimant and other aggrieved employees worked over 10 hours in some instances and were entitled

R iversideIrv ine Los AngelesExhibit A

Page 14


http://www.aegislawfirm.com

to a second meal period, but were not prov ided a second meal period fo r the same reasons stated

herein .

W hen C laimant and other aggrieved employees m issed meal periods or if they were la te,

short, and/or in terrupted. E lement v io lated Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512, as well as section

11 of the applicab le Wage Order, by fa iling to pay an additional hour of pay at the regu lar rate of

pay to C laimant and other aggrieved employees fo r every day in which they suffered a meal period

v io lation, and they were entitled to th is meal period prem ium pursuant to Labor Code section 558.

A dditionally , th roughout the course of C laimant’ s employment. E lement fa iled to authorize

or perm it 10-m inute rest periods fo r every four hours or major fraction thereof worked because

C laimant and other aggrieved employees were requ ired to work th rough their rest periods, were

not authorized to take their rest periods, and/or were discouraged from tak ing their rest periods,

fo r the same reasons stated herein . Further, E lement maintained a lack of policy authorizing or

perm itting a th ird rest periods when C laim ant and other aggrieved employees worked over 10

hours.

W hen C laim ant and other aggrieved employees did not receive rest periods, or if they were

la te, short, and/or in terrupted. E lement v io lated Labor Code section 226.7 and section 12 of the

applicab le Wage Order by fa iling to pay an additional hour of pay at the regu lar rate of pay to

C laimant and other aggrieved employees, and they were entitled to th is rest period prem ium

pursuant to Labor Code section 558.

A s a resu lt of, and in addition to , these actions. E lement v io lated Labor Code sections 226

and 226.3 by fa iling to prov ide item ized wage statements that accurately reported the fo llow ing:

(1) gross wages earned; (2) to ta l hours worked by the employee; (3) the number of piece-rate units

earned and any applicab le piece rate if the employee is paid on a piece-rate basis; (4) all deductions,

prov ided that all deductions made on w ritten orders of the employee may be aggregated and shown

as one item ; (5) net wages earned; (6) the inc lusive dates of the period fo r which the employee is

paid ; (7) the name of the employee and the last four dig its of his or her social security number or

an employee identification number other than a social security number; (8) the name and address

of the legal entity that is the employer; and (9) all applicab le hourly rates in effect during the pay

period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee.

Sim ilarly , E lement v io lated Labor Code sections 1174 and 1174.5 by fa iling to maintain accurate

and complete records show ing the hours worked daily by the aggrieved employees and the wages

paid to aggrieved employees (due to the same underpayment of wages referenced above).

Furtherm ore, E lement v io lated the Labor Code by failing to properly pay all these wages

owed th roughout aggrieved employees’ employment and fo llow ing the end of these workers’

employment w ith E lement (in v io lation of Labor Code sections 201-203, 204, and 210).

Based on these v io lations. C laim ant seeks attorneys’ fees, in terest, and penalties under the

Labor Code. The civ il penalties C laim ant seeks on behalf of him self and other aggrieved

employees inc lude those authorized by Labor Code section 558. A ttached hereto and incorporated

herein is the class action complain t C laimant f iled in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

C laim ant in tends to amend the complain t to include a cause of action pursuant to Labor Code §§

2698, et seq.

2

Exhibit A

Page 15


Thank you fo r your assistance on th is issue. Should you have any questions or comments,

please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

V ery tru ly yours,

AEG IS LAW FIRM

Jessica L . Campbell

Enc losu re(s)

C lass Action Complain t

3

Exhibit A

Page 16


%

1 AEGISPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA LAW FIRM, PCSAMUEL A . WONG , State Bar No. 217104

KASH IF HAQUE, State Bar No. 218672

JESSICA L . CAMPBELL , State Bar No. 280626

9811 Irv ine Center D rive, Suite 100

Irv ine, Califo rn ia 92618

Telephone: (949) 379-6250

Facsim ile: (949)379-6251

2

3

4

5

6 A ttorneys fo r Plain tiff Roger F lores,ind iv idually and on behalf of all others sim ilarly situated

7

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA8

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES9

10Case No.ROGER FLORES, ind iv idually and on

behalf of all others sim ilarly situated.11

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR:12

P lain tiff,Failu re to Prov ide Meal Periods;1.13

vs.Failure to Perm it Rest B reaks;2.14

ELEMENT MATER IALS TECHNOLOGY

HUNTINGTON BEACH LLC ; and DOES

1 th rough 20, inc lusive.

15 Failure to Prov ide Accurate Item ized Wage

Statements;

3.

16

Failu re to Pay A ll Wages Due Upon

Separation of Employment; and

4.Defendants.17

18V io lation of Business and Professions

Code §§ 17200, et seq.

5.19

20

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CLASS ACT ION COMPLA INTExhibit A

Page 17


Plain tiff Roger F lores, ind iv idually and on behalf of others sim ilarly situated, alleges as1

fo llows:2

NATURE OF ACTION AND INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT3

Plain tiff Roger F lores (“ P lain tiff ’ ) brings th is putative class action against

defendan ts E lement Materia ls Technology Huntington Beach LLC , and DOES 1 th rough 20,

inc lusive (co llectively , “ D efendants”), on behalf of him self ind iv idually and a putative class of

non-exem pt employees employed by Defendants th roughout Califo rn ia.

D efendants prov ides testing, inspection, certif ication and calib ration serv ices in

4 1.♦

5

6

7

8 2.

Califo rn ia.9

Through th is action. Plain tiff alleges that Defendants have engaged in a

systematic pattern of wage and hour v io lations under the Califo rn ia Labor Code and Industria l

Welfare Comm ission (“ IW C” ) Wage Orders, all of which contribute to Defendants’ deliberate

unfair competition .

3.10

11

12

13

Plain tiff is in formed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants have

increased their profits by v io lating state wage and hour laws by, among other th ings:

(a) Failing to prov ide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof;

(b) Failing to authorize or perm it rest breaks or prov ide compensation in lieu thereof;

(c) Failing to prov ide accurate item ized wage statements; and

(d) Failing to pay all wages due upon separation of employment.

P lain tiff brings th is lawsu it seek ing monetary re lief against Defendants on

behalf of him self and all others sim ilarly situated in Califo rn ia to recover, among other th ings,

unpaid wages and benefits, in terest, attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses and penalties pursuant

to Labor Code §§ 201-203, 226, 226.7 , and 512.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

14 4.

15

16

17

18

19

20 5.

21

22

23

24

6. This is a class action, pursuant to Califo rn ia Code of C iv il Procedure § 382. The

monetary damages and restitu tion sought by Plain tiff exceeds the m in im al ju risd ictional lim its

of the Superior Court and w ill be estab lished according to proof at tria l.,

25

26

27

28

-1-


Page 18


7. This Court has ju risd iction over th is action pursuant to the Califo rn ia

Constitu tion, A rtic le V I, § 10, which grants the Superior Court orig inal ju risd iction in all

causes except those given by statu tes to other courts. The statu tes under which th is action is

brough t do not specify any other basis fo r ju risd iction.

8. This Court has ju risd iction over all Defendants because, upon in formation and

belief, they are citizens of Califo rn ia, have suffic ient m in im um contacts in Califo rn ia or

otherw ise in tentionally avail them selves of the Califo rn ia market so as to render the exercise of

ju risd iction over them by the Califo rn ia courts consistent vrith trad itional notions of fair play

and substantial justice.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Venue is proper in th is Court because, upon in form ation and belief. Defendants

reside, transact business or have offices in th is county and the acts and om issions alleged herein

took place in th is county .

9.10

11

12

THE PARTIES13

Plain tiff is a citizen of Califo rn ia. Plain tiff was employed by Defendants during10.14

the C lass Period in Califo rn ia.15

P lain tiff is in formed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants at all

tim es hereinafter mentioned, were and are employers as defined in and sub ject to the Labor

Code and IW C Wage Orders, whose employees were and are engaged th roughout th is county

and the State of Califo rn ia.

16 11.

17

18

19

P lain tiff is unaware of the true names or capacities of the defendants sued herein

under the f ic titious names DOES 1 th rough 20, but w ill seek leave of th is Court to amend th is

Complain t and serve such f ic titiously named defendants once their names and capacities

become known.

20 12.

21

22

23

13. Plain tiff is in form ed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each defendant acted

in all respects pertinent to th is action as the agent of the other defendant, carried out a jo in t

scheme, business plan or policy in all respects pertinent hereto , and the acts of each defendant

are legally attributab le to the other defendant. Furtherm ore, defendants in all respects acted as

the employer and/or jo in t employer of Plain tiff and the class members.

24

25

26

27

28

-2-


Page 19


Plain tiff is in formed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each and all of the

acts and om issions alleged herein were performed by, or are attributab le to . Defendants and/or

DOES 1 th rough 20, acting as the agent or alter ego fo r the other, w ith legal authority to act on

the other’ s behalf The acts of any and all Defendants were in accordance w ith , and represent,

the officia l policy of Defendants.

A t all re levant tim es. Defendants, and each of them , acted w ith in the scope of

such agency or employment, or ratif ied each and every act or om ission complained of herein .

A t all re levant tim es. Defendants, and each of them , aided and abetted the acts and om issions of

each and all the other Defendants in prox imately causing the damages herein alleged.

P lain tiff is in formed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of said

Defendants is in some manner in tentionally , negligently or otherw ise responsib le fo r the acts,

om issions, occurrences and transactions alleged herein .

1 14.

2

3

4

5

6 15.

7

8

9

16.10

11

12

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS13

17. Plain tiff brings th is action under Code of C iv il Procedure § 382 on behalf of

him self and all others sim ilarly situated who were affected by Defendants’ Labor Code,

Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 and IW C Wage Order v io lations.

18. A ll claim s alleged herein arise under Califo rn ia law fo r which Plain tiff seeks

re lief authorized by Califo rn ia law .

19. Plain tiff ’ s proposed C lass consists of and is defined as fo llow s:

14

15

16

17

18

19

Class20

A ll Califo rn ia citizens currently or fo rm erly employed as non-exempt employees

by Defendants in the State of Califo rn ia w ith in four years prior to the f iling of th is

action to the date of class certification.

21

22

Plain tiff also seeks to certify the fo llow ing Subclass of employees:

W aiting T ime Subclass

A ll members of the C lass who separated their employment from Defendants

w ith in th ree years prior to the f iling of th is action to the date of class certif ication.

M embers of the C lass and Subclass described above w ill be co llectively referred

to as “c lass members.” Plain tiff reserves the righ t to estab lish other or additional subclasses, or

20.23

24

25

21.26

27

28

-3-


Page 20


modify any C lass or Subclass defin ition , as appropriate based on investigation, discovery and

specific theories of liab ility .

1

2

This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action

under the Califo rn ia Code of C iv il Procedure § 382 because there are common questions of law

and fact as to the C lass that predom inate over questions affecting only ind iv idual members

inc lud ing, but not lim ited to :

(a) Whether Defendants deprived Plain tiff and class members of meal periods or

requ ired Plain tiff and class members to work th rough meal periods;

(b) Whether Defendants deprived Plain tiff and class members of rest breaks or

requ ired Plain tiff and class members to work th rough rest breaks;

(c) Whether Defendants fa iled to tim ely pay Plain tiff and fo rm er class members all

wages due upon term ination or w ith in 72 hours of resignation;

(d) Whether Defendants fa iled to fu rn ish Plain tiff and class members w ith accurate,

item ized wage statements; and

(e) Whether Defendants engaged in unfair business practices in v io lation of Business

& Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.

There is a well-defined community of in terest in th is litigation and the C lass is

22.3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

23.17

read ily ascerta inab le:18

Numerositv: The members of the C lass are so numerous that jo inder of all

members is im practical. A lthough the members of the C lass are unknown

to Plain tiff at th is tim e, on in formation and belief, the C lass is estimated to

be greater than 100 ind iv iduals. The identity of the class members are

read ily ascertainab le by inspection of Defendants’ employment and payro ll

records.

Typ icality: The claim s (or defenses, if any) of Plain tiff are typ ical of the

claim s (or defenses, if any) of the C lass because Defendants’ fa ilu re to

comply w ith the prov isions of California wage and hour law s entitled each

class member to sim ilar pay, benefits and other relief The in ju ries

19 (a)

20

21

22

23

24

(b)25

26

27

28

-4-


Page 21


sustained by Plain tiff are also typ ical of the in ju ries sustained by the C lass

because they arise out of and are caused by Defendants’ common course of

conduct as alleged herein .

A dequacy: Plain tiff is qualified to , and w ill fairly and adequately represent

and protect the in terests of all members of the C lass because it is in his best

in terest to prosecute the claim s alleged herein to obtain fu ll compensation

and penalties due him and the C lass. Plaintiffs attorneys, as proposed class

counsel, are competent and experienced in litigating large employment

class actions and are versed in the ru les govern ing class action discovery ,

certif ication and settlem ent. Plain tiff has incurred and, th roughout the

duration of th is action, w ill continue to incur attorneys’ fees and costs that

have been and w ill be necessarily expended fo r the prosecution of th is

action fo r the substantial benefit of each class member.

Superiority : The nature of th is action makes the use of class action

1

2

3

(c)4

5

6

7

g

9

10

11

12

13

(d)14

ad judication superior to other methods. A class action w ill ach ieve

econom ies of tim e, effort and expense as compared w ith separate law su its,

and w ill avo id inconsistent outcomes because the same issues can be

adjud icated in the same maimer and at the same tim e fo r each C lass. If

appropriate th is Court can, and is empowered to , fash ion methods to

effic iently manage th is case as a class action.

Public Policy Considerations: Employers in the State of Califo rn ia and

other states v io late employment and labor laws every day. Current

employees are often afraid to assert their righ ts out of fear of direct or

ind irect retaliation. Former employees are fearfu l of bring ing actions

because they believe their fo rmer employers m ight damage their fu ture

endeavors th rough negative references and/or other means. C lass actions

prov ide the class members who are not named in the complain t w ith a

15

16

17

18

19

20

(e)21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-5-


Page 22


type of anonym ity that allow s fo r the v ind ication of their righ ts at the

same tim e as afford ing them privacy protections.

1

2

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS3

A t all re levant tim es mentioned herein , Defendants employed Plain tiff and other

persons as non-exempt employees.

P lain tiff was employed in a non-exempt position at Defendants’ Califo rn ia

4 24.

5

6 25.

business location(s).

26. Defendants continue to employ non-exempt employees w ith in Califo rn ia.

27. Plain tiff is in form ed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein

• mentioned, Defendants were adv ised by sk illed law yers, employees and other professionals

who were know ledgeable about Califo rn ia’ s wage and hour laws, employment and personnel

practices and the requ irements of Califo rn ia law .

28. Plain tiff is in form ed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or

should have known that Plain tiff and class members were entitled to receive all requ ired meal

periods or payment of one (1) additional hour of pay at Plain tiff and class members’ regu lar

rate of pay when they did not receive a tim ely , unin terrupted meal period. In v io lation of the

Labor Code and IW C Wage Orders, Plain tiff and class members did not receive all meal

periods or payment of one (1) additional hour of pay at Plain tiff and class members’ regu lar

rate of pay when they did not receive a tim ely , unin terrupted meal period.

29. Plain tiff is in formed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or

should have known that Plain tiff and class members were entitled to receive all rest breaks or

payment of one (1) additional hour of pay at Plain tiff and class members’ regu lar rate of pay

when a rest break was m issed. In v io lation of the Labor Code and IW C Wage Orders, Plain tiff

and class members did not receive all rest breaks or payment of one (1) additional hour of pay

at Plain tiff and class members’ regu lar rate of pay when a rest break was m issed.


should have known that Plain tiff and class members were entitled to receive item ized wage

statements that accurately showed their gross and net wages earned, to ta l hours worked and all

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-6-


Page 23


applicab le hourly rates in effect and the number of hours worked at each hourly rate in

accordance w ith Califo rn ia law . In v io lation of the Labor Code, Plain tiff and class members

were not prov ided w ith accurate item ized wage statements.


should have known that Plain tiff and other employees were entitled to tim ely payment of wages

due upon separation of employment. In v io lation of the Labor Code, Plain tiff and Waiting

T im e Subclass members did not receive payment of all wages w ith in perm issib le tim e periods.

32. Plain tiff is in form ed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or

should have known they had a duty to compensate Plain tiff and class members, and Defendants

had the f inancial ability to pay such compensation but w illfu lly , know ing ly and in tentionally

fa iled to do so all in order to increase Defendants’ profits.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIODS

12

13

(Violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512; Violation of IWC Wage Order § 11)14

Plain tiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as33.15

though fu lly set fo rth herein .16

Labor Code § 226.7 prov ides that no employer shall requ ire an employee to work

during any meal period mandated by the IW C Wage Orders.

Section 11 of the applicab le IW C Wage Order states, “ no employer shall employ

any person fo r a work period of more than f ive (5) hours w ithout a meal period of not less than

30 m inutes, except that when a work period of not more than six (6) hours w ill complete the

day’ s work the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of the employer and the

employee.”

34.17

18

35.19

20

21

22

23

Labor Code § 512(a) prov ides that an employer may not requ ire, cause or perm it

an employee to work fo r a period of more than f ive (5) hours per day w ithout prov id ing the

employee w ith an unin terrupted meal period of not less than th irty (30) m inutes, except that if

the to ta l work period per day of the employee is not more than six (6) hours, the meal period

may be waived by mutual consent of both the employer and the employee.

36.24

25

26

• 27

28

-7-


Page 24


37. Labor Code § 512(a) also prov ides that an employer may not employ an

employee fo r a work period of more than ten (10) hours per day w ithout prov id ing the employee

w ith a second meal period of not less than th irty (30) m inutes, except that if the to ta l hours

worked is no more than tw elve (12) hours, the second meal period may be waived by mutual

consent of the employer and the employee only if the f irst meal period was not waived.

38. During the re levant time period, Plain tiff and class members did not receive

compliant meal periods fo r work ing more than f ive (5) and/or ten (10) hours per day because

their meal periods were short, m issed, or la te.

39. Labor Code § 226.7(b) and section 11 of the applicab le IW C Wage Order require

an employer to pay an employee one additional hour of pay at the employee’ s regu lar rate of

compensation fo r each work day that a meal period is not prov ided.

40. A t all re levant tim es, Defendants fa iled to pay Plain tiff and class members meal

period prem ium s fo r m issed, la te, and untimely meal periods pursuant to Labor Code § 226.7(b)

and section 11 of the applicab le IW C Wage Order.

41. As a resu lt of Defendants’ fa ilu re to pay Plain tiff and class members an

add itional hour of pay fo r each day a meal period was not prov ided, Plain tiff and class members

suffered and continue to suffer a loss of wages and compensation.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17*

18 SECO IVD CAUSE OF ACT ION

FA ILURE TO PERM IT REST BREAKS19

(Violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7; Violation of IWC Wage Order § 12)20

21 P lain tiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as42.

22 though fu lly set fo rth herein .

23 Labor Code § 226.7(a) prov ides that no employer shall requ ire an employee to

work during any rest period mandated by the IW C Wage Orders.

Section 12 of the applicab le IW C Wage Order states “ every employer shall

authorize and perm it all employees to take rest periods, which insofar as practicab le shall be in

the m iddle of each work period” and the “ authorized rest period tim e shall be based on the to tal

43.

24

25 44.

26

27

28

-8-


Page 25


hours worked daily at the rate of ten (10) m inutes net rest time per four (4) hours or major

fraction thereof’ unless the to tal daily work tim e is less than th ree and one-half (31/2) hours.

D uring the re levant time period, Plain tiff and class members did not receive a ten

(10) m inute rest period fo r every four (4) hours or major fraction thereof worked because they

were requ ired to work th rough their daily rest periods and/or were not authorized to take their

rest periods.

1

2

3 45.

4

5

6

Labor Code § 226.7(b) and section 12 of the applicab le IW C Wage Order

requires an employer to pay an employee one additional hour of pay at the employee’ s regu lar

rate of compensation fo r each work day that the rest period is not prov ided.

A t all re levant tim es, Defendants fa iled to pay Plain tiff and class members rest

period prem ium fo r m issed or in terrupted rest periods pursuant to Labor Code § 226.7(b) and

section 12 of the applicab le IW C Wage Order.

A s a resu lt of Defendants’ fa ilu re to pay Plain tiff and class members an

additional hour of pay fo r each day a rest period was not prov ided, Plain tiff and class members

suffered and continue to suffer a loss of wages and compensation.

46.7

8

9

10 47.

11

12

13 48.

14

15

16 TfflRD CAUSE OF ACT ION

FA ILURE TO PROV IDE ACCURATE ITEM IZED WAGE STATEMENTS17

(Violation of Labor Code § 226)18

19 P lain tiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as49.

20 though fu lly set fo rth herein .

21 Labor Code § 226(a) requ ires Defendants to prov ide each employee w ith an

accurate wage statement in w riting show ing nine pieces of in form ation, inc lud ing: (1) gross

wages earned, (2) to ta l hours worked by the employee, (3) the number of piece-rate units

earned and any applicab le piece rate if the employee is paid on a piece-rate basis, (4) all

deductions, prov ided that all deductions made on w ritten orders of the employee may be

aggregated and shown as one item , (5) net wages earned, (6) the inc lusive dates of the period

fo r which the employee is paid , (7) the name of the employee and the last four dig its of his or

50.

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-9-

CLASS ACTION COMPLA INTExhibit A

Page 26


her social security number or an employee identification number oAer than a social security

number, (8) the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer, and (9) all applicab le

hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at

each hourly rate by the employee.

During the re levant time period, Defendants have know ing ly and in tentionally

fa iled to comply w ith Labor Code § 226(a) on wage statements that were prov ided to Plain tiff

and class members. The defic iencies inc lude, among other th ings, the fa ilu re to correctly state

the gross and net wages earned, to ta l hours worked and all applicab le hourly rates in effect and

the number of hours worked at each hourly rate by Plain tiff and class members.

A s a resu lt of Defendants’ v io lation of Califo rn ia Labor Code § 226(a), Plain tiff

and class members have suffered in ju ry and damage to their statu torily protected rights.

Specifically , Plain tiff and class members have been in ju red by Defendants’ in tentional

v io lation of Califo rn ia Labor Code § 226(a) because they were denied both their legal righ t to

receive, and their protected in terest in receiv ing, accurate item ized wage statements under

Califo rn ia Labor Code § 226(a). Plain tiff has had to f ile th is lawsu it in order to determ ine the

extent of the underpayment of wages, thereby causing Plain tiff to incur expenses and lost tim e.

P lain tiff would not have had to engage in these efforts and incur these costs had Defendants

prov ided the accurate wages earned. This has also delayed Plain tiffs ability to demand and

recover the underpayment of wages from Defendants.

Califo rn ia Labor Code § 226(a) requ ires an employer to pay the greater of all

actual damages or f ifty dollars ($50.00) fo r the in itia l pay period in which a v io lation occurred,

and one hundred dollars ($100.00) per employee fo r each v io lation in subsequent pay periods,

p lus attorney’ s fees and costs, to each employee who was in ju red by the employer’ s fa ilu re to

comply w ith Califo rn ia Labor Code § 226(a).

D efendants’ v io lations of Califo rn ia Labor Code § 226(a) prevented Plain tiff

and class members from know ing, understand ing and disputing the wages paid to them , and

resu lted in an unjustified econom ic enrichment to Defendants. As a resu lt of Defendants’

know ing and in tentional fa ilu re to comply w ith Califo rn ia Labor Code § 226(a), Plain tiff and

-10-

1

2

3

4

5 51.

6

7

8

9

10 52.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 53.

21

22

23

24

25 54.

26

27

28


Page 27


class members have suffered an in ju ry , and the exact amount of damages and/or penalties is all

in an amount to be shown accord ing to proof at trial.

P lain tiff and class members are also entitled to in junctive re lief under Califo rn ia

Labor Code § 226(h), compelling Defendants to comply w ith Califo rn ia Labor Code § 226, and

seek the recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in obtain ing th is in junctive re lief.

1

2

3 55.

4

5

6 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO PAY ALL WAGES DUE UPON SEPARATION OF EMPLOYMENT AND7WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME

8(Violation of Labor Code §§ 201,202 and 203)

9

P lain tiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as56.10

though fu lly set fo rth herein .

57. Califo rn ia Labor Code §§ 201 and 202 prov ide that if an employer discharges an

employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge are due and payable

immediately , and that if an employee vo luntarily leaves his employment, his wages shall

become due and payable not la ter than seventy-tw o (72) hours thereafter, unless the employee

has given seventy-tw o (72) hours prev ious notice of his in tention to quit, in which case the

employee is entitled to his wages at the time of quitting.

58. During the re levant tim e period, Defendants w illfu lly fa iled to pay Plain tiff and

Waiting T ime Subclass members all their earned wages upon term ination inc lud ing, but not

lim ited to , proper overtim e compensation, either at the tim e of discharge or w ith in seventy-tw o

(72) hours of their leav ing Defendants’ employ.

59. Defendants’ fa ilu re to pay Plain tiff and Waiting T ime Subclass members all

their earned wages at the tim e of discharge or w ith in seventy-tw o (72) hours of their leav ing

Defendants’ employ is in v io lation of Labor Code §§ 201 and 202.

60. Califo rn ia Labor Code § 203 prov ides that if an employer w illfu lly fa ils to pay

wages owed immediately upon discharge or resignation in accordance w ith Labor Code §§ 201

and 202, then the wages of the employee shall continue as a penalty from the due date at the

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-11-


Page 28


same rate until paid or until an action is commenced; but the wages shall not continue fo r more1

than th irty (30) days.2

Plain tiff and Waiting T ime Subclass members are entitled to recover from

Defendants the statu tory penalty which is defined as Plain tiffs and Waiting T im e Subclass

members’ regu lar daily wages fo r each day they were not paid , at their regu lar hourly rate of

3 61.

4

5

pay, up to a th irty (30) day maximum pursuant to Labor Code § 203.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SS 17200. ETSEO.

6

7

8

P lain tiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as62.9

though fu lly set fo rth herein .10

Defendants’ conduct, as alleged herein , has been and continues to be unfair,

unlaw fu l and harm fu l to Plain tiff and class members. Plain tiff seek to enforce im portant righ ts

affecting the public in terest w ith in the meaning of Code of C iv il Procedure § 1021.5 .

D efendants’ activ ities, as alleged herein , v io late Califo rn ia law and constitu te

unlaw fu l business acts or practices in v io lation of Califo rn ia Business and Professions Code

63.11

12

13

64.14

15

§§ 17200, etseq.16

A v io lation of Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. may be

pred icated on the v io lation of any state or federal law .

Defendants’ policies and practices have v io lated state law in at least the

65.17

18

66.19

fo llow ing respects:20

Failing to prov ide meal periods w ithout pay ing Plain tiff and class

members prem ium wages fo r every day said meal periods were not

prov ided in v io lation of Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512;

Failing to authorize or perm it rest breaks w ithout pay ing Plain tiff and

class members prem ium wages fo r every day said rest breaks were not

authorized or perm itted in v io lation of Labor Code § 226.7 ;

Failing to prov ide Plain tiff and class members w ith accurate item ized

wage statements in v io lation of Labor Code § 226; and

-12-

(a)21

22

23

(b)24

25

26

(c)27

28


Page 29


Failing to tim ely pay all earned wages to Plain tiff and Waiting T ime

Subclass members upon separation of employment in v io lation of Labor

(e)1

2

Code §§201,202 and 203.3

Defendants in tentionally avo ided pay ing Plain tiff and class members’ wages and

monies, thereby creating fo r Defendants an artif ic ia lly lower cost of doing business in order to

undercut their competito rs and estab lish and gain a greater footho ld in the marketp lace.

Pursuant to Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. Plain tiff and classt

members are entitled to restitu tion of the wages unlaw fu lly w ithheld and retained by

Defendants during a period that commences four years prior to the f iling of the Complain t; an

award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to Code of C iv il Procedure § 1021.5 and other applicab le

law s; and an award of costs.

4 67.

5

6

68.7

8

9

10

11

PRAYER FOR RELIEF12

P lain tiff, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others sim ilarly situated, pray fo r re lief

and judgment against Defendants, jo in tly and severally , as fo llows:

For certif ication of th is action as a class action, inc lud ing certify ing the C lass

and Subclass alleged by Plain tiff;

For appoin tm ent of Roger F lores as the class representatives;

For appoin tm ent of Aegis Law F irm , PC as class counsel fo r all purposes;

For compensatory damages in an amount according to proof w ith in terest

13

14

15 1.

16

17 2.

18 3.

19 4.

20 thereon;

For econom ic and/or special damages in an amount accord ing to proof w ith21 5.

22 in terest thereon;

6. For reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs of su it and in terest to the extent perm itted

by law , includ ing pursuant to Code of C iv il Procedure § 1021.5 , Labor Code §§ 226(e);

7 . For statu tory penalties to the extent perm itted by law , inc lud ing those pursuant

to the Labor Code and IW C Wage Orders;

8. For restitu tion as prov ided by Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.;

23

24

25

26

27

28

-13-

c l a s s ACT ION COMPLA INTExhibit A

Page 30


For an order requ iring Defendants to restore and disgorge all funds to each

employee acquired by means of any act or practice declared by th is Court to be unlaw fu l, unfair

or fraudu lent and, therefore, constitu ting unfair competition under Business and Professions

9.1

2

3

Code §§ 17200 , et seq.\4

For an award of damages in the amount of unpaid compensation inc lud ing, but

not lim ited to , unpaid wages, benefits and penalties, inc lud ing in terest thereon;

For pre-judgment in terest; and

For such other re lief as the Court deems just and proper.

10.5

6

7 11.

8 12.

9

AEGIS LAW FIRM, PCDated: December 28, 201810

(2^11By:

7Jessica L . Campbell

A ttorneys fo r Plain tiff12

13

14DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

15P lain tiff hereby demands a ju ry tria l w ith respect to all issues triab le of righ t by ju ry .

16Dated: December 28,2018 AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC

17

18

y Jessica L . CampbellB y:

19A ttorneys fo r Plain tiff

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-14-


Page 31


EXHIBIT A - Class Actions Lawsuits€¦ · Case 2:19-cv-00932-RSWL-E Document 1-1 Filed 02/06/19...

Documents

Transcript of EXHIBIT A - Class Actions Lawsuits€¦ · Case 2:19-cv-00932-RSWL-E Document 1-1 Filed 02/06/19...