Preview
1 Sarkis Sirmabekian [SBN 278588]
SIRMABEKIAN LAW FIRM, PC
2 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, California 90010
3
Telephone: (818) 473-5003
4 Facsimile: (818) 476-5619
Email: contact@slawla.com
5
Attorney for Plaintiff CYNTHIA BEATRIZ
6
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
9
10
CYNTHIA BEATRIZ, an individual; Case Number:
11
Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR:
12
v. 1. VIOLATION OF THE PRIVATE
13 ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF
CAMDEN RESIDENCES, LLC, a California Limited 2004, CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE
14 § 2698 et seq. (“PAGA”);
Liability Company; JASON SCHIFFMAN MD, an
15 individual; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive; 2. FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM
WAGE (Cal. Lab. Code § 1197);
16 Defendants. 3. FAILURE TO COMPENSATE FOR
ALL HOURS WORKED (Cal. Lab.
17 Code § 1198);
18 4. FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME
COMPENSATION (Cal. Lab. Code §
19 1198);
5. FAILURE TO PAY REST PERIOD
20
COMPENSATION (Cal. Lab. Code §
21 226.7);
6. FAILURE TO PAY MEAL PERIOD
22 COMPENSATION (Cal. Lab. Code §
226.7);
23
7. FAILURE TO FURNISH
24 ACCURATE WAGE AND HOUR
STATEMENTS (Cal. Lab. Code §
25 226);
8. FAILURE TO PAY WAGES UPON
26
DISCHARGE (Cal. Lab. Code § 201);
27 9. STATUTORY PENALTIES (Cal.
Lab. Code §§ 203 and 558);
28
Printed On
Recycled Paper
-1-
COMPLAINT
1
10. FAILURE TO INDEMNIFY AND
2 ILLEGAL DEDUCTIONS FROM
WAGES (Cal. Lab. Code § 2802);
3 11. UNFAIR COMPETITION (Business
and Professions Code 17200);
4
12. DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
5 (Cal.Gov. Code § 12940 et seq.)
(FEHA);
6 13. FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE
(Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(m));
7
(FEHA);
8 14. FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN GOOD
FAITH INTERACTIVE PROCESS
9 (GOVERNMENT CODE § 12940(n))
(FEHA);
10
15. WRONGFUL TERMINATION
11 (FEHA);
12 (UNLIMITED CIVIL)
13 (DEMAND EXCEEDS $35,000)
14 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
15
16 COMES NOW, Plaintiff CYNTHIA BEATRIZ (“Plaintiff”) hereby complains against
17 Defendants CAMDEN RESIDENCES, LLC, JASON SCHIFFMAN MD, and DOES 1 through 20,
18 inclusive, (collectively “Defendants”) and each of them, and alleges as follows:
19 JURISDICTION
20 1. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants engaged in wrongful
21 conduct in the State of California, which caused harm to Plaintiff in this state.
22 2. Venue is proper in this Court, because Defendants employ persons in this county, employed
23 Plaintiff in this county, and thus a substantial portion of the occurrences related to this action occurred
24 in this county. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code§ 395.
25 PARTIES
26 3. Plaintiff CYNTHIA BEATRIZ is an individual and a resident of the County of Los Angeles
27 and citizen of the State of California.
28 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that Defendant CAMDEN
Printed On
Recycled Paper
-2-
COMPLAINT
1 RESIDENCES, LLC is a California Limited Liability Company, organized and existing to do business
2 under the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business located in Los Angeles
3 County, California.
4 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that Defendant JASON
5 SCHIFFMAN MD is an individual and a resident of the County of Los Angeles and citizen of the
6 State of California.
7 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned
8 Defendants and DOES 1 through 20, are and were individuals, sole proprietorships, corporations,
9 business entities, persons, and partnerships, licensed to do business and/or actually doing business in
10 the State of California.
11 7. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities, whether informed and believes and
12 thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned Defendants and DOES 1 through 20, are and were
13 individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of the Defendants sued as DOES 1 through 20, inclusive.
14 They are unknown to Plaintiff and therefore Plaintiff issues them by such fictitious names. Plaintiff
15 will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when they become known to
16 Plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that DOES 1 through 20,
17 inclusive, are indebted to Plaintiff as hereinafter alleged, and that Plaintiff’s rights against such
18 fictitiously named Defendants arise from such indebtedness.
19 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that each Defendant sued in this
20 action, including each Defendant sued by the fictitious names DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, is
21 responsible and liable in some manner for the occurrences, controversies and damages alleged below.
22 9. All references to “Defendants,” “Defendants,” “company,” “company’s,” “employer” or any
23 similar language, whether singular or plural, shall mean “Defendants, and each of them” when used
24 throughout this complaint.
25 10. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants participated in the doing of the acts and omissions
26 herein alleged, were acting within the purpose, course and scope of said agency and/or employment
27 to have been done by the named Defendants; and furthermore, the Defendants, and each of them, were
28 the agents, managing agents, servants, employees, alter-egos, co-conspirators, joint-venturers,
Printed On
Recycled Paper
-3-
COMPLAINT
1 partners, successors in interest and predecessors in interest of each of the other Defendants.
2 11. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants were acting within the purpose, course and scope
3 of said agency and/or employment so as to invoke vicarious liability and respondeat superior liability
4 among other theories of liability to hold Defendants liable and responsible for the injuries and damages
5 to Plaintiff.
6 12. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants were members of and engaged in a joint venture,
7 partnership and common enterprise, and acting within the purpose, course and scope of, and in pursuit
8 of, said joint venture, partnership and common enterprise.
9 13. At all times herein mentioned, the acts and omissions of various Defendants contributed to the
10 various acts and omissions of each and all of the other Defendants in proximately causing the injuries
11 and damages as herein alleged.
12 14. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, including Defendants’ managing agents, officers
13 and directors, had advanced knowledge of and/or ratified each and every act or omission complained
14 throughout this complaint. At all times relevant herein, Defendants and/or their managing agents,
15 officers or directors committed and/or participated in the wrongful acts and omissions complained of
16 throughout this complaint or ratified such acts and omissions. At all times herein mentioned, the
17 Defendants aided and abetted the acts and omissions of each and all of the other Defendants in
18 proximately causing the damages as herein alleged.
19 15. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that there exists such a unity of
20 interest and ownership between Defendants that the individuality and separateness of Defendants have
21 ceased to exist.
22 16. The business affairs of Defendants are, and at all times relevant hereto were, so mixed and
23 intermingled that the same cannot reasonably be segregated, and the same are in inextricable
24 confusion.
25 17. The recognition of the separate existence of any Defendants would not promote injustice, in
26 that it would permit that Defendants to wrongfully insulate itself from liability to Plaintiff.
27 18. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all relevant times there has
28 existed a unity of interest and ownership between Defendants such that any individuality and
Printed On
Recycled Paper
-4-
COMPLAINT
1 separateness between the entities has ceased.
2 19. Adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of Defendants would permit an abuse of the
3 corporate privilege, and would promote injustice by protecting Defendants from liability for the
4 wrongful acts committed by it.
5 20. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that Defendants are alter egos of
6 each other.
7 21. The individual defendants JASON SCHIFFMAN MD and DOES 1 through 20 have treated
8 the entity Defendant CAMDEN RESIDENCES, LLC as their “alter ego”, rather than as a separate
9 entity.
10 22. Upholding the corporate entity and allowing for the shareholders to dodge personal liability
11 for its debts would sanction a fraud or promote an injustice.
12 23. Additionally, per Labor Code 558.1, each individual Defendant and DOES 1 through 20 are
13 liable for their direct causation of wage and hour violations against Plaintiff and other aggrieved
14 employees.
15 GENERAL FACTS AND ALLEGATIONS
16 24. This is an action brought by Plaintiff CYNTHIA BEATRIZ (“Plaintiff”) pursuant to California
17 statutory, decisional, and regulatory laws. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants. Plaintiff was at
18 all times relevant to this complaint, employed by Defendants.
19 25. At all relevant times set forth herein, Defendants, jointly and severally, employed Plaintiff and
20 other persons as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California, including the
21 County of Los Angeles.
22 26. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that Defendant CAMDEN RESIDENCES,
23 LLC is an integrative housing business operating out of Los Angeles, California. Individual Defendant
24 JASON SCHIFFMAN MD is an owner/operator, officer, and/or managing agent of the business and
25 is liable jointly and severally for damages pursuant to Labor Code §558.1.
26 27. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were in charge of managing, supervising, and controlling
27 Plaintiff’s and other employees’ wages, work hours, pay, and work conditions, along with managing
28 the day-to-day operations for the business. Therefore, Defendants controlled the employment of
Printed On
Recycled Paper
-5-
COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees.
2 28. Defendants employed Plaintiff as a residential technician and general employee between
3 approximately July 22, 2022 and approximately November 3, 2023.
4 29. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to keep track of Plaintiff's and other employees' actual
5 hours worked. Employees' pay was rounded and inaccurate. This is in violation of the "Records"
6 section of Wage Orders, 4, 5, 15, 17 and other wage orders.
7 30. Plaintiff further alleges that meal and rest breaks violations were rampant; none were afforded.
8 31. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants frequently contacted employees while off the clock with
9 work-related matters, and failed to pay them for that time.
10 32. Defendants required workers to use their cell phones to communicate with residents via google
11 voice, and use personal laptops for work emails, google sheets and other matters without
12 reimbursement.
13 33. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff’s full final pay upon separation.
14 34. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants wrongfully terminated Plaintiff shortly after Plaintiff was
15 injured (Plaintiff got into a car accident and injured her back and other areas), suffering physical and
16 emotional injuries.
17 35. Defendants failed to engaged in the interactive process and failed to accommodate Plaintiff,
18 and instead, Defendants terminated Plaintiff.
19 36. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that Defendants controlled or
20 affected the working conditions, wages, working hours, scope and conditions of employment of
21 Plaintiff during Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants.
22 37. Plaintiff alleges that California statutory, decisional, and regulatory laws prohibit the conduct
23 by Defendants herein alleged, and therefore Plaintiff has an entitlement to monetary relief on the basis
24 that Defendants violated such statutes, decisional law, and regulations.
25 38. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff for all hours worked, missed,
26 short, late, and/or interrupted meal periods and/or rest breaks.
27 39. Defendants had the authority to hire and terminate Plaintiff, to set work rules and conditions
28 governing Plaintiff’s employment, and to supervise her daily employment activities. Therefore,
Printed On
Recycled Paper
-6-
COMPLAINT
1 Defendants controlled Plaintiff’s employment.
2 40. Defendants directly hired and paid wages to Plaintiff.
3 41. Plaintiff alleges that at all relevant times, Defendants were each an “employer” of Plaintiff
4 within the meaning of all applicable California state laws and statutes.
5 42. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants ratified each and every act or omission complained
6 herein.
7 Wage and Hour Allegations:
8 43. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants engaged in a
9 uniform policy of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of
10 California. This uniform policy involved, inter alia, failing to pay them for all hours worked, missed,
11 short, late, and/or interrupted meal periods, rest breaks, etc. in violation of California law.
12 44. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all material times set forth
13 herein, Defendants were advised by skilled lawyers and other professionals, employees, and advisors
14 knowledgeable about California and federal labor and wage law and employment and personnel
15 practices, and about the requirements of California and federal law.
16 45. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should
17 have known that Plaintiff was entitled to receive certain wages for overtime compensation and that
18 Plaintiff was not receiving wages for overtime compensation.
19 46. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants failed to provide
20 Plaintiff the required rest and meal periods during the relevant time period as required under the
21 Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and thus Plaintiff was entitled to any and all applicable
22 penalties.
23 47. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should
24 have known that Plaintiff was entitled to receive all meal periods or payment of one additional hour
25 of pay at Plaintiff’s regular rate of pay when a meal period was missed, and Plaintiff did not receive
26 all meal periods or payment of one additional hour of pay at Plaintiff’s regular rate of pay when a meal
27 period was missed.
28 48. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should
Printed On
Recycled Paper
-7-
COMPLAINT
1 have known that Plaintiff was entitled to receive all rest periods or payment of one additional hour of
2 pay at Plaintiff’s regular rate of pay when a rest period was missed, and Plaintiff did not receive all
3 rest periods or payment of one additional hour of pay at Plaintiff’s regular rate of pay when a rest
4 period was missed.
5 49. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should
6 have known that Plaintiff was entitled to receive all wages owed to him upon discharge or resignation,
7 including overtime, minimum wages, meal and rest period premiums, and Plaintiff did not, in fact,
8 receive all such wages owed to him at the time of his discharge or resignation.
9 50. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should
10 have known that Plaintiff was entitled to receive all wages owed to him during his employment.
11 Plaintiff did not receive payment of all wages, including overtime and minimum wages and meal and
12 rest period premiums, within any time permissible under California Labor Code section 204.
13 51. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should
14 have known that Plaintiff was entitled to receive complete and accurate wage statements in accordance
15 with California law, however Plaintiff did not receive complete and accurate wage statements from
16 Defendants. The deficiencies included, inter alia, the failure to include the total number of hours
17 worked by Plaintiff.
18 52. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should
19 have known that Defendants had to keep complete and accurate payroll records for Plaintiff in
20 accordance with California law, but, in fact, did not keep complete and accurate payroll records.
21 53. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should
22 have known that they had a duty to compensate Plaintiff pursuant to California law, and that Defendant
23 had the financial ability to pay such compensation, but willfully, knowingly, and intentionally failed
24 to do so, and falsely represented to Plaintiff that Plaintiff was properly denied wages, all in order to
25 increase Defendant’s profits.
26 54. Plaintiff alleges that during the time of his employment, these Defendants acted negligently,
27 recklessly, and/or intentionally to routinely deprive Plaintiff of statutorily mandated rest breaks during
28 work shifts of four (4) hours or greater. Defendants also intentionally failed to compensate Plaintiff
Printed On
Recycled Paper
-8-
COMPLAINT
1 for those missed rest breaks over the entire period of her employment with Defendants.
2 55. Plaintiff was not properly compensated for his overtime hours and Defendants failed to keep
3 accurate records of Plaintiff’s overtime hours and compensation.
4 56. Defendants, and each of them, violated other provisions of the laws of the State of California,
5 including Employment Laws and Regulations which provide for a civil penalty to be assessed and
6 collected by the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency or its various departments,
7 divisions, commissions, boards, agencies, or employees.
8 57. In addition to any other remedies which may be available at law or equity, or as may otherwise
9 asserted herein, Plaintiff seeks payment of overtime wages and other compensation owed to him, plus
10 all benefits required pursuant to the laws of the State of California, including Employment Laws and
11 Regulations, based on the sums withheld from Plaintiff. Plaintiff also seeks recovery of penalties,
12 attorney’s fees, and costs as provided by statute.
13 58. Plaintiff seeks restitution and disgorgement of all sums wrongfully obtained by Defendants
14 through their unfair business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code Section
15 17200 et seq., to prevent Defendants from benefitting from their ongoing unfair practices, and which
16 sums recovered under the Unfair Competition Act and Unfair Businesses Act are equitable in nature
17 and are not to be considered damages. Plaintiff is also entitled to costs, attorney’s fees, interest and
18 penalties as provided for by the California Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code.
19 59. California Labor Code section 218 states that nothing in Article 1 of the Labor Code shall limit
20 the right of any wage claimant to “sue directly . . . for any wages or penalty due to him [or her] under
21 this article.”
22 60. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as hereinafter provided.
23 PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT OF 2004 (“PAGA”)
24 (Cal. Lab. Code section 2698 et seq.)
25 61. In 2003, California’s Legislature declared that, “staffing levels for state labor law enforcement
26 agencies have, in general, declined over the last decade and are likely to fail to keep up with the growth
27 of the labor market in the future. It is therefore in the public interest to provide those civil penalties
28 for violations of the Labor Code may also be assessed and collected by aggrieved employees acting as
Printed On
Recycled Paper
-9-
COMPLAINT
1 private attorneys general, while also ensuring that state labor law enforcement agencies’ enforcement
2 actions have primacy over any private enforcement efforts undertaken pursuant to this act.” Dunlap v.
3 Superior Court (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 330, 337-338, citing Stats. 2003. Ch. 906 § 1.
4 62. In response, California’s Legislature passed the Private Attorney General Act of 2004
5 (“PAGA”), which “was adopted to empower aggrieved employees, acting as private attorneys general,
6 to seek civil penalties for Labor Code violations, penalties which previously could be assessed only
7 by state agencies.” Dunlap v. Superior Court (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 330, 336. “Thus, PAGA
8 empowers or deputizes an aggrieved employee to sue for civil penalties ‘on behalf of himself or herself
9 and other current or former employees’ as an alternative to enforcement by the LWDA.” Id. At 337
10 citing to Cal. Lab. Code 2699(a). Class action requirements do not apply to representative actions
11 brought by one employee on behalf of other current or former employees under the PAGA. Arias v.
12 Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal. 4th 969, 984.
13 63. Prior to bringing the action, the aggrieved employee shall give written notice by certified mail
14 to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and the employer of the specific provisions of this
15 code alleged to have been violated, including the facts and theories to support the alleged violation.
16 Cal. Lab. Code 2699.3 (c)(1). The agency shall notify the employer and the aggrieved employee or
17 representative by certified mail that it does not intend to investigate the alleged violation within 60
18 calendar days of the postmark date of the notice received pursuant to paragraph (1). Upon receipt of
19 that notice or if no notice is provided within 65 calendar days of the postmark date of the notice given
20 pursuant to paragraph (1), the aggrieved employee may commence a civil action pursuant to Section
21 2699.
22 64. The aggrieved employee is entitled to keep 25% of the civil penalties recovered in the PAGA
23 action and the remaining 75% goes to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency. Cal. Lab. Code
24 2699(i).
25 65. On December 15, 2023, Plaintiff CYNTHIA BEATRIZ gave written notice by certified mail
26 to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) and the employers, of the specific
27 conditions of the codes alleged to have been violated, including the facts and theories to support the
28 alleged violations. Attached hereto as “EXHIBIT A”, is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s written
Printed On
Recycled Paper
-10-
COMPLAINT
1 PAGA Notice Letter.
2 EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
3 66. On December 15, 2023, prior to the initiation of this lawsuit, Plaintiff filed a complaint against
4 Defendants with the DFEH, pursuant to section 12900 et seq. of the California Government Code,
5 alleging the claims described in this Complaint. The DFEH issued a “Right to Sue” letter, which is
6 attached hereto as “EXHIBIT B”. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been
7 fulfilled.
8 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
9 (Violation of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code § 2698 et seq.)
10 67. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this complaint herein as if set forth in full.
11 68. Plaintiff seeks civil penalties for the above acts, which violate the California Labor Code, under
12 the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), Cal. Labor Code § 2698 et seq.
13 69. Plaintiff is “aggrieved employees” under PAGA, as he was employed by Defendants during
14 the applicable statutory period and suffered one or more of the Labor Code violations set forth herein.
15 Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to recover on behalf of herself and all other current and former aggrieved
16 employees of Defendants, the civil penalties provided by PAGA, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and
17 costs.
18 70. Plaintiff seeks to recover the PAGA civil penalties through a representative action permitted
19 by PAGA and the California Supreme Court in Arias v. Superior Court, (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969.
20 Therefore, class certification of the PAGA claims is not required.
21 71. Plaintiff seeks civil penalties pursuant to PAGA for violations of the following Labor Code
22 provisions:
23 a. failure to provide prompt payment of wages to employees upon termination and
24 resignation in violation of Labor Code § 201, 202, 203;
25 b. failure to provide itemized wage statements to employees in violation of Labor Code
26 §§ 226(a), 1174, and 1174.5;
27 c. failure to provide meal and rest periods in violation of all applicable IWC wage orders
28 and Labor Code §§ 1174 and 1174.5;
Printed On
Recycled Paper
-11-
COMPLAINT
1 d. failure to pay overtime wages in violation of all applicable IWC wage orders and Labor
2 Code §§ 510, 558, 1194 and 1198;
3 e. failure to provide unpaid balance of full amount of overtime compensation in violation
4 of Labor Code section 1194 and 2698 et seq.;
5 f. failure to pay minimum wage in violation of all applicable IWC wage orders and Labor
6 Code §§ 1182.12, 1194, and 1197;
7 g. Violation of Labor Code section 1199 (a) and (c) and 2699.5 et seq.;
8 h. failure to reimburse employees for all reasonably necessary expenditures and losses
9 incurred by employees in direct consequence of the discharge of their duties and other
10 work-related expenses, in violation of Labor Code section 2802;
11 i. failure to provide itemized wage statements to employees in violation of Labor Code
12 section 226(a); and
13 j. Violation of Labor Code 226.8 by misclassifying its employees as independent
14 contractors;
15 k. Violations of California Labor Code sections 201; 202; 203; 204; 206; 216; 218.6; 221;
16 226 et seq.; 226.8; 432.5; 450; 226.7; 512; 1174; 1174.5; 2802; and all applicable IWC
17 wage orders.
18 l. Defendants misclassified their employees as independent contractors in violation of
19 Labor Code 226.8, paying them in cash and outside of payroll;
20 72. On December 15, 2023, Plaintiff CYNTHIA BEATRIZ gave written notice by certified mail
21 to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) and the employers, of the specific
22 conditions of the codes alleged to have been violated, including the facts and theories to support the
23 alleged violations. Attached hereto as “EXHIBIT A”, is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s written
24 PAGA Notice Letter.
25 73. Plaintiff’s PAGA Notice includes all of Defendants' businesses, including its nurseries and
26 landscape services.
27 74. The LWDA did not provide notice of its intention to investigate Defendants’ alleged violations
28 within sixty-five (65) calendar days of the postmark date of the notice sent by Plaintiff. See Cal. Labor
Printed On
Recycled Paper
-12-
COMPLAINT
1 Code section 2699.3(a)(2)(A).
2 75. With respect to violations of Labor Code section 226(a), Labor Code section 226.3 imposes a
3 civil penalty in addition to any other penalty provided by law of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) per
4 aggrieved employee for the first violation, and one thousand dollars ($1,000) per aggrieved employee
5 for each subsequent violation of Labor Code section 226(a).
6 76. With respect to violations of Labor Code sections 510, 512, Labor Code section 558 imposes
7 a civil penalty in addition to any other penalty provided by law of fifty dollars ($50) for initial
8 violations for each unpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in
9 addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages, and one hundred dollars ($100) for
10 subsequent violations for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was
11 underpaid in addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages.
12 77. Moreover, Plaintiff seeks civil penalties in the amount of unpaid wages owed to aggrieved
13 employees pursuant to Labor Code section 558(a)(3).
14 78. With respect to violations of Labor Code section 1174, Labor Code section 1174.5 imposes a
15 civil penalty of $500.
16 79. Labor Code section 2699 et seq. imposes a civil penalty of one hundred dollars ($100) per pay
17 period, per aggrieved employee for initial violations, and two hundred dollars ($200) pay period, per
18 aggrieved employee for subsequent violations for all Labor Code provisions for which a civil penalty
19 is not specifically provided, including Labor Code sections 226.7, 226.8, 1174, 1182.12, 1194, 1197,
20 1198, and 2802.
21 80. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as hereafter provided.
22 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
23 (Failure to Pay Minimum Wage)
24 (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1182.12, 1194, 1197 & 1198 et seq.)
25 81. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this complaint herein as if set forth in full.
26 82. Pursuant to Labor Code §§ 1194, 1194.2, and 1197, it is unlawful for an employer to suffer or
27 permit a California employee to work without paying wages at the proper minimum wage for all time
28 worked.
Printed On
Recycled Paper
-13-
COMPLAINT
1 83. At all times material hereto, “hours worked” included “the time during which an employee is
2 subject to the control of an employer, and includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted
3 to work, whether or not required to do so.”
4 84. Plaintiff alleges Defendants failed to keep track of Plaintiff's and other employees' actual hours
5 worked. Employees' pay was rounded and inaccurate. This is in violation of the "Records" section of
6 Wage Orders 2, 4, 10, 17 and other wage orders.
7 85. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff the minimum wage,
8 Plaintiff has been damaged in the amount of unpaid minimum wages. Pursuant to Labor Code §§ 1194
9 and 1194.2, Plaintiff is entitled to recover the full amount of unpaid minimum wages, liquidated
10 damages in an equal amount, interest and attorney’s fees, all in a total amount subject to proof at time
11 of trial. In addition, insofar as the failure of Defendants to pay the minimum wage was willful, Plaintiff
12 who no longer works for Defendants are entitled to waiting time penalties pursuant to Labor Code §
13 200 et seq.
14 86. The aforementioned acts by Defendants were intentional, with the intention on the part of the
15 Defendants to deprive Plaintiff of his property and/or legal rights and causing injury to him. As a result
16 of Defendants’ failure to compensate Plaintiff at the minimum wage, pursuant to Labor Code § 1197.1,
17 Plaintiff is entitled to civil penalties from Defendants of $50 for each underpaid employee for each
18 pay period for which the employee is underpaid, for the initial violation; and $100 for each underpaid
19 employee for each pay period for which the employee is underpaid, for each subsequent violation.
20 87. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable jointly and severally for damages pursuant to Labor
21 Code §558.1.
22 88. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as hereinafter provided.
23 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
24 (Failure to Compensate for All Hours Worked)
25 (Cal. Lab. Code § 1198 et seq.)
26 89. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this complaint herein as if set forth in full.
27 90. At all times relevant herein, Defendants were required to compensate Plaintiff for all hours
28 worked upon reporting for work at the appointed time stated by Defendants, pursuant to applicable
Printed On
Recycled Paper
-14-
COMPLAINT
1 IWC Wage Orders, and Labor Code §§ 200, 226, 500, 510, and 1197.
2 91. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff for all hours worked by
3 not compensating him for work performed. Defendants failed to pay minimum wages; Defendants
4 failed to provide breaks as required by law; Defendants failed to compensate employees for all
5 overtime worked; Defendants failed to pay for break periods; Defendants did not accurately record
6 hours worked; Defendants failed to properly itemize wages.
7 92. Under the applicable IWC Wage Orders and California law, Plaintiff is entitled to recover
8 compensation for all hours worked, but not paid, for the three (3) years preceding the filing of this
9 Complaint, plus reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit pursuant to Labor Code § 218.5, and
10 penalties pursuant to Labor Code §§ 203 and 226.
11 93. In violation of state law, Defendants have knowingly and willfully refused to perform their
12 obligations to compensate Plaintiff for all wages earned and all hours worked. As a direct result,
13 Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, substantial losses related to the use and enjoyment of
14 such wages, lost interest on such wages, and expenses and attorney’s fees in seeking to compel
15 Defendants to fully perform their obligations under state law, all to his respective damage in amounts
16 according to proof at time of trial, but not in amounts in excess of the jurisdiction of this Court.
17 94. Defendants committed the acts alleged herein knowingly and willfully, with the wrongful and
18 deliberate intention of injuring Plaintiff, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff is
19 thus entitled to recover nominal, actual, compensatory, and liquidated damages in amounts according
20 to proof at time of trial, but not in amounts in excess of the jurisdiction of this Court.
21 95. As a proximate result of the aforementioned violations, Plaintiff has been damaged in an
22 amount according to proof at time of trial, but not in an amount in excess of the jurisdiction of this
23 Court.
24 96. Defendants’ conduct described herein violates Labor Code §§ 200, 226, 500, 1197 and 1198,
25 and applicable IWC Wage Orders. Therefore, pursuant to Labor Code §§ 203, 218.5, 226, 558, 1194,
26 and 1194.2, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for the nonpayment of wages of all hours worked
27 that were improperly deducted by Defendants’ policies, penalties, reasonable attorney’s fees,
28 expenses, and costs of suit.
Printed On
Recycled Paper
-15-
COMPLAINT
1 97. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable jointly and severally for damages pursuant to Labor
2 Code §558.1.
3 98. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as hereinafter provided.
4 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
5 (Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation)
6 (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1198 & 510 et seq.)
7 99. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this complaint herein as if set forth in full.
8 100. Pursuant to applicable IWC Wage Orders, and Labor Code §§ 200, 226, and 1198, at all times
9 relevant hereto, Defendants were required to compensate Plaintiff for all overtime, which is calculated
10 at one and one-half (1½) times the regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours
11 per day and/or forty (40) hours per week.
12 101. Pursuant to applicable IWC Wage Orders, and Labor Code §§ 200, 226, and 1198, as of
13 January 1, 1998, Defendants were required to compensate Plaintiff for all overtime, which is calculated
14 as one and one-half (1½) times the regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours
15 per week.
16 102. Pursuant to Labor Code §§ 200, 226, 500, 510, and 1198, Defendants were required to
17 compensate Plaintiff for all overtime, which is calculated at one and one-half (1½) times the regular
18 rate of pay for hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours per day.
19 103. Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee entitled to the protections of California Labor Code §§
20 200, 226, 500, 510, and 1198. During the course of Plaintiff’s employment, Defendants failed to
21 properly compensate him for overtime hours worked as required under the aforementioned Labor Code
22 sections.
23 104. In violation of state law, Defendants have knowingly and willfully refused to perform their
24 obligations to compensate Plaintiff for all wages earned and all hours worked.
25 105. As a direct result of aforementioned violations, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer,
26 substantial losses related to the use and enjoyment of such wages, lost interest on such wages, and
27 expenses and attorney’s fees in seeking to compel Defendants to fully perform their obligations under
28 state law, all to his respective damage in amounts according to proof at time of trial, but not in amounts
Printed On
Recycled Paper
-16-
COMPLAINT
1 in excess of the jurisdiction of this Court.
2 106. Defendants’ conduct described herein violates Labor Code §§ 200, 226, 500, 510 and 1198.
3 Therefore, pursuant to Labor Code § 200, 203, 218.5, 226, 558, and 1194, Plaintiff is entitled to
4 recover the unpaid balance of overtime compensation Defendants owe Plaintiff
Preview
1 Sarkis Sirmabekian [SBN 278588] SIRMABEKIAN LAW FIRM, PC 2 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, California 90010 3 Telephone: (818) 473-5003 4 Facsimile: (818) 476-5619 Email: contact@slawla.com 5 Attorney for Plaintiff CYNTHIA BEATRIZ 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 9 10 CYNTHIA BEATRIZ, an individual; Case Number: 11 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR: 12 v. 1. VIOLATION OF THE PRIVATE 13 ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF CAMDEN RESIDENCES, LLC, a California Limited 2004, CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE 14 § 2698 et seq. (“PAGA”); Liability Company; JASON SCHIFFMAN MD, an 15 individual; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive; 2. FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGE (Cal. Lab. Code § 1197); 16 Defendants. 3. FAILURE TO COMPENSATE FOR ALL HOURS WORKED (Cal. Lab. 17 Code § 1198); 18 4. FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME COMPENSATION (Cal. Lab. Code § 19 1198); 5. FAILURE TO PAY REST PERIOD 20 COMPENSATION (Cal. Lab. Code § 21 226.7); 6. FAILURE TO PAY MEAL PERIOD 22 COMPENSATION (Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7); 23 7. FAILURE TO FURNISH 24 ACCURATE WAGE AND HOUR STATEMENTS (Cal. Lab. Code § 25 226); 8. FAILURE TO PAY WAGES UPON 26 DISCHARGE (Cal. Lab. Code § 201); 27 9. STATUTORY PENALTIES (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 203 and 558); 28 Printed On Recycled Paper -1- COMPLAINT 1 10. FAILURE TO INDEMNIFY AND 2 ILLEGAL DEDUCTIONS FROM WAGES (Cal. Lab. Code § 2802); 3 11. UNFAIR COMPETITION (Business and Professions Code 17200); 4 12. DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION 5 (Cal.Gov. Code § 12940 et seq.) (FEHA); 6 13. FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE (Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(m)); 7 (FEHA); 8 14. FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN GOOD FAITH INTERACTIVE PROCESS 9 (GOVERNMENT CODE § 12940(n)) (FEHA); 10 15. WRONGFUL TERMINATION 11 (FEHA); 12 (UNLIMITED CIVIL) 13 (DEMAND EXCEEDS $35,000) 14 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 15 16 COMES NOW, Plaintiff CYNTHIA BEATRIZ (“Plaintiff”) hereby complains against 17 Defendants CAMDEN RESIDENCES, LLC, JASON SCHIFFMAN MD, and DOES 1 through 20, 18 inclusive, (collectively “Defendants”) and each of them, and alleges as follows: 19 JURISDICTION 20 1. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants engaged in wrongful 21 conduct in the State of California, which caused harm to Plaintiff in this state. 22 2. Venue is proper in this Court, because Defendants employ persons in this county, employed 23 Plaintiff in this county, and thus a substantial portion of the occurrences related to this action occurred 24 in this county. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code§ 395. 25 PARTIES 26 3. Plaintiff CYNTHIA BEATRIZ is an individual and a resident of the County of Los Angeles 27 and citizen of the State of California. 28 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that Defendant CAMDEN Printed On Recycled Paper -2- COMPLAINT 1 RESIDENCES, LLC is a California Limited Liability Company, organized and existing to do business 2 under the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business located in Los Angeles 3 County, California. 4 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that Defendant JASON 5 SCHIFFMAN MD is an individual and a resident of the County of Los Angeles and citizen of the 6 State of California. 7 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned 8 Defendants and DOES 1 through 20, are and were individuals, sole proprietorships, corporations, 9 business entities, persons, and partnerships, licensed to do business and/or actually doing business in 10 the State of California. 11 7. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities, whether informed and believes and 12 thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned Defendants and DOES 1 through 20, are and were 13 individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of the Defendants sued as DOES 1 through 20, inclusive. 14 They are unknown to Plaintiff and therefore Plaintiff issues them by such fictitious names. Plaintiff 15 will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when they become known to 16 Plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that DOES 1 through 20, 17 inclusive, are indebted to Plaintiff as hereinafter alleged, and that Plaintiff’s rights against such 18 fictitiously named Defendants arise from such indebtedness. 19 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that each Defendant sued in this 20 action, including each Defendant sued by the fictitious names DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, is 21 responsible and liable in some manner for the occurrences, controversies and damages alleged below. 22 9. All references to “Defendants,” “Defendants,” “company,” “company’s,” “employer” or any 23 similar language, whether singular or plural, shall mean “Defendants, and each of them” when used 24 throughout this complaint. 25 10. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants participated in the doing of the acts and omissions 26 herein alleged, were acting within the purpose, course and scope of said agency and/or employment 27 to have been done by the named Defendants; and furthermore, the Defendants, and each of them, were 28 the agents, managing agents, servants, employees, alter-egos, co-conspirators, joint-venturers, Printed On Recycled Paper -3- COMPLAINT 1 partners, successors in interest and predecessors in interest of each of the other Defendants. 2 11. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants were acting within the purpose, course and scope 3 of said agency and/or employment so as to invoke vicarious liability and respondeat superior liability 4 among other theories of liability to hold Defendants liable and responsible for the injuries and damages 5 to Plaintiff. 6 12. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants were members of and engaged in a joint venture, 7 partnership and common enterprise, and acting within the purpose, course and scope of, and in pursuit 8 of, said joint venture, partnership and common enterprise. 9 13. At all times herein mentioned, the acts and omissions of various Defendants contributed to the 10 various acts and omissions of each and all of the other Defendants in proximately causing the injuries 11 and damages as herein alleged. 12 14. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, including Defendants’ managing agents, officers 13 and directors, had advanced knowledge of and/or ratified each and every act or omission complained 14 throughout this complaint. At all times relevant herein, Defendants and/or their managing agents, 15 officers or directors committed and/or participated in the wrongful acts and omissions complained of 16 throughout this complaint or ratified such acts and omissions. At all times herein mentioned, the 17 Defendants aided and abetted the acts and omissions of each and all of the other Defendants in 18 proximately causing the damages as herein alleged. 19 15. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that there exists such a unity of 20 interest and ownership between Defendants that the individuality and separateness of Defendants have 21 ceased to exist. 22 16. The business affairs of Defendants are, and at all times relevant hereto were, so mixed and 23 intermingled that the same cannot reasonably be segregated, and the same are in inextricable 24 confusion. 25 17. The recognition of the separate existence of any Defendants would not promote injustice, in 26 that it would permit that Defendants to wrongfully insulate itself from liability to Plaintiff. 27 18. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all relevant times there has 28 existed a unity of interest and ownership between Defendants such that any individuality and Printed On Recycled Paper -4- COMPLAINT 1 separateness between the entities has ceased. 2 19. Adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of Defendants would permit an abuse of the 3 corporate privilege, and would promote injustice by protecting Defendants from liability for the 4 wrongful acts committed by it. 5 20. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that Defendants are alter egos of 6 each other. 7 21. The individual defendants JASON SCHIFFMAN MD and DOES 1 through 20 have treated 8 the entity Defendant CAMDEN RESIDENCES, LLC as their “alter ego”, rather than as a separate 9 entity. 10 22. Upholding the corporate entity and allowing for the shareholders to dodge personal liability 11 for its debts would sanction a fraud or promote an injustice. 12 23. Additionally, per Labor Code 558.1, each individual Defendant and DOES 1 through 20 are 13 liable for their direct causation of wage and hour violations against Plaintiff and other aggrieved 14 employees. 15 GENERAL FACTS AND ALLEGATIONS 16 24. This is an action brought by Plaintiff CYNTHIA BEATRIZ (“Plaintiff”) pursuant to California 17 statutory, decisional, and regulatory laws. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants. Plaintiff was at 18 all times relevant to this complaint, employed by Defendants. 19 25. At all relevant times set forth herein, Defendants, jointly and severally, employed Plaintiff and 20 other persons as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California, including the 21 County of Los Angeles. 22 26. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that Defendant CAMDEN RESIDENCES, 23 LLC is an integrative housing business operating out of Los Angeles, California. Individual Defendant 24 JASON SCHIFFMAN MD is an owner/operator, officer, and/or managing agent of the business and 25 is liable jointly and severally for damages pursuant to Labor Code §558.1. 26 27. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were in charge of managing, supervising, and controlling 27 Plaintiff’s and other employees’ wages, work hours, pay, and work conditions, along with managing 28 the day-to-day operations for the business. Therefore, Defendants controlled the employment of Printed On Recycled Paper -5- COMPLAINT 1 Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees. 2 28. Defendants employed Plaintiff as a residential technician and general employee between 3 approximately July 22, 2022 and approximately November 3, 2023. 4 29. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to keep track of Plaintiff's and other employees' actual 5 hours worked. Employees' pay was rounded and inaccurate. This is in violation of the "Records" 6 section of Wage Orders, 4, 5, 15, 17 and other wage orders. 7 30. Plaintiff further alleges that meal and rest breaks violations were rampant; none were afforded. 8 31. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants frequently contacted employees while off the clock with 9 work-related matters, and failed to pay them for that time. 10 32. Defendants required workers to use their cell phones to communicate with residents via google 11 voice, and use personal laptops for work emails, google sheets and other matters without 12 reimbursement. 13 33. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff’s full final pay upon separation. 14 34. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants wrongfully terminated Plaintiff shortly after Plaintiff was 15 injured (Plaintiff got into a car accident and injured her back and other areas), suffering physical and 16 emotional injuries. 17 35. Defendants failed to engaged in the interactive process and failed to accommodate Plaintiff, 18 and instead, Defendants terminated Plaintiff. 19 36. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that Defendants controlled or 20 affected the working conditions, wages, working hours, scope and conditions of employment of 21 Plaintiff during Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants. 22 37. Plaintiff alleges that California statutory, decisional, and regulatory laws prohibit the conduct 23 by Defendants herein alleged, and therefore Plaintiff has an entitlement to monetary relief on the basis 24 that Defendants violated such statutes, decisional law, and regulations. 25 38. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff for all hours worked, missed, 26 short, late, and/or interrupted meal periods and/or rest breaks. 27 39. Defendants had the authority to hire and terminate Plaintiff, to set work rules and conditions 28 governing Plaintiff’s employment, and to supervise her daily employment activities. Therefore, Printed On Recycled Paper -6- COMPLAINT 1 Defendants controlled Plaintiff’s employment. 2 40. Defendants directly hired and paid wages to Plaintiff. 3 41. Plaintiff alleges that at all relevant times, Defendants were each an “employer” of Plaintiff 4 within the meaning of all applicable California state laws and statutes. 5 42. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants ratified each and every act or omission complained 6 herein. 7 Wage and Hour Allegations: 8 43. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants engaged in a 9 uniform policy of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of 10 California. This uniform policy involved, inter alia, failing to pay them for all hours worked, missed, 11 short, late, and/or interrupted meal periods, rest breaks, etc. in violation of California law. 12 44. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all material times set forth 13 herein, Defendants were advised by skilled lawyers and other professionals, employees, and advisors 14 knowledgeable about California and federal labor and wage law and employment and personnel 15 practices, and about the requirements of California and federal law. 16 45. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should 17 have known that Plaintiff was entitled to receive certain wages for overtime compensation and that 18 Plaintiff was not receiving wages for overtime compensation. 19 46. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants failed to provide 20 Plaintiff the required rest and meal periods during the relevant time period as required under the 21 Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and thus Plaintiff was entitled to any and all applicable 22 penalties. 23 47. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should 24 have known that Plaintiff was entitled to receive all meal periods or payment of one additional hour 25 of pay at Plaintiff’s regular rate of pay when a meal period was missed, and Plaintiff did not receive 26 all meal periods or payment of one additional hour of pay at Plaintiff’s regular rate of pay when a meal 27 period was missed. 28 48. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should Printed On Recycled Paper -7- COMPLAINT 1 have known that Plaintiff was entitled to receive all rest periods or payment of one additional hour of 2 pay at Plaintiff’s regular rate of pay when a rest period was missed, and Plaintiff did not receive all 3 rest periods or payment of one additional hour of pay at Plaintiff’s regular rate of pay when a rest 4 period was missed. 5 49. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should 6 have known that Plaintiff was entitled to receive all wages owed to him upon discharge or resignation, 7 including overtime, minimum wages, meal and rest period premiums, and Plaintiff did not, in fact, 8 receive all such wages owed to him at the time of his discharge or resignation. 9 50. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should 10 have known that Plaintiff was entitled to receive all wages owed to him during his employment. 11 Plaintiff did not receive payment of all wages, including overtime and minimum wages and meal and 12 rest period premiums, within any time permissible under California Labor Code section 204. 13 51. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should 14 have known that Plaintiff was entitled to receive complete and accurate wage statements in accordance 15 with California law, however Plaintiff did not receive complete and accurate wage statements from 16 Defendants. The deficiencies included, inter alia, the failure to include the total number of hours 17 worked by Plaintiff. 18 52. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should 19 have known that Defendants had to keep complete and accurate payroll records for Plaintiff in 20 accordance with California law, but, in fact, did not keep complete and accurate payroll records. 21 53. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should 22 have known that they had a duty to compensate Plaintiff pursuant to California law, and that Defendant 23 had the financial ability to pay such compensation, but willfully, knowingly, and intentionally failed 24 to do so, and falsely represented to Plaintiff that Plaintiff was properly denied wages, all in order to 25 increase Defendant’s profits. 26 54. Plaintiff alleges that during the time of his employment, these Defendants acted negligently, 27 recklessly, and/or intentionally to routinely deprive Plaintiff of statutorily mandated rest breaks during 28 work shifts of four (4) hours or greater. Defendants also intentionally failed to compensate Plaintiff Printed On Recycled Paper -8- COMPLAINT 1 for those missed rest breaks over the entire period of her employment with Defendants. 2 55. Plaintiff was not properly compensated for his overtime hours and Defendants failed to keep 3 accurate records of Plaintiff’s overtime hours and compensation. 4 56. Defendants, and each of them, violated other provisions of the laws of the State of California, 5 including Employment Laws and Regulations which provide for a civil penalty to be assessed and 6 collected by the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency or its various departments, 7 divisions, commissions, boards, agencies, or employees. 8 57. In addition to any other remedies which may be available at law or equity, or as may otherwise 9 asserted herein, Plaintiff seeks payment of overtime wages and other compensation owed to him, plus 10 all benefits required pursuant to the laws of the State of California, including Employment Laws and 11 Regulations, based on the sums withheld from Plaintiff. Plaintiff also seeks recovery of penalties, 12 attorney’s fees, and costs as provided by statute. 13 58. Plaintiff seeks restitution and disgorgement of all sums wrongfully obtained by Defendants 14 through their unfair business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 15 17200 et seq., to prevent Defendants from benefitting from their ongoing unfair practices, and which 16 sums recovered under the Unfair Competition Act and Unfair Businesses Act are equitable in nature 17 and are not to be considered damages. Plaintiff is also entitled to costs, attorney’s fees, interest and 18 penalties as provided for by the California Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code. 19 59. California Labor Code section 218 states that nothing in Article 1 of the Labor Code shall limit 20 the right of any wage claimant to “sue directly . . . for any wages or penalty due to him [or her] under 21 this article.” 22 60. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as hereinafter provided. 23 PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT OF 2004 (“PAGA”) 24 (Cal. Lab. Code section 2698 et seq.) 25 61. In 2003, California’s Legislature declared that, “staffing levels for state labor law enforcement 26 agencies have, in general, declined over the last decade and are likely to fail to keep up with the growth 27 of the labor market in the future. It is therefore in the public interest to provide those civil penalties 28 for violations of the Labor Code may also be assessed and collected by aggrieved employees acting as Printed On Recycled Paper -9- COMPLAINT 1 private attorneys general, while also ensuring that state labor law enforcement agencies’ enforcement 2 actions have primacy over any private enforcement efforts undertaken pursuant to this act.” Dunlap v. 3 Superior Court (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 330, 337-338, citing Stats. 2003. Ch. 906 § 1. 4 62. In response, California’s Legislature passed the Private Attorney General Act of 2004 5 (“PAGA”), which “was adopted to empower aggrieved employees, acting as private attorneys general, 6 to seek civil penalties for Labor Code violations, penalties which previously could be assessed only 7 by state agencies.” Dunlap v. Superior Court (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 330, 336. “Thus, PAGA 8 empowers or deputizes an aggrieved employee to sue for civil penalties ‘on behalf of himself or herself 9 and other current or former employees’ as an alternative to enforcement by the LWDA.” Id. At 337 10 citing to Cal. Lab. Code 2699(a). Class action requirements do not apply to representative actions 11 brought by one employee on behalf of other current or former employees under the PAGA. Arias v. 12 Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal. 4th 969, 984. 13 63. Prior to bringing the action, the aggrieved employee shall give written notice by certified mail 14 to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and the employer of the specific provisions of this 15 code alleged to have been violated, including the facts and theories to support the alleged violation. 16 Cal. Lab. Code 2699.3 (c)(1). The agency shall notify the employer and the aggrieved employee or 17 representative by certified mail that it does not intend to investigate the alleged violation within 60 18 calendar days of the postmark date of the notice received pursuant to paragraph (1). Upon receipt of 19 that notice or if no notice is provided within 65 calendar days of the postmark date of the notice given 20 pursuant to paragraph (1), the aggrieved employee may commence a civil action pursuant to Section 21 2699. 22 64. The aggrieved employee is entitled to keep 25% of the civil penalties recovered in the PAGA 23 action and the remaining 75% goes to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency. Cal. Lab. Code 24 2699(i). 25 65. On December 15, 2023, Plaintiff CYNTHIA BEATRIZ gave written notice by certified mail 26 to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) and the employers, of the specific 27 conditions of the codes alleged to have been violated, including the facts and theories to support the 28 alleged violations. Attached hereto as “EXHIBIT A”, is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s written Printed On Recycled Paper -10- COMPLAINT 1 PAGA Notice Letter. 2 EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 3 66. On December 15, 2023, prior to the initiation of this lawsuit, Plaintiff filed a complaint against 4 Defendants with the DFEH, pursuant to section 12900 et seq. of the California Government Code, 5 alleging the claims described in this Complaint. The DFEH issued a “Right to Sue” letter, which is 6 attached hereto as “EXHIBIT B”. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been 7 fulfilled. 8 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 9 (Violation of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code § 2698 et seq.) 10 67. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this complaint herein as if set forth in full. 11 68. Plaintiff seeks civil penalties for the above acts, which violate the California Labor Code, under 12 the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), Cal. Labor Code § 2698 et seq. 13 69. Plaintiff is “aggrieved employees” under PAGA, as he was employed by Defendants during 14 the applicable statutory period and suffered one or more of the Labor Code violations set forth herein. 15 Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to recover on behalf of herself and all other current and former aggrieved 16 employees of Defendants, the civil penalties provided by PAGA, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and 17 costs. 18 70. Plaintiff seeks to recover the PAGA civil penalties through a representative action permitted 19 by PAGA and the California Supreme Court in Arias v. Superior Court, (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969. 20 Therefore, class certification of the PAGA claims is not required. 21 71. Plaintiff seeks civil penalties pursuant to PAGA for violations of the following Labor Code 22 provisions: 23 a. failure to provide prompt payment of wages to employees upon termination and 24 resignation in violation of Labor Code § 201, 202, 203; 25 b. failure to provide itemized wage statements to employees in violation of Labor Code 26 §§ 226(a), 1174, and 1174.5; 27 c. failure to provide meal and rest periods in violation of all applicable IWC wage orders 28 and Labor Code §§ 1174 and 1174.5; Printed On Recycled Paper -11- COMPLAINT 1 d. failure to pay overtime wages in violation of all applicable IWC wage orders and Labor 2 Code §§ 510, 558, 1194 and 1198; 3 e. failure to provide unpaid balance of full amount of overtime compensation in violation 4 of Labor Code section 1194 and 2698 et seq.; 5 f. failure to pay minimum wage in violation of all applicable IWC wage orders and Labor 6 Code §§ 1182.12, 1194, and 1197; 7 g. Violation of Labor Code section 1199 (a) and (c) and 2699.5 et seq.; 8 h. failure to reimburse employees for all reasonably necessary expenditures and losses 9 incurred by employees in direct consequence of the discharge of their duties and other 10 work-related expenses, in violation of Labor Code section 2802; 11 i. failure to provide itemized wage statements to employees in violation of Labor Code 12 section 226(a); and 13 j. Violation of Labor Code 226.8 by misclassifying its employees as independent 14 contractors; 15 k. Violations of California Labor Code sections 201; 202; 203; 204; 206; 216; 218.6; 221; 16 226 et seq.; 226.8; 432.5; 450; 226.7; 512; 1174; 1174.5; 2802; and all applicable IWC 17 wage orders. 18 l. Defendants misclassified their employees as independent contractors in violation of 19 Labor Code 226.8, paying them in cash and outside of payroll; 20 72. On December 15, 2023, Plaintiff CYNTHIA BEATRIZ gave written notice by certified mail 21 to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) and the employers, of the specific 22 conditions of the codes alleged to have been violated, including the facts and theories to support the 23 alleged violations. Attached hereto as “EXHIBIT A”, is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s written 24 PAGA Notice Letter. 25 73. Plaintiff’s PAGA Notice includes all of Defendants' businesses, including its nurseries and 26 landscape services. 27 74. The LWDA did not provide notice of its intention to investigate Defendants’ alleged violations 28 within sixty-five (65) calendar days of the postmark date of the notice sent by Plaintiff. See Cal. Labor Printed On Recycled Paper -12- COMPLAINT 1 Code section 2699.3(a)(2)(A). 2 75. With respect to violations of Labor Code section 226(a), Labor Code section 226.3 imposes a 3 civil penalty in addition to any other penalty provided by law of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) per 4 aggrieved employee for the first violation, and one thousand dollars ($1,000) per aggrieved employee 5 for each subsequent violation of Labor Code section 226(a). 6 76. With respect to violations of Labor Code sections 510, 512, Labor Code section 558 imposes 7 a civil penalty in addition to any other penalty provided by law of fifty dollars ($50) for initial 8 violations for each unpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in 9 addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages, and one hundred dollars ($100) for 10 subsequent violations for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was 11 underpaid in addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages. 12 77. Moreover, Plaintiff seeks civil penalties in the amount of unpaid wages owed to aggrieved 13 employees pursuant to Labor Code section 558(a)(3). 14 78. With respect to violations of Labor Code section 1174, Labor Code section 1174.5 imposes a 15 civil penalty of $500. 16 79. Labor Code section 2699 et seq. imposes a civil penalty of one hundred dollars ($100) per pay 17 period, per aggrieved employee for initial violations, and two hundred dollars ($200) pay period, per 18 aggrieved employee for subsequent violations for all Labor Code provisions for which a civil penalty 19 is not specifically provided, including Labor Code sections 226.7, 226.8, 1174, 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 20 1198, and 2802. 21 80. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as hereafter provided. 22 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 23 (Failure to Pay Minimum Wage) 24 (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1182.12, 1194, 1197 & 1198 et seq.) 25 81. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this complaint herein as if set forth in full. 26 82. Pursuant to Labor Code §§ 1194, 1194.2, and 1197, it is unlawful for an employer to suffer or 27 permit a California employee to work without paying wages at the proper minimum wage for all time 28 worked. Printed On Recycled Paper -13- COMPLAINT 1 83. At all times material hereto, “hours worked” included “the time during which an employee is 2 subject to the control of an employer, and includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted 3 to work, whether or not required to do so.” 4 84. Plaintiff alleges Defendants failed to keep track of Plaintiff's and other employees' actual hours 5 worked. Employees' pay was rounded and inaccurate. This is in violation of the "Records" section of 6 Wage Orders 2, 4, 10, 17 and other wage orders. 7 85. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff the minimum wage, 8 Plaintiff has been damaged in the amount of unpaid minimum wages. Pursuant to Labor Code §§ 1194 9 and 1194.2, Plaintiff is entitled to recover the full amount of unpaid minimum wages, liquidated 10 damages in an equal amount, interest and attorney’s fees, all in a total amount subject to proof at time 11 of trial. In addition, insofar as the failure of Defendants to pay the minimum wage was willful, Plaintiff 12 who no longer works for Defendants are entitled to waiting time penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 13 200 et seq. 14 86. The aforementioned acts by Defendants were intentional, with the intention on the part of the 15 Defendants to deprive Plaintiff of his property and/or legal rights and causing injury to him. As a result 16 of Defendants’ failure to compensate Plaintiff at the minimum wage, pursuant to Labor Code § 1197.1, 17 Plaintiff is entitled to civil penalties from Defendants of $50 for each underpaid employee for each 18 pay period for which the employee is underpaid, for the initial violation; and $100 for each underpaid 19 employee for each pay period for which the employee is underpaid, for each subsequent violation. 20 87. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable jointly and severally for damages pursuant to Labor 21 Code §558.1. 22 88. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as hereinafter provided. 23 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 24 (Failure to Compensate for All Hours Worked) 25 (Cal. Lab. Code § 1198 et seq.) 26 89. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this complaint herein as if set forth in full. 27 90. At all times relevant herein, Defendants were required to compensate Plaintiff for all hours 28 worked upon reporting for work at the appointed time stated by Defendants, pursuant to applicable Printed On Recycled Paper -14- COMPLAINT 1 IWC Wage Orders, and Labor Code §§ 200, 226, 500, 510, and 1197. 2 91. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff for all hours worked by 3 not compensating him for work performed. Defendants failed to pay minimum wages; Defendants 4 failed to provide breaks as required by law; Defendants failed to compensate employees for all 5 overtime worked; Defendants failed to pay for break periods; Defendants did not accurately record 6 hours worked; Defendants failed to properly itemize wages. 7 92. Under the applicable IWC Wage Orders and California law, Plaintiff is entitled to recover 8 compensation for all hours worked, but not paid, for the three (3) years preceding the filing of this 9 Complaint, plus reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit pursuant to Labor Code § 218.5, and 10 penalties pursuant to Labor Code §§ 203 and 226. 11 93. In violation of state law, Defendants have knowingly and willfully refused to perform their 12 obligations to compensate Plaintiff for all wages earned and all hours worked. As a direct result, 13 Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, substantial losses related to the use and enjoyment of 14 such wages, lost interest on such wages, and expenses and attorney’s fees in seeking to compel 15 Defendants to fully perform their obligations under state law, all to his respective damage in amounts 16 according to proof at time of trial, but not in amounts in excess of the jurisdiction of this Court. 17 94. Defendants committed the acts alleged herein knowingly and willfully, with the wrongful and 18 deliberate intention of injuring Plaintiff, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff is 19 thus entitled to recover nominal, actual, compensatory, and liquidated damages in amounts according 20 to proof at time of trial, but not in amounts in excess of the jurisdiction of this Court. 21 95. As a proximate result of the aforementioned violations, Plaintiff has been damaged in an 22 amount according to proof at time of trial, but not in an amount in excess of the jurisdiction of this 23 Court. 24 96. Defendants’ conduct described herein violates Labor Code §§ 200, 226, 500, 1197 and 1198, 25 and applicable IWC Wage Orders. Therefore, pursuant to Labor Code §§ 203, 218.5, 226, 558, 1194, 26 and 1194.2, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for the nonpayment of wages of all hours worked 27 that were improperly deducted by Defendants’ policies, penalties, reasonable attorney’s fees, 28 expenses, and costs of suit. Printed On Recycled Paper -15- COMPLAINT 1 97. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable jointly and severally for damages pursuant to Labor 2 Code §558.1. 3 98. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as hereinafter provided. 4 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 5 (Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation) 6 (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1198 & 510 et seq.) 7 99. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this complaint herein as if set forth in full. 8 100. Pursuant to applicable IWC Wage Orders, and Labor Code §§ 200, 226, and 1198, at all times 9 relevant hereto, Defendants were required to compensate Plaintiff for all overtime, which is calculated 10 at one and one-half (1½) times the regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours 11 per day and/or forty (40) hours per week. 12 101. Pursuant to applicable IWC Wage Orders, and Labor Code §§ 200, 226, and 1198, as of 13 January 1, 1998, Defendants were required to compensate Plaintiff for all overtime, which is calculated 14 as one and one-half (1½) times the regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours 15 per week. 16 102. Pursuant to Labor Code §§ 200, 226, 500, 510, and 1198, Defendants were required to 17 compensate Plaintiff for all overtime, which is calculated at one and one-half (1½) times the regular 18 rate of pay for hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours per day. 19 103. Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee entitled to the protections of California Labor Code §§ 20 200, 226, 500, 510, and 1198. During the course of Plaintiff’s employment, Defendants failed to 21 properly compensate him for overtime hours worked as required under the aforementioned Labor Code 22 sections. 23 104. In violation of state law, Defendants have knowingly and willfully refused to perform their 24 obligations to compensate Plaintiff for all wages earned and all hours worked. 25 105. As a direct result of aforementioned violations, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, 26 substantial losses related to the use and enjoyment of such wages, lost interest on such wages, and 27 expenses and attorney’s fees in seeking to compel Defendants to fully perform their obligations under 28 state law, all to his respective damage in amounts according to proof at time of trial, but not in amounts Printed On Recycled Paper -16- COMPLAINT 1 in excess of the jurisdiction of this Court. 2 106. Defendants’ conduct described herein violates Labor Code §§ 200, 226, 500, 510 and 1198. 3 Therefore, pursuant to Labor Code § 200, 203, 218.5, 226, 558, and 1194, Plaintiff is entitled to 4 recover the unpaid balance of overtime compensation Defendants owe Plaintiff