Complaint,Petition: Reginald Lyle et al. vs Doctors Hospital Of Manteca, Inc. et al.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                ee at

Joseph Lavi, Esq. {SEN 209776)... :
Vincent C. Granbi ae Ge (SBN 276483)
LAYI & EBRAHIMIA .
8889 W. Olympic Blvd, Suite 200:
Beverly Hills, ‘alifornia 90211
Telephone: Gi0). 432-0000

Facsimile: (310) 432-0001

Attorneys for, PLAINTIFF REGINALD: LYLE,
on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,

gy 2 bb
ee _
RA GIES GER,

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN

REGINALD LYLE, on-tehalf of himself ‘and
others similarly. situated,

PLAINTIFE; .

VS.

DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.;
AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF
MANTECA; DRS HOSP OF MANTECA ING;
SP OF MANTECA IN ‘TENET
HEALTHCARE CORPORATION: TENET
HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.;, ;
TENET HEALTH; and DOES 146-100; Inclusive,

DEFENDANTS. ° -

 

‘Case Nox STK:CV-UOE-2016-6523

CLASS ACTION

: BLAINTIFE! REGINALD LYLE’S FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

| DAMAGES AND RESTITUTION AND
FOR:

1 FAILURE TO-PAY WAGES FOR
ALL TIME WORKED AT,
- MINIMUM:-WAGE-IN VIOLATION
OF LABOR CODE SECTIONS: 1194
AND. AMOR PE

2, FAILURE TO.PAY WAGES FOR
ALL TIME WORKED AT /
OVERTIME RATIIN. -.
VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE
SECTION 510 AND 1194

3.0 RALGURE TO AUTHORIZE OR

PERMIT MEAL PERIODS IN
~ VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE
"SECTIONS 512. AND 226.7 ||

4: FAILURE TO‘AUTHORIZE OR
PERMIT REST: PERIODS IN’.
VIOLATION. OF LABOR CODE
SECTION 226.7

5. FAILURE TO PROVIDE,
. COMPLETE AND ACCURATE
WAGE STATEMENTS IN
. VIOLATION OF LABOR: CODE
SECTION 226

XVd Ad Gas

 

 

 

PLAINTIFE'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES...J against Defendadis DOCTORS. HospIy. AL OF MANTECA, INC; AUXILIARY. OF DOCTORS

‘6... FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY ALL
“ -EARNED WAGES ‘AND FINAL
: PAYCHECKS DUE AT TIME OF
SEPARATION OF EMPLOYMENT
IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE
4 SECTIONS 208; 202,-AND 203

 

 

Fei UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES,
IN.VIOLATION OF BUSINESS ~
AND PROFESSIONS CODE
SECTION 17200, et seq.

.& CIVIL PENALTIES PURSUANT
TO THE PRIVATE ATTORNEY
’ GENERAL ACT OF 2004
= ee \"); LABOR: CODE
‘SECTION 2698, et: seq. :

 

 

DEMAND-FOR JURY TRIAL

 

 

COMES NOW. Plaimiff REGINALD LYLE’ (Piaiatif?, who ‘alleges and complains

HOSPITAL OF: MANTECA; DR HOSP oF MANTECA INC; SP OF MANTECA INC; TENET.
HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; TENET HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC; TENET
HEALTH, and DOES 1 to 100; inclusive, (collectively fesidents") as follows:

i INTRODUCTION

 

  
 

 

1, This is a.class ‘action lawsuit seeking unpaid. wages and ‘interest thereon for unpaid
wages for all hours worked at the’ mininiuni wage and: overtime rates of pay due 19° Defendants”
policy, practice, and/or. “procedute ‘of requiring Plaintiff and similarly situated hourly , employees to}
don and doff théir scrubs off the-elock, rounding ‘thelr daily hours worked down to the: nearest
quarter of an hour, and requiting them to remain. “on'éall* failure ta authorize or permit second
theal periods; failure to authorize: or permit rest petiods; statutory penalties -for failure to provide.
acvlirate wage staterients: waiting time penalties in the form of continuation Wages for failure to
timely pay eniployees all: wages due upon séparstion of employnient; injuttctive relief and other
equitable relief. reasonable. attorney's fees pursuant to. California Labor Codesections 226(e); 1 194;
and 269%g)(1): éosts! and interest brought on behalt of Plaintiff'and others similarly situated.

Hl

 

__ PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR:DAMAGES4 the Claas: Members’ elatnis: fot vinpaid

 

wages for all Bours iorked 2 at the midimum Wage-and overtime rates of pay due to Defendants’
policy, practice, ‘and/or procedure of requiring Plainitiff and Similarly situated hourly e employees to

don and doff: their scribs, ‘off ihe-clock, rotinding. their’ daily hours worked: down to the -nearést

 

quarter of an our, aad: requiring them to’ temain:“on-éa  failure.16 authorize or permit .secatid

   

meal periods; failure to authotize or

 

sErinit rest. petlods;- stathtory penaltiés for failure to. provide

   

accurate wage Statements; w ime 5 penalties j in ihe form of. contimiation: wages for failure to

 

 

timely pay eniployess all @ wages duc: upon separation’ of employment; injunctive relief and restitution
under California Business, & Profesdions Code: section 17200. et seg. for the following reasons:

Defendants operate throughout California; Deféndants-eimployed Plaintiff in San Joaquin County;
Defendants opéraitg at 1205°B, North St; Maiiteca, CA'95336; at all relevant times, Defendants’
principal place-of business was: located at 1205 B, NOith St, Manteca; CA-95336: more thai two-
thirds of the. ptitative class amombers are: Califia sitizens; the. principal violations of California

law occurred in California no other cléss aétions have-héen filed against Defendants i in the last thiee

 

years alleging wage and: hour Vi

 

i ors; the conduct‘of Defendants forms 2-significant basis for

 

Plaintiff's and the Chass. Momibers’’ claims; and: Plairitif? and the Glass Meiners Seek significant
relief from Defendants. :
dt. =PARTYES

3. ‘Plana brings this 2 ion 6 i F a othe tticinbers of. ibie geteral|

  

 

public similarly3 uated. The neméd Plaintitt and the clais of p persons. “on whose behalf, this action
is filed are current, former and/or future employees Of Defendants who ‘work.as hourly non-exempt}

employees. At all times mentioned herein, the currently named ‘Plainuft i is and Was a resident of

| California and ‘was éinployed-by Defendants a asa surgical: iechinician, “within the four years prior to.

the filing of the. complaint:

4, Defendants employed Plaintiff as. a suis technician from. oh of around ‘May or
2013, through on around Décember 29:2U15.

 

lieves anid? ott that basis. alleges that Defendants employed

 

 

 

 

5. Plaintiff is informed and

 

“AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES *“Located at 1205 B, North St, Manteca, CA.95336.

 

Plaintiff and other ia niicexempt, émployees throughout the State of California and therefore its
conduct forms. a ‘significant ‘basis of the claims asserted i in’ this matter!

6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant DOCTORS
HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC. is authorized to.do business within thé State of California and is
doing business in the State of Catiferaia and/or that Defendants DOES"1:- 12 até, and at all times |"
relevant béretor : Were personsiacting ‘on. ‘Behalf of DOCTORS. HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC. i in

the establishment of, of ratification -of, the aforementioned. illegal wage atid: hour practices. or,

 

 

policies. Defendant DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC. operates in SanJoaquin County

   

anid employed, Plaintiff. and otic: putative class tnemibers in San Joaquin. County at its. business

7. Plaintiff i is informed cand believes and
OF DOCTORS ‘wOsPiraL OF MANTECA ig anithotiaed to do business within the State of
California and $ is:doing ‘business in ‘the State of ‘California and/or that Defendants DOES. 13 - 24 are,

 

and at all times. relevant hereto, wate. persons: acting « on, ‘behalf, of AUXILIARY. OF DOCTORS]
HOSPITAL OF MANTECA i in the establishment of, or vatification of, the aforementioned: illegal
wage -and boiir practices of poficiés, Defendant AUXI JARY ‘OF DOCT ‘ORS HOSPITAL OF

  

MANTECA operates: in-San Joaquin Cotinty and: ei ployed “Plaintiff anid other putative class |

members in San-Joaquin,County at its business locaséd at 1205: E. North St. Manteca, CA 95336.

 

interac and believes:and theteon -alleges { that Defendant: DRS HOSP OF
MANTECA INC is'aitthoriz

 

fo d6-busiziess within the State: of, California andi is doing, business i in
the State oft California. and/or? that Defendanns ous 25 -~ 36 are; and at call times relevant hereto

were persons acting on behalf. -Of DR! HOSP: OF MANTECA INC j in the establishment, of or

   
 

ratification of the aforémenti ni egal “wage and: hour practices. or policies, Defendant. DRS
HOSP OF MANTECA INC ipensieg in. Sen Joaquin: County and employed Plaintiff and other.
putative class ‘members. in San. Jodquin County at its busitiess located at 1205.6. North St, Manteca,
CA 95336. /

9% Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant sp Or

MANTECA INC is authorized to do: business within, the Staté of California and is doing business i iti

 

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMEN ED COMPLA INT-FOR DAMAGESthe State of Calffomie and/or that. Defendants DOES 37 - 48 are, and at-all times relevant: hereto

|were ersons, actitig on behalf of: SP OF MANTECA: INCA in the:establishitient of, or ratification of,

the aforementioned illegal wage and I our practices of policies: Defendaat ‘SP OF MANTECA INC:
operates i Sah Joaquin County and einployed: Plaintiff and other putative class members: i San
Joaquin County at its ‘busin a dat 1205 E. NotthiSe, Mantéea, CA 95336.

10, intif? is informed:tind. belioves. and. thereon. alleges ‘that Defeiidant. SP’ OF
MANTECA INC is authorized to do business within Uie State of California and is doing business in

    

 

the State of California and/or that Defendarits DOES 49 - 60 are, and-at all-fimes relevant hereto
wWete persons ‘acting on behialf of SP-OF MANTECA IN

     
    
 

 

in the establishment ‘of ‘or ratification off
Daféadant SP-OF MANTECA INC

 

the aforementioned iilegal wage. and ‘hour practi i
operates in San’ Toaquin County 3 ‘acd employed Plaint ff and other putetive ‘class members i in ‘San
forth & anteca; CA.95336.

LL. ‘Plaintiff 4s ‘informed: ‘anid. ‘believes: and. thereat alleges that: Defendant TENET
HEALTHCARE: CORPORATION; is authorized fo'do business within, the State, of California and is’
doing business in the State of California and/or that Defendants DOES. 61 -.72 are, and at all. times

  

Joaquin Conaty at its busitiess located, at 12

 

 

relevant hereto. wete persons acting on behalf of TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION i in the
establishment-of,: or’ ratifil ation of, ithe ‘aforementioned. legal wage and hour} ‘practices. or policies,
Defendant TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION operates. in San Joaquin County sand)
employed Plaintiff and other putative.class inembers in ‘San Joaquin: County at its:business: located
at 1205 E. Nonh'St., Manteca; GA 95336.

12, ~ Plaiitée is informed. ahd beligyes aiid ‘thereon -alleges that Detindsint “TENET
HEALTHCARE, CORPORATION

 

‘authorized t to do: business within the State of California and is
doing business i in thé State of California and/or that Deféridants DOES 61.- 72.are, and at all times
relevant hereto, were persons acting; i behalf f TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION i in the

 

establishment of. or ratifi feation af, the aforementioned iNegal wage and hour practices. or policias:
Defendant TENET. HEALTHCARE CORPORATION operates in San Joaguin- County. and

employed Plaintiff and other pittative ‘class anembers int y San Joaquin County at its business located

.at 1205 E. Nort St; «Manicea, CA: 95336.

 

 

PLAINTIFF'S. FiRST SSIENDED COMPLAINT For DAMAGES :
8HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, ING. ig. jotized to. do. business. within ‘the: ‘State of

j 100 are individuals soknovin to Plaintft. Each of the individual Defendants is sued individually i in

   

13. Plainiiif 4 is nfoimed and’ believes and thereon alleges that Defendant: ‘TENET

    

 

California and is doing bidsiniess i in thie State of Califoraia and/or that Defendants DOES.73-=
and at all times: relevant. hereto’ awene. ‘persons’acting on behalf’ of TENET: HEALTH INTEGRATED
SERVICES, INC. iy the -eétablishitient of, or ratification: of, the aforementioned illegal wage and
hour practices or policies. Defetidaad TENET 1 BALTH GRATED SERVICES, INC. operates

 

 

in San Joaqui, County and employed | Plaintiff ‘and other putative class: members in San Joaquin
County at iis business located at £205 E. Nortli St, Maateca,, CA 95336.

14. Phaintior is i forined cand believes and ‘thereon alleges that. Defendant TENET
HEALTH is authorized to
State of Califomia and/or. that Defendants. DOES 73: 8a ace, and at all times relevant hereto:were

   
 

 

sifiess within thé State ‘of California and is: doing. business 4 in the

persons acting, on behalf of TENET HEALTH in the establishment of, or ratification of, the
aforementioned’ illegal wage and hour practices. of policies. Defendaut TENET Operates in San|~
Joaquin County and employed P indff and. other putative class member it San Joaquin County. ‘at
‘its business logaied. at 1208 ‘Notth St, Manteca, CA: 5336.

   

18: ‘Pleistift i is informed. and believes atid ereon alleges that Defendants DOES ‘84 -

his or her capacity as:an, agent shareholder, ¢ owner, reptesentative, aianages;. supervisor; independent
contractor andlor inployée’ of each Defendant. and participated in the establishment of, or

ratification. of, the afoteiientioned illegal wage and hour practices or polici

 

the ‘trae names of Defendants’ DOES t ifough i 106. Plaintuff

 
 

16. Plaintiff is wiawas é

  

sues said defendants. by said fictitious’ names, arid wil nid this: complaint: when ihe trué nanies
and capacities aré as¢ertaified’.or ‘when such facts. peitaining to liability: are ascertained, or as
permitted by Jaw on by the’ Coils: Plaintiff is informed: and believes that each of the ‘fictitiously
named Defendants -is- in: some. ananiier responsible for the events .and allegations. set forth inthis
complaint. :

17. Plaintiff is informed; belig eredn alleges. that:atall relevant ‘times; each

    

a partner, joint venturer; officer. director,

 

 

 

 

 

    

NDED. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAG!
Gecontrolling sharéhilder; subsidiary, affiliate, parent corporation,’ successor in interest and/or
bredecessér in interest ofsortie orall-of the other Defendants, and was.engaged with some or all of |
the other defendants in a joint einterprisé for profit, ‘and bore such other relationships to some or all
of the other defendants so as to be liable for their conduct with Fespect to the malteérs alleged i ini this
complaint. Plaintiff is further informed and believes: ‘and: theréon alleges that each défendant ated
pursuant to and ‘within the scope, of the. -felatioxiships alleged above, and that,at-all relevant times,
: have ciown ‘about
cofiduct of ail othiee defend ;

      
    
 

each defendant knew. or. sh

 

8 authorized, ratified, adopted, approved,

 

controlled, aided and: abet
"Defendant ineand’ ‘Dein

5. ASsused in this complaint,
TS An each of them! al fefeis td: the Defénitants tamed ‘in the
particular cause: of action:in whi ihe word ‘appears, ‘an ? fendants DOCTORS: HOSPIT. ‘AL.OF
MANTECA, IN a AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL. OF ‘MANTECA; DRS HOSPOF
MANTECA INC; SP OF MANTECA ING; TENET: HEALTHCARE CORPORATION: TENET
HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICHS, INC: TENET HEALTH, and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive.

   

 
 

 

 

18, Atal times mentioned herein; each Defendant \ was the: co-bonspitaton, agent; servant,
employee, and/or j joint Venturer of | each of the other defendants and was acting withimthe course and
scape of said conspiracy, agency; ehiployinent, and/or joint ‘venture and with the permission and/
consent of each, of the othér Defendants. :

19. Plaintift makes the: allegations in this -omplaint. svithout ariy admission that, as-to/any].
particular allegation, Plaintitt bears the burden of pleading; proving, or, persuading. and: Plaintiff
seServes all of Plaintiff rights fo plead ‘in the alternative,

Iv.

 

DESCRIPTION OF ILLEGAL PAY PRACTICES

 

20. : Purstiafit’to Ihe applicable dndustrial’ Welfare Commission’ CWC") Wage’ Order
(Wage Order"), codified at Califomia. Code of Regulétions litle 8, section 1.1050, Defendants aris
employers of Plaintiff within the meaning of the applicable Wage Order'and applicable California’
Labor Code seétions. Theretére, “éach of thesé Deferidants is jointly and’ severally Hable: for the
wrongs complained of herein'in yiolation of the Wage. Ordet-arid the California’ Labor Code.

 

 

 

__ PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PEST AN eePlaintiff and: -sunilarly.situat di

employees to, clock out of their sliifts Prior tos changing gut of their scrubs.

“| worked at least at'a-minimum

 

 

21. Pailure to ‘pay wages: for all hours worked. at the legal: ‘minimuin wage:

 

Defendants. eniptoyed many ‘of ‘their employees, including Plaintiié, as ‘hourly’ non-exerapt
‘employees. Jn California, an: employer is required to pay hourly-ernployees for all “hours Worked,”
which includes‘all time that an employed is under caritrol of the employer sind all-time the employee

is suffered and Permitted to work. This includes. the’ flime an employee spends; either directly or

 

indirectly, perforniiig Services ‘whieli inire.to the benefit of the éraployer,
22. Califomia Labor Code Séetions 1194 iand 1197 tequire an employer to compensate,

employees for all “hours worked”* at least ata miniinuin wage Tate of ‘pay as established by the |.

 

23. ik this case, Defendants employed. a ‘policy. “Practice, atid/or procedure whereby So

 

yyees were required toarrive approximately 15-minutes. piiér to
the start of their-shift in drdex to change into scrubs prior to clocking in-for their shift Similarly,
Defendants eimployed a policy, Practice, and/or protedire whereby Plaintiff and similarly-situated

24.0 dh addition, Defendants employed a policy, practice, and/or procedure whereby they
Touhded down oi shaved down Plaintilf and similarly, situated employees’ ‘daily hours worked ta the
nearest quarter hour and did hot pay Plaintift and similatiy situated craplayees ‘wages for titat time.

25. “Finally, _ Defendarits Fequired Plaintiff and sitilacly situated employees to. be. “on-
call,” but did not pay them wages ‘for’ ‘on-call time. During: “on-call time Plaintiff's and similarly
situated employes” activities ‘were so restricted that being “onzcall” “preveiited them from engaging :
in personal activities. Nevertheless, Defendants failed to éompensate Plaintiff and similarly situated |
employees for “oireeall™ time.

26. Desbite the fa hat Caliéomia lavir requires employers to’ pay: employees forall hots

 
 

: ate, ‘because of Defeidants failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly |
situated hourly non-exempt employees for-time spent donning and doffing scrubs, failed to pay for |'
all daily hours “worked dite to- Defendants’ policy; practice, wand proceduie of rounding: down or

shaving dewa employees’ daily hows: ‘worked to the nearest quarter hour, and failing: ‘to compensate

  

Plaintiff and similarly situated hourly non-exempt employees" “on-call” hours. The foregoing

 

 

 

 

 

_ PLAINTIFF'S FIRST ‘AM ENDED COMPLAINT FoR! DAMAresulted in hotly employees working time for which they were not’ compensated any wages, in
violation of. Califia Labor ‘Code seétions 1194, 1197, aid the Wage Orders.

27. Failure to pay. wages for all hours worked at-the employee's overtime rate of
pay: As described above, Defendaits’ “policies; ‘practices: -and- procedures require Plaintiff ‘and

similarly situated employees to don anid doff their's scrubs off the clock, round down: or shave down

 

employees daily hours down ti ‘the sriearest quater: ‘hour, ‘and: require, that an employees to-remain
“on-call” without being compénsated 4 for that time. The foregoing resultéd in time each work day
which Plaintiff. ‘aid similarly situated employees werd: under control at Defendants. but were not
compensated. ,
28. Labor Code cis 510 arid 1id4 require an émployer to compensate employees a
higher rate of pay for-liours worked inl exeeas of 8 hours: iis a workday, 40 hours in a workivedk; and
on any seventh consecutive day of Work in a workweek,

Atiy ‘workin éxéesg of eight hours. in one workday. and any. work: it
‘excess of 40-hours in any one workweek and the first eight hours
worked on the seventh day Of work in any une workweek’ shall be
cdripensated at the’ rate of io less than one and-onechalf timés the
regular rate of pay far'an employee. _ Anywork it excess of 12 houts in
oie day’ shall -be compensated’ at the-rate of no less than twice the
regular rate of pay for an employee. In addition, any work in excess of
eight on any: seventh day of a workweek shall bé compensated
at the vate of no Jess thari twice the regular rate of p ‘Pay of ai employee,

 

| (Lab, Code'g5103

29. Despite, that Califomia law requires employers, to.pay employées for all hours. worked
and at a higher rate’ of f pay ‘whens those 1 hours fall: during otk péridds in excess of 8 hours i ina
Workday and 40. hours: sina workweek Defendarits would fail to pay einpldyees wages fox the time-it

  

| tovk to don arid dott their. scrubs, for the time each watt aye that ‘eiriployees” were. not: -compensated
for due to Defendants* policy, ‘prictice, and/or pipgedure of rounding down-or shaving dawn
employees” daily, hours down to thé nearest quarter hour, and requiring that an employees reiiain

“on-call” withont, being compensated.for that time which Plaintiff'and similarly. situated employees |
were under control of Defendants. To thé extent the employees liad already worked 8 houfs.in'the

day and on workweeks they had already worked 40.houirs in a workweek. the emplogeds:stiould

 

 

 

PLAESTIFE'S PIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
y , "have been paid Gvertime for this wnipaid time. This resulted: iv_non- -exempt employees. working time

 

which should have been paid at, I legal overtime, tate, but Was Hot paid-any: wages in violation of.
Labor Cade sections § 5 10, ‘7194, atid. the Wage Ordérs.. ;

30. Pailure: to pay: hourly employees Wages ‘to compensate ‘them. for warkdays |
Detendants failed to provide required. meal periods: Defendants. often, employed hourly
employees, including the named: Plainuit and.all others ‘siilacly- esituated, for shifts loiger than 10
hours in length.

3. California law "req ites an employer’ to authorize or permit an employee -an

  

 

  

uninterrupted Teal peridd of no less. thai 30-minutes in whicli the employee i is relieved of, all duties

   

atid the employer

 

"s étivities prior. to the eniployee's 8 sixth
hour-of work. Cal. Lab. Cod §§ 226.7, 512; Wage Oder 9- 2001; Lip Brinker Rest. Corp. x Super

1 ishes costo! OVer the engl

 

Ct. (Hohnbaim) (2012) 53 Cal: 4th 1004: An employer may not employ an employee for a work
period of mare than {0 hours per day: without providing the employee ‘with a second such. meal
period of not less than .30 ininutes Bfior to the ‘start of tlie ‘eleventh hou of work. [a If the
employee is not rélieved.of all duty duriag a mealy period, the meal period shall ‘be considered: an “on
duty" meal period and counted as time worked, A paid “on. duty” meal period. is. oxily permitted
when: (1) the nature of the work. prevents an employee from being relieved of all duty; and (2) the}
parties have a written Lagreémenit agreeing to on duty meal, periods, |
32. If'an employer fails:to pidvide an employee a meal period in accordance with the |
law, the employer must pay the employee one hour of;pay:atihe eniployee's Tegillar rate of pay for
each work day that alegally iequired: meal period. ‘Was not timely provided or was not duiy-fize: Id.
33. Piss tiff and ‘similarly siniated employees would work -on workdays in shifts long .

 

enough to entitle them to. bot first and secand meal periods under: California law. Despite the fact

 

that California law yequires einiployers' (0 authorize: orpermit an uninterupted, duty-free first real

period of nat less than 30 minutes ptlorto. their ‘sixth houi of work when they worked: shifts more

|| than five hoins in length and a second, duty-frée meal period of not less-than 30 minutes when they

worked shifts over 10 hours in lengia, Defendants routinely failed to authérize or permit first.meal

periods of not fess than 30 minutes because Defendants would require Plaintiff and similarly

 

 

 

F SHIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT For DAMAGES
ty| Six and ten hoisig bi Jéngtli, 39 minutes Poe shifts belween 10 nnd. 14 Holirad

situated employees 10 dod their scrubs. prior fo conclusion of. their fitst meal pariods and ‘failed to
authorize. or permit second meal petiods-aitogether when employees worked’ shifts of more'than 10
hours, :

34, In ‘addition; Defehdaits failed to. pay ‘premium wages “to Plaintitf-dad sitnilarly
situated employées to ‘compensate. them for each woikay the eniployees did not receive all legally
required duty-freé meal petiods: ‘Defeidants employed. policies and procedures which ensured
employees did not receive: any. premium wages to compensate them fot the workdays in which they:
did not receive all legally fegjuired meal periods.

other similarly. situated. employdes fot

   

35. This practice regulted in. Plaintiff and

 

Teceiving premiiidy wages io coniperisate them for workdays which Defendants did not provide them
with either fitst of second duty free’ meal Beriods, or both; in cornpliatice with California law.
36. Failaré to. “pay _ hourly employces wages. fo compensate them for workdays

Defendants often etpléyed” hourly

 

Defendants faite to provide required rest’ perio

‘employees, ineluding, the. named Plaintiff and all others.similarly-situated, for shifts at least tere

 

and one-half (3. 3) ours in n length.

37. California law eS an, employer to provide an etnployee: a@ rest period of ten 10)

  
 

net minutes for every four hours rs worked, “ ‘Svlhich insofar: as. Bracticable salt be. in the middle of
each work period.” Cal, Lab, Cade $226.7; Wage Odes §12, Thus, employees are entitled to10

minutes resi for shifis from three and one-half‘ to six hours in length, 20 minutes, for shifis between:

 

in length, and go'6n." See:

 

Brinker, supra.

38. de the employer { fails.t9. provide-a-requiréd rést period, the-emplayer must pay the
émployee one | ‘hour of p pay at the : ‘raployes” 5: regular fate! oF compensation: for each-wark day the
employer did Bok provide all legally requived rest periods. fd.

39, Defendants: employed, policies and procedures which gnsured Plaintiff and. similarly
situated employées would itot receive’ all legally required rest. ‘periods, ‘Specifically, if the emplayees
worked shifts between 10: and 14 holirs. in length, Defendants did hol, authorize or perinit and:

therefore failed to:provide a third rest | riod often net minutes.

  

 

 

 

“ PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT] FOR: DAMAGES
it :| Termination/Resignation: “An. einployer is . stequite .

40. Defendants also employed policies and procedurés which ensured Plaintiff and
similarly situated: employees did not Teceive any. premiviea wages to compensate them for workdays
that they did not receive all legally tenuiied rest periods: .

41, These practices resulted i in Plaintiff arid’ all other similarly situated eniployees- not
receiving wages to Gompensite 1 tier: for workdays which Deféudants did not provide them with all
rest periods required by Califor ia law.

42. “Pay Stub Violations: California Labor Code séction: ae provides, inter atic, that,

upon paying'an amployee| his or he ‘ és: the ceinployer must “furnis

    
 

+». an itemized stitement i in

 

ting showing (1) gross Wages eamed, (2) total hours worked: by: the
employee, except for any employes whose comhpensation is solely based on a salary and who is
exempt from payment of overtime: under: subdivision’ ®) of Section-515 or or any applicable order of
the Industrial Welfare Commission, (3) the nimber of picce-rate: Ainits euméd and any applicable |
piece rate if the eiiaploycé- is: paid-on a piece-iate ‘basis, (4) all deductions, provided, that ali
deductions madé'oh written orders of thé employee may. be aggregated and shown as one item,.(5)
net wages camed, (6) the inclusive dates of the pay period for which the. employee'is paid, (7) the

name of the eiiployee and his or her social secirity number, (8).the Jame and address of the legal

| entity that is the. eniiployer, and (9) all: applicable hourly tates in effect-during the pay period and the
| corresponding umber of hdurs worked.at each hourly rate ‘by the employee. 2

43. Defendants Ovi ide. aceurit savage.and hotir statements to Plaintiff. and

  

 

similarly situated’ empléyees who were : subject to Dei 3? control for. uncompensated time: and

 

who did not receive, the wages they. eamed. (including minimum wages, overtime wages, as. well as
failure to pay premiuini wages far thissed: real and fest Betiods).
44, Failure to Pay California Enuployees All Wagés Due at Time -of|

 

‘pay all unpaid-iwages timely. after an}
employee's employment ends. ‘The wages are due iminidiately upon termination (California Later
Code sectiori 201} or within 72, hours of. resignation (California Labor Cade section 202).

45. Becatise Defendants failed to pay Plaititiff and other similarly situated employees all

their eamed wages (including 4

 

wages, overtime wages, and unpaid meal. and. test period

 

 

 

   

RLAINTH MENDED COMPLAINT FORDAMAGES. *

12piermium waues), Defendants failed -to pay those employees timely after each employee's
termination and/or resignation.
¥. CLASS. DEFINITIONS AND -CLASS ALLEGATIONS
46. Plaintiff brings this ‘action. on behalf at himself, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the General Publi, and as a thémber of a Class defined as follows:
A. ‘Unpaid Work Minimum Wage Clase: All cunteiit and fornier non-éxenipt
employees employed by Defendants ini California at any time within the four‘ years prior ta the filing
of the initial complaint i in this action and through, the: date notice i is mailed to a certified class; ‘who

 

were under contro!’ ‘oF Deferidints during time prior to ‘and after loi Ey work period, whose daily hours

worked were rounded down: or shaved down to thie. nearest quarter of ait hour and/or who. were

required to be:“on- nll” and i Defkindénts: aia. not pity ‘wages for that time at the legal minimum: wage

rate. =~ .

i BL f oS
employees employed by Deferidamis j in California at anyet time within the four years prior to the filing

 

of the initial complaint i in thig action and through the date notice is mailed to a certified class, who
were under contfol of Defendants. during time pridr to a-work period and on workdays they had |
already worked in exeeas of 8 hours ina day, 40 hours i in.a week, or were working on a seventh
consecutive day of work and Defendants did not pay wages for that t time.

c. Meal.Period ‘Class:, All current. and former. howly employees. employed by

 

Defendants in California at any time within the four years prior to the fi ling of the initial complaint.

  

in this action and: through tlie'date notice is éd toa certified class who worked: shifts of at least
six hours yét Deieiidaats did ot provide iequired: duty free meal periods of not Jess than. 30}
niinutes, and/or “who worked shifts { more than ten Hotes yet Defendaiits did not provide required
duty-free meal. periods of not less'than 30 ‘hinutes prior tothe start: of thei eleventh hour of work,

B. Rest Period Class: All current-and former. hourly employees employed by
Defendants. iti California at. any time within the four years grior to the filing of the initial complaint |
in this action arid through the date notice is-mailed to # certified cliss who worked at-least three and:

one-half (3.5) or moe hours in day wi vired rest periods often, net minutes rest

 

 

 

PLAIRUIEPS FURST AMENDED COMPLAINT! FOR DAMAGES»
3 :‘by Defendants iit California at any:
in this action, and through the

| of all unpaid. wages upon senarati

 

time for every four howts worked Betneea three and:ons-half-and six. hours; six and:ten, pn hous, or ten
and fourteen hours:

B. Wage’ Stateuient Class: AD chiteiat and, former hint eitiployess employed
within the one year ‘prior tothe fi ling of the initiat complaint |

   
 
 
 
 
   

 

ative ds miailed. to a certified, class. who received. inagenite or’

 

 

incomplete wage’ ‘and hour st teinets,
B. Waiting Tine:
Defendants in California at any

in this'action aind throt

 

of employment within the staat time. peti

 

G ¢ liforni ia: Class: All aforemeritioned lasses are: igre calestively referred to

as the “Califoriia Glass."

 

 

47. There. i is a syell defined -conitiunity of interest’in the litigation. arid: the classes, are

ascertainable:

 

 

  
 
   

limited to:

 

and 1197 by rot paying employee: ages at a a tintin: wage rate. for alt time that the Cina

 

  

Work Minimum Wage Class Meinbeis « were subject to Defendants? contol bul were not paid;
ii. - Whether Defendants violated Californis Labor. Code sections'510-and

 

1194 by not payitig: emplo yes”: Wangs: vat an, overtime swage rate "for all: overtime hours: that the
Unpaid Work Overtime: Wage Class’ Menibers ‘vere subject to Defendants? control but were not
‘paid; : .

   

 

INT FOR DAMAGESii, Whether Defendants violated Califorhia Labor Codé Sections $12 and
226.7, as well as the applicable: Wage Order, by employing Meal Period Class: ‘Menibers Without
providing all their required nieal’ périods.or ‘Paying meal period premium wages;
iv. Whether Defendants violated the Wage Order and Califortiia Labor
Cade section 226. 7 and ihe applicable Wage Older. by employing Rest. Period Class “Members,
without providing all their required rest periods or paying rest Beriod preditum wages;
ye ” AWhether Defendants failed: to ptovide- the Wage Statement ‘Glass

 

Membeis wiiliaccurate itehnized sfatement atthe tine they received their itemized statements;

‘vis “Whether Defendants foiled to provide: the ‘Waiting Time Class
Members with ail of theit eained wages pon separation of employment within the statutory time
period; .

Mii. Whether Defendants committed: unlafal business acts oF practice

within the meaning of Business aad Professions  Céde Section” 17200 er 94,5

 

viii. Whetler Class Membets-are entitled to nnpaid wages, penalties and
other relief pursuant to their claims;
| ix. "Whether, asa eénsequence of Defendant's urilawful conduct, the Class|
Menibers are entitled to restitution: and/or equitable relief and

R Whether Defendant's, affirmative defenses, if any, raise any common.

 

issues of law or fact as'to Plaintiff and

  
  
 

stothe Glass Mémbers as a.whole.
c. Typica lainitiff’s claiins are typical of the claims of the class members
in each of the: classes, Plain tif and the members of the Ufpaid Work Minimum Wage Class
sustained damages arisirig out.of f Defendants’ failure to pay wages at least at minimum wage for all
time the employees Were subject'to Defendants’ eontral.- Plaintiff and the: members of the Unpaid |
Work Overtitie Wage ‘Class suistairied dathages arising out of, Defendants’ failure ‘to pay wages at]

the overtime wage for all overtime hours the employees were Stibject to Defendants’ coiilrol.

 

Plaintiff and the members of the Meal Period Class sustained damages arising out of Defendants’
failure to provide employees all legally required meal periods and- failure to. pay mea! period

premium wages as compensition, Plaintift And the members of the Rest Period Glass sustained |

 

PLAIWTH FPS: FIRST ‘ABT ENDED COM: PAINT FOR DAMAGES
MeThe expenses aud butdens: of:

 

damages arising out of Defendants” falluze to provide employees all legally required rest periods and

|| tailute to pay: rest petiod premium wages as comperisation, Plaintiff and the: imembers'of. the Wage

  
 
  

Statement Class sustained damages arisin pout of Defendants’ "failure to

 

all unpaid yer: camied Wages due 1
"po, A de

interests of the thethhers of gach: tveless: Plaintiff has no terest: that i ha edveise to the interests of the

 

 

other class mémbers:.
E. Superiority! A class action ig superior to other. available theans for the. fair -
and efficient adjudication. Of: ithis ‘controversy. Because individual. jeinder of all members’ of each:

class is impractical, Glass ati: treatment will petmit a large nuniber 6f: similarly situated i

   

 

prosecute their commin claims in a-single foram sthultancously, fi iciently, and without the.

   
  

 

utinecessary ‘uiplication of effor pense ‘that: numerous. individual -actions-Wwould éngéndet.|

 

 

ividual: litigation: would -make it diffientt or iipossibie for

4 individual members Of each ‘class: to redéess. the wrongs dorie. fo then, while important public

interests will bé: served by. addressing ‘the: “mneUter as a class‘ aétion. The. {cost fo and burden: ‘on the

‘court system of! adjudication of if inavidlingd ‘Atigation-Avould be substantial, anid. snbauancaly

 

| Class actions provide the, “elas wmombers who a8 not, ‘named 4 in the Sonata witls a:

anonymity ther ullows for vindication of their rights:
He
ii

 

 

F FS FIRST. ‘AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DASIAGES
# 6f eC) .
xt carom by referencé page ie 47 above, aS if fully: Set.

Minimum, Wage Cass te torbe: engtpod, sulbfered, or persed 16’ work without boing pie wa
all of the time: in wihieti they were subject to Defendants’ contol.

interest thereon, he jidated: danas

 

fees and casts,
ffi
dbf
tit

  

 

PAINTS FIRST ANEADED ce iLAINT FOR DAMAGES
: ae *fe st
FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES, IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE SECTIONS
198

(As Against All Defendaii sand DOE Defendants: by the Unpaid Work Overtime Class)

   
 

SCOND. CAUSE OF ACTION

 

 

 

55. Pldintif® hereby ingorpofates by’ feference Paragraphs I-34 aove, as if filly set
herein by refeférics; , : =

56. Ab limes relevant to this Cotnplaint, Plaintiff and the membérs.of the Unpaid Woik
Overtime Class were non-éxenipt amaployees of Defendants covered by California Labor -Cede:
sections $10 and 1194 sid the Wage Orier a :

387. . Pursuant to-Cal Labor Code sections 510 and:1194 aid the Wage Order, non-

  
 

exempt einpliyees ave entitled te ze IVE a higher fale oF pay for all hours: worked ia excess of 8
hours in a-workday.: :

58.

  

étioni SiO, subdivision (a), states in televant part:

Eight bours of labor constitutes a day's work. Any work: ti ‘excess’ of eight
‘hottes in. oné workday and any work “in ‘excess of 40, hours in any one
workweek and the firsteight hours worked on: the seventh day of work if any
one workweek shall be compensated at the, fate:of 1id' less than ove and ane~
half times the regulay rate of pay for ar employer. Any Work inexcess of 12 ©
Hours ih offe, day. shall be ‘compensated at the cate of no- less than twice the.
regular rate of pay for'dn employee: In addition; any work, inextess of eight
houts ou any séventh' day of a workweek shall’ be comperisated:at the rate’of
‘no less than tWwicgthe tegillar rate of pay of an employee. Nothing in this
Section requires an, employer to Gombine moré than one fate. of overtime:
_ compensation in order t6 calulate the amount-to be paid to-an employes for
any hotir of.overiime work. : : ‘

59.” Furthet, California Labor Code section 1198 provides,

 

: : i
‘The maximunt’ houts of work and ‘the standard conditions of labor fixed: by
the -commiissioit shall be: the maximum hours of work and the standard
conditions of labar for employees. The employment of any employee for

 

| longer hours: than those fixed by the. order or under conditions of labor

prohibited by the order is unlawful.
60. Defendants’ payroll. policies and procedures tequired employees of the Overtime

Class to work in eXcéss of. eight hours in a-workddy but Defendants did not ‘pay employees’ wages

 

 

 

 

 

PLAINTIFF'S. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
: 18for this time.

61. In addition, Defendants” ‘policies, Prectices, and/or proceduies requirihg employees ‘to.

don and doff tlieir sctibs off the-eto ind down oF shave down employees’ daily hourg ‘nidtked,

 

and’ requirement: that employees’ remain “on-call” Subject to Defendants’ control resulted in

workdays in which Class. Members. worked it Skocas of eight hours‘ in. a. workday but Detendants

 

did not pay employees" wages for this time. This vipa imé often oeeuiied:t in work periods during

which the Cliss:Members had ahiady workéd at leaat eight hours ina workday. To the extent the

 

t. forced the Class Members to work.
overtime hours during é a wit: Deféndants were required to pay einployees ‘waues-at-an ovértinin
vate of pay. . :

42, As a tesult Of Defendants’ unlavéful conduct, Plaintiff and members of the Unpaid
Work Overtinne Class have-suffered damages i in an-amount subject to Proof, to the, extent that they
were not paid wages at an overtime vate of pay for all’ on-the-clock and off: the-clock hours worked
which constitute overtime. . :

63. Pursuant. to ‘California. Labor Code section 1194, Plaintil? andthe Unpaid Werk
Overtime Class members ate. ‘entitled 6° récover the i amount of their impaid overtime. wages,
prejudgment interest and-attoriieys? fees and costs,

64. Bursudnt to California Labo’ Code section 1194, Plaintiff and the members of the
Regular Rate Class are entitled .to recover the full amount of their uupaid overtime wages,
prejudgment interest and ee fees and:cogts:

THIRD: CAUSE OF ACT 10N
FAILURE. TO PROVIDE REQUIRED MEAL PERIODS IN ‘VIOLATION OF:
CALIFORNIA LABO CODE SECTIONS 512. AND 226.7 AND THE WAGE ORDER
(As Agaitst all Defendants and DOK. Defendants by the Méal Period Class)

65. Plaintify hereby tocorporates by reference: paragraphs 1-64 above, as if filly sel}
herein by reference. :

66. At afl times: relevant to this. Complaint, Pint and the members of tlie Meal-Period

Class were hourly employees of Deleridants, covered by. California Labor Code sections a2 aud

 

PLAINTIFE'S, HIRST ANTENDED COMPLAINT FoR DAMAGES.work Prevents: ait employee from being: rélieved of all duty; and (2) the parties have a written

226.7 und the Wage Order.

67. California law. requires an employer. 16 provide: an employee. an uninterrupted ‘meal
peried of no less than 30-niiniites in which. thie employee i ig relieved of all: duties and the einployér
relinquishes control over the employee's aétivities no later than the employee's sixth bour of Work.
Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7, 5 12; Wage Order §11; Brinker Rest, Corp. v. Super Ct. Hohnbeatan)
(2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004. An employer may nat employ-ari employee for a work period of more than
10 hours per day without providing’ the employee with a second such meal period of not less.than 30
minuies by no later than. the'start of the eleventh hour of work. fd Ifthe employee is not télieved
of all. duty during a nical Period, thé meal Period shall be considered ¢ an “on duty® medi periéd and.
counted as time: worked. A paid: “of duty? meal period is oily permitted when: (1) the nature of the

agreement agreeing to-on duty: meal periods,

68. Plaintiff and similaly ‘situated employees worked. in shifis long enough to entitle’
them to both first and second meal periods under California law. Defendants failed to authorize or
permit employees:a full 30- -tninute ‘meal period for each fivé hour period of work as required by law,

With regard to first meal periods, Defendants failed to-authorize or permit a full 30 minute. first
meal period because Defendants required Plaintiff and those similarly situated to don their scrubs
prior to the end df their rheal périods.

69, ‘With regard to second teal periods, Plaiitiff-and similarly situated employees. also
would work on workdays i in shifts long enough to entitle them to second meal periods under
California law. Defendants eiployed a policy arid procedure that did not provide « atall for a second
30-minute meal period when the employees Worked shifts of more than ien hours

70. ‘Defendants-routinely failed 16 authorizé: or pemit first meal petiods of at least 30
Tninutes and failed to autliorizé or permit second meal periods altogether when employees’ worked
shifts of more than 10 hours,

71. Defendants also failed to provide premium: wages to Plaintiff and similarly situated

employees to compensate them for workdays they did not receive their. legally required duty ftee

 

 

meal periods of not less thar 30 minutes. Defendants emplayed policies and procedures which

 

PLAINTIFE'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
20ensured employees did not receive premium wages to compensate them for workdays that they did
not receive a first meal period -of, no-less than 30 minutes, Or & second fill: meal Period, or both.
This practice resulted in Plaintiff and all other similarly situated eniployees not receiving premium
Wages to campensate them for workdays which Defendant failed to authorize or permitall required
teal periods, in compliance with Califomia law.

72. Defendants’ policies and procedures preveiited Plaintiff and other Meal Period ‘Class
Members from tiniely receivirig and/or receiving all legally reqnired meal periods or Defendants
from providing such meal periods to Plaintiff and. other Meal Period’ Class. Membeis. during
workdays the employees worked more than six hours and/or more than ten-hours in one shift.

73. ‘Defendants’ unlawfal conduct alleged herein occurred. in the course of employment
of Plaintiff and all others ‘similarly situated and such conduct'has continued through the filing of this
Complaint. : .

74, Because Defiitdatits tailed to provide pidjier meal periods, they are liable to Plaintiff
and the Meal’ Period Class Meinbers for one hour of additional pay st the regular rate of.
compensation for each workday-that the proper meal period was not provided, pursuant to Califomia
Labor Code section 226.7 and the ‘Wage Order.

FB. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Meal Period Class, seeks damages and all
other relief allowable, inclisding:a meal period premium, wage for each workday Defendants failed | -
to provide all requited 30-minute iminterrupted meal pexlods, plus pre-judgmient interest.

1¥, FOURTH CAUSE GF ACTION
FANLURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED REST PERIODS iN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA
LABOR CODE SECTION 226.7 AND THE WAGE ORDER
(As. Against all Deferidants and DOE Defendants by the Rest Period Class)

 

76. Plaiouitr hereby: incorporates by teferenics. paragraphs 1-75 above, as if folly set
herein by reference.

77. Avalbtimes relevant to this Coiplaint, Plaintiff and the members of the Rest Period
Class were employees of Defendants, covered by Califomia Labor Code section. 226.7 and the
Wage Order.

 

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES.
ce , 278. California law requires an employer to authorize or permit-an employee to-take a rest
period of ten (10)-net minutes for-eyery four hours worked, Cal. Lab. Code §226.7; Wage Oder
§12. Such rest periods must be in ihe middle of the fotir-hour period “insofar as practicable.” Jd. If
the employer fails to provide any required rest period, the employer Taust pay the employee one hour
of pay at the employce’s régular rate of compensation for each work day the employer did not
provide at least one legally required rest period, Id.

79, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class Members all required rest
periods and failed to pay premium wages to Plaintiff and similarly. situated employees to
compensate them for cach workday they did not receive.all legally required rest periods, Defendants
employed policies-and procedures which ensured Plaintiff and similarly situated employees would
not receive all legally requited rest periods. Specifically, Defendants failed to authorize or permit
third rest periods when the employees were subject to Defendants’ control between 10 and 14-hours.

80. Defendants einploged policies and procedures which ensured Plaintiff anc similarly
situated employees did not receive. any premium wages to compensate them, for workdays that they
did not receive al) legally required rest periods.

81. This practice resulted in Defendants failing to pay Plaintiff and all other similarly

situated employées premium wages to compensate thei for workdays in which Defendants did not

 

 

| provide the employees with all rerjuired rest periods, in violation of California law.

82. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and on behalf of the Rest Period Class, seeks damages
and all other reliéf allowable including: rést period premium wages for each workday the employee
was not provided With all required rest periods of ten net iijinutes; and prejudgment interest.

33, Pursuant to California Labor Code séction:226.7 and the Wage Order, Plaintit and
the Rest Period Class‘Members are entitled to one hour of pay for each workday Defendants failed
to'provide all required rest periods, pilus pre-judgment interest.

x. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION’

FAILURE TO PROVIDE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE WAGX STATEMENTS, IN
VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE SECTION 226

 

(As Against all ‘Defendants and DOE Defendarits by the Wage Statement Class)

 

PLAINTIFF! S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
2284. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs [ through 83 of this.complaint as if fully alleged
herein. ;

85, At all. times relevant to thi Complaint, Plaintiff and the otlier niembers of the Wage
Statement Class were hourly employees of Defendants,:covered by California Labor Code section
226,

86. Pursiant to Califomia Labor Code section 226, subdivision (a), Plaintiff aid the
other members af the class were entitled to.seceive, semimonthly or at the time.of each payinent of

‘wages, in itemized wage statement accurately Stating the following:

(1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee,
except for any employee whose compensation is solely. based on a
salary and who is exempt from payment of overtinie under
subdivision (a) of Section 515 or any applicable order of the Industrial
‘Welfare Commission, (3) the number of piece-rate units earned and
any applicable piece rate if the employec:is paid on a piéce-rate basis,
(4) all deductions, provided that all deductions made on written orders
of the employee may. be aggregated arid shown as one tein, (5) niet
wages eared, (6) the inclusive dates.of tlie period for which the
employee is paid, (7) the name of the employee and his or her social
security number, except that by: January ‘1, 2008, only