Preview
20CMCV00018
Assigned for all purposes to: Compton Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Maurice Leiter
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 01/21/2020 01:34 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by D. Luu,Deputy Clerk
1 KENNETH S. GAINES, ESQ. SBN 049045
ken@gaineslawfirm.com
2 DANIEL F. GAINES, ESQ. SBN 251488
daniel@gaineslawfirm.com
3 ALEX P. KATOFSKY, ESQ. SBN 202754
alex@gaineslawfirm.com
4 EVAN S. GAINES, ESQ. SBN 287668
evan@gaineslawfirm.com
5 GAINES & GAINES,APLC
27200 Agoura Rd., Suite 101
6 Calabasas, CA 91301
Telephone: (818) 703-8985
7 Facsimile: (818) 703-8984
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff Jenice Dorsey, on behalf of herself and all "aggrieved employees" pursuant
to Labor Code§ 2698 et seq.
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
12
JENICE DORSEY, on behalf of herself and all CASE NO:
13 "aggrieved employees" pursuant to Labor
Code§ 2698 et seq., REPRESENTATIVE ACTION
14 COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES
Plaintiff, PURSUANT TO LABOR CODE§ 2699(1)
15 FOR VIOLATIONS OF LABOR CODE
V. §§ 201,202,226(a),226.7,510,512,AND
16 1194 AND PURSUANT TO LABOR CODE
GUARDIAN STORAGE CENTERS, LLC, a § 2699(a) FOR VIOLATIONS OF LABOR
17 California limited liability company, and CODE§ 226.3
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
18
Defendants.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-
REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiff JENICE DORSEY ("Plaintiff'), on behalf of herself and others as an "aggrieved
2 employee" under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, complains of GUARDIAN
3 STORAGE CENTERS, LLC, a California limited liability company, and/or any subsidiaries or
4 affiliated companies (hereinafter referred to as "Defendants"), as follows:
5 I.
6 INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
7 1. This is a Representative Action, pursuant to Labor Code§ 2698 et seq., on behalf of
8 Plaintiff and other California employees who currently work or formerly worked for Defendants
9 ("Aggrieved Employees").
10 2. For at least one (1) year prior to the filing of this action and at least one (1) year prior
11 to the date Plaintiff began the process of exhausting the administrative requirements, pursuant to
12 Labor Code§ 2698 et seq., and continuing to the present (the "liability period"), Defendants have had
13 consistent policies of:
14 a. Failing to pay Plaintiff and non-exempt Aggrieved Employees all minimum
15 wages earned during the course of employment, in violation of Labor Code §§ 510 and 1194.
16 Defendant rounded down the hours reflected on Plaintiffs and other non-exempt Aggrieved
17 Employees' time records to pay fewer hours than were actually worked. On a weekly basis, this
18 rounding deprived Plaintiff and other non-exempt Aggrieved Employees of significant hours worked.
19 These failures to pay all minimum wages due constitute violations of Labor Code§§ 510 and 1194;
20 b. Failing to pay Plaintiff and non-exempt Aggrieved Employees all overtime
21 wages due at the correct rate of pay during the course of employment, in violation of Labor Code§§
22 510 and 1194. Defendants failed to properly compute bonuses earned by Plaintiff and other nonÂ
23 exempt Aggrieved Employees into their regular rate of pay for purposes of paying them overtime at
24 the correct rates, in violation of Labor Code §§ 510 and 1194 and IWC Wage Order 4-2001.
25 Defendant failed to properly blend these wages and instead paid non-exempt Aggrieved Employees
26 overtime based only on the base hourly rate of pay, thus depriving Plaintiff and other non-exempt
27 Aggrieved Employees of all overtime wages earned;
28
-2-
REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
1 c. Failing to pay premium wages to Plaintiff and other non-exempt Aggrieved
2 Employees who were denied rest periods, in violation of Labor Code§ 226.7 and IWC Wage Order
3 4-2001. Plaintiff and non-exempt Aggrieved Employees were routinely not authorized and unable to
4 take an off-duty, 10-minute rest period for every four (4) hours of work or major fraction thereof, but
5 were not paid premium wages of one hour's pay for each missed rest period. Plaintiff and non-exempt
6 Aggrieved Employees were simply not authorized and unable to take off-duty rest periods during
7 their employment as their rest periods were routinely interrupted, they were required to work or
8 otherwise were not permitted to leave the work premises during their rest periods, or they were not
9 provided rest periods altogether. This violates Labor Code§ 226.7 and IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001;
10 d. Failing to pay premium wages to Plaintiff and non-exempt Aggrieved
11 Employees who were denied proper meal periods, in violation of Labor Code§§ 226.7 and 512 and
12 IWC Wage Order 4-2001. Plaintiff and non-exempt Aggrieved Employees were routinely denied, and
13 not authorized to take, a timely, uninterrupted, 30-minute meal period for every shift worked that
14 exceeded five hours in duration, or a second timely, uninterrupted, 30-minute meal period for every
15 shift worked that exceeded ten hours in duration, but were not paid premium wages of one hour's pay
16 for each missed first or second meal period. When meal periods were provided to Plaintiff, they were
17 typically late, Plaintiff would be required to clock out for her meal period and continue working, or
18 it would be interrupted by Defendants, who would contact her while she was on her meal period to
19 perform work duties. This violates Labor Code§§ 226.7 and 512 and IWC Wage Order 4-2001 and
20 is alleged on behalf of all non-exempt Aggrieved Employees;
21 e. Failing to provide Plaintiff and non-exempt Aggrieved Employees with wage
22 statements that fully and accurately itemized the requirements set forth in Labor Code § 226(a).
23 Plaintiff and other non-exempt Aggrieved Employees were not paid all wages due, including all
24 minimum wages and premium wages for unauthorized and denied meal and rest periods, as stated
25 above. As such, the wage statements provided by Defendants failed to accurately state all gross wages
26 earned, in violation of Labor Code§§ 226(a)(I) and 226.3, total hours worked, in violation of Labor
27 Code§§ 226(a)(2) and 226.3, net wages earned, in violation of Labor Code§§ 226(a)(5) and 226.3,
28 and all applicable hourly rates of pay in effect during the pay period and corresponding number of
-3-
REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
1 hours worked, in violation of Labor Code§§ 226(a)(9) and 226.3. Independently, the wage statements
2 issued to Plaintiff and all other Aggrieved Employees violate Labor Code §§ 226(a)(8) and 226.3, as
3 they failed to set forth Defendant's address; and
4 f. Failing to timely pay Plaintiff and non-exempt Aggrieved Employees all wages
5 due at the separation of their employment based on the time frames required by Labor Code §§ 201
6 and 202. As stated above, Plaintiff and non-exempt Aggrieved Employees were not paid all wages
7 due during the course of their employment and, as a result of this failure, they were not timely paid all
8 wages due at the separation of their employment. This violates Labor Code§§ 201-202 and is alleged
9 on behalf of Plaintiff and other non-exempt Aggrieved Employees who have ended their employment
10 with Defendant.
11 3. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all Aggrieved Employees pursuant to Labor Code §
12 2698 et seq., seeks civil penalties for Defendant's violations of the California Labor Code.
13 4. Venue is proper in this judicial district, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 395.
14 The Labor Code violations alleged against Defendants herein arose in Los Angeles County,
15 California.
16 II.
17 PARTIES
18 A. Plaintiff
19 5. Plaintiff JENICE DORSEY was employed by Defendants from December 2018
20 through September 2019 as a non-exempt employee in Los Angeles County, California.
21 B. Defendant
22 6. Defendant GUARDIAN STORAGE CENTERS, LLC, is a California limited liability
23 company ration. Defendant GUARDIAN STORAGE CENTERS, LLC, employed Plaintiff and
24 Aggrieved Employees throughout the State of California, including Los Angeles County, California.
25 7. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise,
26 of Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, are currently unknown to Plaintiff, who
27 therefore sues Defendants by such fictitious names under Code of Civil Procedure § 474. Plaintiff is
28 informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each of the Defendants designated herein as a
-4-
REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
1 DOE is legally responsible in some manner for the unlawful acts referred to herein. Plaintiff will
2 seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to reflect the true names and capacities of the Defendants
3 designated hereinafter as DOES when such identities become known.
4 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes,and based thereon alleges,that each Defendant acted
5 in all respects pertinent to this action as the agent of the other Defendant, carried out a joint scheme,
6 business plan or policy in all respects pertinent hereto, and the acts of each Defendant is legally
7 attributable to the other Defendants.
8 9. The Defendants named herein as DOE 1 through DOE 10 are and were persons acting
9 on behalf of,or acting jointly with,Defendants,who violated,or caused to be violated,one or more
10 provisions of the California Labor Code as alleged herein.
11 III.
12 CAUSES OF ACTION
13 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
14 PLAINTIFF AND ALL AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
15 PENALTIES PURSUANT TO LABOR CODE§ 2699(1) FOR VIOLATIONS OF LABOR
16 CODE§§ 201,202,226(a),226.7,510,512,AND 1194 AND PURSUANT TO LABOR CODE
17 § 2699(a) FOR VIOLATIONS OF LABOR CODE§ 226.3
18 10. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 9 of this Complaint as though fully set
19 forth herein.
20 11. As a result of the acts alleged above,including the Labor Code violations set forth in
21 paragraph 2 above,Plaintiff seeks civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code§§ 2698 et seq.
22 12. For each such violation, Plaintiff and all other Aggrieved Employees are entitled to
23 penalties and other reliefin an amount to be shown at the time of trial subject to the following formula:
24 a. Pursuant to Labor Code§ 2699(±),$100 for each initial violation and $200 for
25 each subsequent violation of Labor Code§§ 201,202,226(a),226.7,510,512,
26 and 1194; and
27 b. Pursuant to Labor Code§ 2699(±) ,the penalties as authorized by Labor Code
28 § 226.3.
-5-
REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
1 13. Civil penalties recovered will be allocated 75% to the Labor and Workforce
2 Development Agency, and 25% to the affected employees.
3 14. On October 23, 2019, Plaintiff sent a letter, by online submission to the LWDA and
4 by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Defendants setting forth the facts and theories of the
5 violations alleged against Defendant, as prescribed by Labor Code § 2698 et seq. Pursuant to Labor
6 Code § 2699.3(a)(2)(A), no notice was received by Plaintiff from the L WDA within sixty-five (65)
7 calendar days of October 23, 2019. Plaintiff may therefore commence this action to seek civil
8 penalties pursuant to Labor Code§ 2698 et seq.
9 Wherefore, Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees she seeks to represent request relief as
10 described below.
11 IV.
12 RELIEF REQUESTED
13 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:
14 1. For civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 2698 et seq. for Plaintiff and all other
15 Aggrieved Employees;
16 2. An award providing for payment of costs of suit pursuant to Labor Code§ 2699(g)(1)
17 and other applicable law;
18 3. An award of attorneys' fees pursuant to Labor Code§ 2699(g)(l ) and other applicable
19 law; and
20 4. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
21 Dated: January 14, 2020 Respectfully submitted,
22 GAINES & GAINES
A Professional Law Corporation
23
24
25
By:Jcwl«
DANIEL F. GAINES
� d:J�
EV AN S. GAINES
26 Attorneys for Plaintiff
27
28
-6-
REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
Preview
20CMCV00018 Assigned for all purposes to: Compton Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Maurice Leiter Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 01/21/2020 01:34 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by D. Luu,Deputy Clerk 1 KENNETH S. GAINES, ESQ. SBN 049045 ken@gaineslawfirm.com 2 DANIEL F. GAINES, ESQ. SBN 251488 daniel@gaineslawfirm.com 3 ALEX P. KATOFSKY, ESQ. SBN 202754 alex@gaineslawfirm.com 4 EVAN S. GAINES, ESQ. SBN 287668 evan@gaineslawfirm.com 5 GAINES & GAINES,APLC 27200 Agoura Rd., Suite 101 6 Calabasas, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 703-8985 7 Facsimile: (818) 703-8984 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff Jenice Dorsey, on behalf of herself and all "aggrieved employees" pursuant to Labor Code§ 2698 et seq. 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 12 JENICE DORSEY, on behalf of herself and all CASE NO: 13 "aggrieved employees" pursuant to Labor Code§ 2698 et seq., REPRESENTATIVE ACTION 14 COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES Plaintiff, PURSUANT TO LABOR CODE§ 2699(1) 15 FOR VIOLATIONS OF LABOR CODE V. §§ 201,202,226(a),226.7,510,512,AND 16 1194 AND PURSUANT TO LABOR CODE GUARDIAN STORAGE CENTERS, LLC, a § 2699(a) FOR VIOLATIONS OF LABOR 17 California limited liability company, and CODE§ 226.3 DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1- REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 1 Plaintiff JENICE DORSEY ("Plaintiff'), on behalf of herself and others as an "aggrieved 2 employee" under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, complains of GUARDIAN 3 STORAGE CENTERS, LLC, a California limited liability company, and/or any subsidiaries or 4 affiliated companies (hereinafter referred to as "Defendants"), as follows: 5 I. 6 INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND 7 1. This is a Representative Action, pursuant to Labor Code§ 2698 et seq., on behalf of 8 Plaintiff and other California employees who currently work or formerly worked for Defendants 9 ("Aggrieved Employees"). 10 2. For at least one (1) year prior to the filing of this action and at least one (1) year prior 11 to the date Plaintiff began the process of exhausting the administrative requirements, pursuant to 12 Labor Code§ 2698 et seq., and continuing to the present (the "liability period"), Defendants have had 13 consistent policies of: 14 a. Failing to pay Plaintiff and non-exempt Aggrieved Employees all minimum 15 wages earned during the course of employment, in violation of Labor Code §§ 510 and 1194. 16 Defendant rounded down the hours reflected on Plaintiffs and other non-exempt Aggrieved 17 Employees' time records to pay fewer hours than were actually worked. On a weekly basis, this 18 rounding deprived Plaintiff and other non-exempt Aggrieved Employees of significant hours worked. 19 These failures to pay all minimum wages due constitute violations of Labor Code§§ 510 and 1194; 20 b. Failing to pay Plaintiff and non-exempt Aggrieved Employees all overtime 21 wages due at the correct rate of pay during the course of employment, in violation of Labor Code§§ 22 510 and 1194. Defendants failed to properly compute bonuses earned by Plaintiff and other non 23 exempt Aggrieved Employees into their regular rate of pay for purposes of paying them overtime at 24 the correct rates, in violation of Labor Code §§ 510 and 1194 and IWC Wage Order 4-2001. 25 Defendant failed to properly blend these wages and instead paid non-exempt Aggrieved Employees 26 overtime based only on the base hourly rate of pay, thus depriving Plaintiff and other non-exempt 27 Aggrieved Employees of all overtime wages earned; 28 -2- REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 1 c. Failing to pay premium wages to Plaintiff and other non-exempt Aggrieved 2 Employees who were denied rest periods, in violation of Labor Code§ 226.7 and IWC Wage Order 3 4-2001. Plaintiff and non-exempt Aggrieved Employees were routinely not authorized and unable to 4 take an off-duty, 10-minute rest period for every four (4) hours of work or major fraction thereof, but 5 were not paid premium wages of one hour's pay for each missed rest period. Plaintiff and non-exempt 6 Aggrieved Employees were simply not authorized and unable to take off-duty rest periods during 7 their employment as their rest periods were routinely interrupted, they were required to work or 8 otherwise were not permitted to leave the work premises during their rest periods, or they were not 9 provided rest periods altogether. This violates Labor Code§ 226.7 and IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001; 10 d. Failing to pay premium wages to Plaintiff and non-exempt Aggrieved 11 Employees who were denied proper meal periods, in violation of Labor Code§§ 226.7 and 512 and 12 IWC Wage Order 4-2001. Plaintiff and non-exempt Aggrieved Employees were routinely denied, and 13 not authorized to take, a timely, uninterrupted, 30-minute meal period for every shift worked that 14 exceeded five hours in duration, or a second timely, uninterrupted, 30-minute meal period for every 15 shift worked that exceeded ten hours in duration, but were not paid premium wages of one hour's pay 16 for each missed first or second meal period. When meal periods were provided to Plaintiff, they were 17 typically late, Plaintiff would be required to clock out for her meal period and continue working, or 18 it would be interrupted by Defendants, who would contact her while she was on her meal period to 19 perform work duties. This violates Labor Code§§ 226.7 and 512 and IWC Wage Order 4-2001 and 20 is alleged on behalf of all non-exempt Aggrieved Employees; 21 e. Failing to provide Plaintiff and non-exempt Aggrieved Employees with wage 22 statements that fully and accurately itemized the requirements set forth in Labor Code § 226(a). 23 Plaintiff and other non-exempt Aggrieved Employees were not paid all wages due, including all 24 minimum wages and premium wages for unauthorized and denied meal and rest periods, as stated 25 above. As such, the wage statements provided by Defendants failed to accurately state all gross wages 26 earned, in violation of Labor Code§§ 226(a)(I) and 226.3, total hours worked, in violation of Labor 27 Code§§ 226(a)(2) and 226.3, net wages earned, in violation of Labor Code§§ 226(a)(5) and 226.3, 28 and all applicable hourly rates of pay in effect during the pay period and corresponding number of -3- REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 1 hours worked, in violation of Labor Code§§ 226(a)(9) and 226.3. Independently, the wage statements 2 issued to Plaintiff and all other Aggrieved Employees violate Labor Code §§ 226(a)(8) and 226.3, as 3 they failed to set forth Defendant's address; and 4 f. Failing to timely pay Plaintiff and non-exempt Aggrieved Employees all wages 5 due at the separation of their employment based on the time frames required by Labor Code §§ 201 6 and 202. As stated above, Plaintiff and non-exempt Aggrieved Employees were not paid all wages 7 due during the course of their employment and, as a result of this failure, they were not timely paid all 8 wages due at the separation of their employment. This violates Labor Code§§ 201-202 and is alleged 9 on behalf of Plaintiff and other non-exempt Aggrieved Employees who have ended their employment 10 with Defendant. 11 3. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all Aggrieved Employees pursuant to Labor Code § 12 2698 et seq., seeks civil penalties for Defendant's violations of the California Labor Code. 13 4. Venue is proper in this judicial district, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 395. 14 The Labor Code violations alleged against Defendants herein arose in Los Angeles County, 15 California. 16 II. 17 PARTIES 18 A. Plaintiff 19 5. Plaintiff JENICE DORSEY was employed by Defendants from December 2018 20 through September 2019 as a non-exempt employee in Los Angeles County, California. 21 B. Defendant 22 6. Defendant GUARDIAN STORAGE CENTERS, LLC, is a California limited liability 23 company ration. Defendant GUARDIAN STORAGE CENTERS, LLC, employed Plaintiff and 24 Aggrieved Employees throughout the State of California, including Los Angeles County, California. 25 7. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, 26 of Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, are currently unknown to Plaintiff, who 27 therefore sues Defendants by such fictitious names under Code of Civil Procedure § 474. Plaintiff is 28 informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each of the Defendants designated herein as a -4- REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 1 DOE is legally responsible in some manner for the unlawful acts referred to herein. Plaintiff will 2 seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to reflect the true names and capacities of the Defendants 3 designated hereinafter as DOES when such identities become known. 4 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes,and based thereon alleges,that each Defendant acted 5 in all respects pertinent to this action as the agent of the other Defendant, carried out a joint scheme, 6 business plan or policy in all respects pertinent hereto, and the acts of each Defendant is legally 7 attributable to the other Defendants. 8 9. The Defendants named herein as DOE 1 through DOE 10 are and were persons acting 9 on behalf of,or acting jointly with,Defendants,who violated,or caused to be violated,one or more 10 provisions of the California Labor Code as alleged herein. 11 III. 12 CAUSES OF ACTION 13 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 14 PLAINTIFF AND ALL AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 15 PENALTIES PURSUANT TO LABOR CODE§ 2699(1) FOR VIOLATIONS OF LABOR 16 CODE§§ 201,202,226(a),226.7,510,512,AND 1194 AND PURSUANT TO LABOR CODE 17 § 2699(a) FOR VIOLATIONS OF LABOR CODE§ 226.3 18 10. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 9 of this Complaint as though fully set 19 forth herein. 20 11. As a result of the acts alleged above,including the Labor Code violations set forth in 21 paragraph 2 above,Plaintiff seeks civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code§§ 2698 et seq. 22 12. For each such violation, Plaintiff and all other Aggrieved Employees are entitled to 23 penalties and other reliefin an amount to be shown at the time of trial subject to the following formula: 24 a. Pursuant to Labor Code§ 2699(±),$100 for each initial violation and $200 for 25 each subsequent violation of Labor Code§§ 201,202,226(a),226.7,510,512, 26 and 1194; and 27 b. Pursuant to Labor Code§ 2699(±) ,the penalties as authorized by Labor Code 28 § 226.3. -5- REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 1 13. Civil penalties recovered will be allocated 75% to the Labor and Workforce 2 Development Agency, and 25% to the affected employees. 3 14. On October 23, 2019, Plaintiff sent a letter, by online submission to the LWDA and 4 by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Defendants setting forth the facts and theories of the 5 violations alleged against Defendant, as prescribed by Labor Code § 2698 et seq. Pursuant to Labor 6 Code § 2699.3(a)(2)(A), no notice was received by Plaintiff from the L WDA within sixty-five (65) 7 calendar days of October 23, 2019. Plaintiff may therefore commence this action to seek civil 8 penalties pursuant to Labor Code§ 2698 et seq. 9 Wherefore, Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees she seeks to represent request relief as 10 described below. 11 IV. 12 RELIEF REQUESTED 13 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief: 14 1. For civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 2698 et seq. for Plaintiff and all other 15 Aggrieved Employees; 16 2. An award providing for payment of costs of suit pursuant to Labor Code§ 2699(g)(1) 17 and other applicable law; 18 3. An award of attorneys' fees pursuant to Labor Code§ 2699(g)(l ) and other applicable 19 law; and 20 4. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. 21 Dated: January 14, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 22 GAINES & GAINES A Professional Law Corporation 23 24 25 By:Jcwl« DANIEL F. GAINES � d:J� EV AN S. GAINES 26 Attorneys for Plaintiff 27 28 -6- REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT