Complaint,Petition: KIMBERLY WILLIAMS VS. COREVEST AMERICAN FINANCE LENDER, LLC

On June 06, 2022 a Complaint,Petition was filed involving a dispute between Kimberly Williams, and Charlotte Patronite, Corevest American Finance Lender, Llc, Gregg Moore, Redwood Trust, Inc., for WRONGFUL TERMINATION in the District Court of Orange County.

Preview
Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 06/06/2022 10:53:36 AM.
30-2022-01263359-CU-WT-CJC - ROA # 2 - DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By Arlene Gill, Deputy Clerk.

1 Robinson Employment Law, PC
Michael C. Robinson, State Bar No. 233914
2 Lakesha L. Robinson, State Bar No. 256502
17702 Mitchell No.
3
Irvine, California 92614
4 Tel: (949) 756-9050
Fax: (949) 271-4700
5 Email: mcr@robinsonemploymentlaw.com
llr@robinsonemploymentlaw.com
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff, KIMBERLY WILLIAMS
7
8

l
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

a
9

rt
FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
10
11 KIMBERLY WILLIAMS, an individual, CASE NO.:

P o
Assigned for all purposes to the Honorable
12
13
PLAINTIFF,

s s
Judge:
Dept.:

ce
v. Unlimited Jurisdiction
14
15
COREVEST AMERICAN FINANCE
LENDER, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; REDWOOD TRUST,
A c COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:

1) Whistleblower Retaliation (Cal. Labor

a
16 INC. a Maryland Corporation; GREGG Code §§ 232.5 and 1102.5);
17
d i
MOORE, an individual; CHARLOTTE
PATRONITE, an individual; and DOES 1-
2) Wrongful Termination and Retaliation in
Violation of Public Policy;

e
50 inclusive, 3) Failure to Provide Duty-Free Meal
18 Periods (Cal. Labor Code §§ 226.7 and
DEFENDANTS.
19
20
M 512(a));
4) Failure to Provide Duty-Free Rest Periods
(Cal. Labor Code § 226.7);
5) Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses
(Cal. Labor Code § 2802);
21 6) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages (Cal.
Labor Code §§ 510 and 1194);
22 7) Non-Payment of Earned Wages (Cal.
Labor Code §§ 201, 204 and 218);
23 8) Illegal Wage Deductions (Cal. Labor
Code §221);
24 9) Deficient Pay Penalties (Cal. Labor Code
§ 210);
25 10) Waiting Time Penalties (Cal. Labor Code
§ 203); and
26 11) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized
Wage Statements (Cal. Labor Code §
27 226).
28 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

1
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 Plaintiff, KIMBERLY WILLIAMS (hereinafter “PLAINTIFF”), complains and alleges

2 as follows:

3 PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS

4 1. The amount in controversy exceeds the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars

5 ($25,000), exclusive of interest and costs.

6 2. PLAINTIFF is a resident of the State of California at all times relevant to this

7 case.

8 3. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that COREVEST

9
a l
AMERICAN FINANCE LENDER, LLC, is a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and at all

10
11 4.
o rt
times mentioned herein was operating its business in the County of Orange, State of California.

PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that REDWOOD

12
s P
TRUST, INC. is a Maryland Corporation, and at all times mentioned herein was operating its

e s
business in the County of Orange, State of California.

14
15
5.

c c
PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that GREGG MOORE

is an individual and at all times mentioned herein residing in the County of Orange, State of

16 California.

a A
17 6.
d i
PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that CHARLOTTE

18
19
M e
PATRONITE is an individual and at all times mentioned herein residing in the County of Orange,

State of California.

20 7. The true names and capacities of DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, whether individual,

21 corporate, or associate are otherwise unknown to PLAINTIFF who therefore sues such

22 DEFENDANTS by such fictitious names pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 474.

23 PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that the DOE DEFENDANTS are

24 California residents. PLAINTIFF will amend this complaint to show their true names and

25 capacities when they have been ascertained. Defendants, COREVEST AMERICAN FINANCE

26 LENDER, LLC; REDWOOD TRUST, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50 are hereinafter collectively

27 referred to as “DEFENDANTS.”

28 8. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the

2
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 DEFENDANTS, and each and all of them, at all times hereinafter mentioned, were agents,

2 employees, servants, joint venturers, parent companies, successor companies, officers, directors,

3 fiduciaries, representatives, and/or co-conspirators of each of the remaining DEFENDANTS.

4 DEFENDANTS, in doing the things hereinafter alleged, were acting within the course and scope

5 of such relationship (unless otherwise alleged) and were responsible in some manner for the

6 occurrences herein alleged and are a proximate cause of PLAINTIFF’S damages as herein alleged.

7 9. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the

8 DEFENDANTS designated herein by a fictitious name is negligently, intentionally, or otherwise

9
a l
responsible in some manner for the events and happenings herein referred to, and negligently,

10
11 alleged.
o rt
intentionally, or otherwise caused the injuries and damages to the PLAINTIFF as hereinafter

12 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

s P
13 10.
s
On or about March 22, 2021, DEFENDANTS hired PLAINTIFF as a Loan

e
14
15
c c
Coordinator. Two months later she earned a promotion to Loan Manager. On August 12, 2021,

she received a performance review stating that her performance met DEFENDANTS’s

a A
expectations. On August 18, 2021, PLAINTIFF emailed her supervisor, GREGG MOORE about

17
d i
how her schedule and the press of her assigned tasks prevented her from being able to take duty

18
19 11.
M e
free meal and rest breaks.

On August 27, 2021, GREGG MOORE gave her a corrective action notice alleging

20 unsatisfactory performance. GREGG MOORE also stated he would be increasing her volume of

21 bridge loans for which GREGG MOORE knew PLAINTIFF had less experience and training than

22 the other loan types on which she was working.

23 12. PLAINTIFF promptly wrote a detailed response addressing the false allegations

24 and seeking specific clarification as to what the alleged performance deficiencies were. In the

25 response, PLAINTIFF also asserted she was not able to take her duty-free meal breaks.

26 13. On September 7, 2021, PLAINTIFF reported retaliation against her to

27 CHARLOTTE PATRONITE, requested an investigation, and asked what steps DEFENDANTS

28 would be taking to prevent retaliation.

3
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 14. DEFENDANTS failed conduct any investigation or take any steps to prevent

2 retaliation.

3 15. On September 28, 2021, DEFENDANTS discharged PLAINTIFF from her

4 employment for alleged performance deficiencies.

5 16. During PLAINTIFF’S employment with DEFENDANTS, she earned wages, but

6 she was not paid all her earned wages because DEFENDANTS made multiple improper

7 deductions from her wages.

8 17. PLAINTIFF worked overtime hours, but DEFENDANTS never paid PLAINTIFF

9 for the overtime hours she worked.

a l
10
11
18.

o rt
PLAINTIFF was forced to pay several business expenses for which

DEFENDANTS has not reimbursed her. These include the business use of her personal cell phone

12
s P
and the expenses resulting from DEFENDANTS’s use of PLAINTIFF’s home office (internet,

13 utilities, space, furniture, etc.).

e s
14
15
c c
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

a A Whistleblower Retaliation
(Cal. Labor Code §§ 1102.5 and 232.5)

i
[Against all DEFENDANTS]
17
18
19.

e d
PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs 1 through 18, inclusive, and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set
19
20
M
forth herein.

20. California Labor Code § 1102.5 prohibits retaliation against employees for
21 opposing illegal conduct or reporting violations of the law occurring in the workplace. California
22 Labor Code § 1102.6 requires DEFENDANTS to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that
23 PLAINTIFF would have suffered the same adverse employment actions for legitimate,
24 independent reasons even if she had not engaged in any protected activity, such as reporting or
25 opposing illegal conduct.
26 21. California Labor Code § 232.5 prohibits an employer from retaliating against an
27 employee who disclosed information about her workplace conditions.
28 22. On August 18, 2021, PLAINTIFF emailed her supervisor, GREGG MOORE,

4
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 about how her schedule and the pressure of her assigned tasks prevented her from being able to

2 take her meal and rest breaks.

3 23. GREGG MOORE gave PLAINTIFF a corrective action notice alleging

4 unsatisfactory performance. GREGG MOORE also stated he would be increasing her volume of

5 bridge loans for which GREGG MOORE knew PLAINTIFF had less experience and training

6 than for the other loan types on which she was working.

7 24. PLAINTIFF promptly wrote a detailed response addressing the false allegations

8 in the corrective action notice and seeking specific clarification as to what the alleged

9
a l
performance deficiencies were. PLAINTIFF also asserted she was not able to take her duty-free

10
11
meal breaks.

25.
o rt
In an email to CHARLOTTE PATRONITE on September 7, 2021, PLAINTIFF

12
s P
reported retaliation against her, requested an investigation, and asked what steps DEFENDANTS

13 would be taking to prevent retaliation.

e s
14
15
26.

prevent retaliation.
c c
DEFENDANTS failed to respond, conduct any investigation, or take any steps to

16 27. A
On September 28, 2021, DEFENDANTS discharged PLAINTIFF from her

a
17
d i
employment, which was memorialized in a letter from CHARLOTTE PATRONITE.

18
19
28.

M e DEFENDANTS did not have a break policy or take any steps to provide meal and

rest breaks as the law requires. DEFENDANTS did not even record PLAINTIFF’S hours or

20 whether she took any meal breaks as required in 8 Cal. Code of Regulations § 11040(7)(A)(3).

21 “If an employer’s records show no meal period for a given shift over five hours, a rebuttable

22 presumption arises that the employee was not relieved of duty and no meal period was

23 provided.” (Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC (2021) 11 Cal. 5th 58, 74.) The absence of any

24 records showing PLAINTIFF took meal breaks provides a presumption that DEFENDANTS did

25 not provide her with any meal breaks.

26 29. An employer meets its duty to provide a duty-free meal break “if it relieves its

27 employees of all duty, relinquishes control over their activities and permits them a reasonable

28 opportunity to take an uninterrupted 30-minute break, and does not impede or discourage them

5
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 from doing so.” (Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal. 4th 1004, 1040.) An

2 employer may meet its duty to provide a meal break by having a meal period policy, training its

3 employees on the meal period policy and requiring employees to notify the employer if they

4 believed they were being prevented from taking meal breaks. (Serrano v. Aerotek, Inc. (2018) 21

5 Cal. App. 5th 773, 781, overruled in other part by Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC (2021) 11 Cal.

6 5th 58, 77.) Merely having a compliant break policy without taking any steps to implement it is

7 not sufficient to provide an employee with a duty-free meal period. (Serrano, supra, 21 Cal.

8 App. 5th at p. 781.)

9 30.

a l
DEFENDANTS did not have a break policy in its employee manual or provide

10
11
o
take breaks is protected activity for which she cannot be discharged.
rt
any training on breaks. PLAINTIFF’S reports about not being relieved from her work duties to

12 31.

s P
A few days after PLAINTIFF’S protected activity, GREGG MOORE created a

e s
false and vague corrective action which DEFENDANTS ultimately stated was the basis for her

14
15
discharge.

32.
c c
DEFENDANTS failed to provide specifics or further support in response

a A
PLAINTIFF detailed rebuttal to the notice and request for clarification. These facts and the

17
d i
timing of these events provide a strong inference that PLAINTIFF was discharged for her

18
19
M
33.
e
protected activity of reporting illegal conduct.

PLAINTIFF’s protected reports about illegal conduct in her workplace was a

20 substantial motivating factor for DEFENDANTS terminating her employment with

21 DEFENDANTS.

22 34. As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ conduct, PLAINTIFF has suffered, and

23 continues to suffer damages in an amount according to proof at trial.

24 35. DEFENDANTS’ retaliatory conduct was a substantial factor in causing

25 PLAINTIFF’s damages.

26 36. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DEFENDANTS

27 acted with the intent to cause injury to PLAINTIFF by retaliating against her for opposing and

28 reporting illegal conduct. DEFENDANTS’ conduct was despicable and was done with a willful

6
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 and knowing disregard of PLAINTIFF’s rights and safety. DEFENDANTS was aware of the

2 probable dangerous consequences of their conduct and deliberately failed to avoid those

3 consequences. DEFENDANTS’ conduct was so vile, base, and contemptible that it would be

4 looked down on and despised by reasonable people.

5 37. DEFENDANTS and their managing agents, such as GREGG MOORE and

6 CHARLOTTE PATRONITE, retaliated against PLAINTIFF as described above deliberately,

7 callously, maliciously, fraudulently and in an oppressive manner intended to injure PLAINTIFF

8 and that such improper motives amounted to malice and a conscious disregard of PLAINTIFFS’

9
a l
rights. Therefore, PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of punitive damages from DEFENDANTS

10
11
in an amount according to proof at trial.

o rt
12
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

s P
Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy
[Against Defendants COREVEST AMERICAN FINANCE LENDER, LLC, REDWOOD
13

e s
TRUST, INC., and DOES 1-50]

c
14 38. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in

15
forth herein.
A c
paragraphs 1 through 37, inclusive, and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set

a
16
17 39.
i
PLAINTIFF was an employee of COREVEST AMERICAN FINANCE

d
18
19
M
40. e
LENDER, LLC, REDWOOD TRUST, INC., and DOES 1-50.

PLAINTIFF was discharged from her employment after she reported illegal

20 conduct and notified DEFENDANTS about her missed meal and rest periods.

21 41. COREVEST AMERICAN FINANCE LENDER, LLC, REDWOOD TRUST,

22 INC., and DOES 1-50 terminated PLAINTIFF’S employment in violation of the substantial and

23 fundamental public policies against retaliation against an employee, who engages in protected

24 activity, such as reporting illegal conduct and asserting her rights under the California wage and

25 hour laws.

26 42. An employee has a cause of action where the employer subjects her to

27 termination or any other adverse employment action in violation of a fundamental and

28 substantial public policy under the law. (Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d

7
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 167.)

2 43. At all times herein mentioned, the following statutes were in full force and effect

3 and delineated fundamental, substantial, and well-established policies that benefit the public at

4 large rather than private interests and were binding upon COREVEST AMERICAN FINANCE

5 LENDER, LLC, REDWOOD TRUST, INC., and DOES 1-50 at the time of PLAINTIFF’s

6 employment and termination:

7 • Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5 prohibits retaliation against or termination of

8 employees who reports illegal conduct occurring in the workplace.

9 •

a l
Cal. Labor Code § 232.5 prohibits an employer from retaliating against

10
11 44.
o rt
an employee who discloses information about her workplace conditions.

PLAINTIFF’S opposing and reporting illegal conduct in the workplace as stated

12
s P
in this Complaint was a substantial motivating factor for her termination from her employment

13 with DEFENDANTS.

e s
14
15
45.

to proof at trial.
c c
PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to suffer damages in an amount according

16 46. A
COREVEST AMERICAN FINANCE LENDER, LLC, REDWOOD TRUST,

a
17
d i
INC., and DOES 1-50’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF’S damages.

18
19
47.

M e PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that COREVEST

AMERICAN FINANCE LENDER, LLC, REDWOOD TRUST, INC., and DOES 1-50 acted

20 with intent to cause injury to PLAINTIFF by terminating her for retaliatory and discriminatory

21 reasons. COREVEST AMERICAN FINANCE LENDER, LLC, REDWOOD TRUST, INC., and

22 DOES 1-50’s conduct was despicable and was done with a willful and knowing disregard of

23 PLAINTIFF’S rights. COREVEST AMERICAN FINANCE LENDER, LLC, REDWOOD

24 TRUST, INC., and DOES 1-50 were aware of the probable dangerous consequences of its

25 conduct and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences. COREVEST AMERICAN

26 FINANCE LENDER, LLC, REDWOOD TRUST, INC., and DOES 1-50’S conduct was so vile,

27 base, and contemptible that it would be looked down on and despised by reasonable people.

28 48. COREVEST AMERICAN FINANCE LENDER, LLC, REDWOOD TRUST,

8
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 INC., and DOES 1-50 and their managing agents, such as GREGG MOORE and CHARLOTTE

2 PATRONITE, retaliated against and terminated PLAINTIFF as described above deliberately,

3 callously, maliciously, fraudulently and in an oppressive manner intended to injure PLAINTIFF

4 and that such improper motives amounted to malice and a conscious disregard of PLAINTIFF’S

5 rights. Therefore, PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of punitive damages from COREVEST

6 AMERICAN FINANCE LENDER, LLC, REDWOOD TRUST, INC., and DOES 1-50 in an

7 amount according to proof at trial.

8 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
9 Failure to Provide Duty-Free Meal Periods

a l
rt
(Violation of Cal. Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512)
10 [Against all DEFENDANTS]

11 49.

P o
PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs 1 through 48, inclusive, and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set
12
13 forth herein.
s s
14 50.

c e
PLAINTIFF performed work for DEFENDANTS, who were her employer.

15 51.

A c
According to Cal. Labor Code §226.7, an employer shall not require an employee

to work during a rest or recovery period mandated pursuant to an applicable statute, or applicable

a
16
17
d i
regulation, standard, or order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, the Occupational Safety and

18
19
M
52. e
Health Standards Board, or the Division of Occupational Safety and Health.

According to Cal. Labor Code § 512, an employer shall not employ an employee

20 for a work period of more than five hours per day without providing the employee with a meal

21 period of not less than 30 minutes, except that if the total work period per day of the employee is

22 no more than six hours, the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of both the employer

23 and employee.

24 53. Defendant GREGG MOORE is personally liable for this claim per Cal. Labor Code

25 § 558.1 for violating IWC Wage Order 4-2001 and Cal. Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 and for

26 causing IWC Wage Order 4-2001 and Cal. Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 to be violated.

27 54. Defendant CHAROLTTE PATRONITE is personally liable for this claim per Cal.

28 Labor Code § 558.1 for violating IWC Wage Order 4-2001 and Cal. Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512

9
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 and for causing IWC Wage Order 4-2001 and Cal. Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 to be violated.

2 55. During PLAINTIFF’S employment, she was not permitted to take meal periods.

3 DEFENDANTS prevented PLAINTIFF from taking a meal break during her employment.

4 PLAINTIFF reported this in writing to DEFENDANTS, but it failed to take any steps to address

5 the failure to provide her with meal breaks. DEFENDANTS had no meal period policy and

6 failed to take any steps to implement any break policy.

7 56. Therefore, PLAINTIFF is entitled to one hour of pay for every day she worked in

8 which she was not provided with a duty-free rest period and one hour of pay for every day she

9
a l
worked in which she was not provided with a duty-free meal period. (Brinker Restaurant Corp.

10
11
v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1035.)

57.
o rt
PLAINTIFF was not provided with duty free meal periods during her entire

12
s P
employment with DEFENDANTS. PLAINTIFF is entitled to premium pay for her missed rest

e s
periods, which is currently estimated at approximately $4,243.15.

14
15
c c
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

16 A
Failure to Provide Duty-Free Rest Periods
(Violation of Cal. Labor Code § 226.7)

a
i
[Against all DEFENDANTS]
17
18
58.

e d
PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs 1 through 57, inclusive, and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set
19
20
M
forth herein.

59. PLAINTIFF performed work for DEFENDANTS, who were her employer.
21 60. According to Ca. Labor Code § 226.7, an employer shall not require an employee
22 to work during a rest or recovery period mandated pursuant to an applicable statute, or applicable
23 regulation, standard, or order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, the Occupational Safety and
24 Health Standards Board, or the Division of Occupational Safety and Health.
25 61. If an employer fails to provide an employee a meal or rest or recovery period in
26 accordance with a state law, including, but not limited to, an applicable statute or applicable
27 regulation, standard, or order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, the Occupational Safety and
28 Health Standards Board, or the Division of Occupational Safety and Health, the employer shall

10
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for

2 each workday that the meal or rest or recovery period is not provided.

3 62. During PLAINTIFF’S employment, she was not permitted to take duty free rest

4 periods. DEFENDANTS prevented PLAINTIFF from taking rest periods during her

5 employment. PLAINTIFF reported this in writing to DEFENDANTS, but it failed to take any

6 steps to address the failure to provide her with rest breaks. DEFENDANTS had no rest period

7 policy and failed to take any steps to implement any break policy. Therefore, PLAINTIFF is

8 entitled to one hour of pay for every day she worked in which she was not provided with a duty-

9
a l
free rest period and one hour of pay for every day she worked in which she was not provided

10
11 1004, 1035.)
o rt
with a duty-free meal period. (Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th

12 63.

s P
Defendant GREGG MOORE is personally liable for this claim per Cal. Labor Code

e s
§ 558.1 for violating IWC Wage Order 4-2001 and Cal. Labor Code § 226.7 and for causing IWC

14
15 64.
c c
Wage Order 4-2001 and Cal. Labor Code § 226.7 to be violated.

Defendant CHARLOTTE PATRONITE is personally liable for this claim per Cal.

a A
Labor Code § 558.1 for violating IWC Wage Order 4-2001 and Cal. Labor Code § 226.7 and for

17
d i
causing IWC Wage Order 4-2001 and Cal. Labor Code § 226.7 to be violated.

18
19
65.

M e PLAINTIFF was not provided with duty free rest periods during her entire

employment with DEFENDANTS. PLAINTIFF is entitled to premium pay for her missed rest

20 periods, which is currently estimated at approximately $4,243.15.

21 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22 Failure to Reimburse an Employee for Business Expenses
(Violation of Labor Code § 2802)
23 [Against all DEFENDANTS]

24 59. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in

25 paragraphs 1 through 58, inclusive, and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set

26 forth herein.

27 66. At all times material hereto, DEFENDANTS are an employer within the meaning

28 of Cal. Labor Code § 2802 and as such were required to reimburse employees for all expenses

11
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 they incur in the course and scope of their employment.

2 67. PLAINTIFF was an employee of DEFENDANTS and therefore protected under

3 Labor Code § 2802.

4 68. PLAINTIFF incurred necessary business expenses for which she was not

5 reimbursed during her employment with DEFENDANTS.

6 69. PLAINTIFF was forced to pay several business expenses for which

7 DEFENDANTS has not reimbursed her. These include the business use of her personal cell phone

8 and the expenses resulting from DEFENDANT’S use of her home office (internet, utilities, space,

9 furniture, etc.).

a l
10
11
70.

o rt
DEFENDANTS gave PLAINTIFF a laptop computer so she could perform her

work duties from her home, but it did not reimburse her for the expenses needed to use the laptop

12 computer from her home.

s P
13 71.
s
PLAINTIFF must be reimbursed for all necessary business expenses for her work

e
14
15
c c
even if she does not pay any additional amount for using her own personal property for

DEFENDANTS’s business purposes. (Cal. Labor Code § 2802 and Cochran v. Schwan’s Home

a A
Service, Inc. (2014) 228 Cal. App. 4th 1137, 1144.)

17 72.
d i
Defendant GREGG MOORE is personally liable for this claim per Cal. Labor Code

18
19 violated.
M e
§ 558.1 for violating Cal. Labor Code § 2802 and for causing Cal. Labor Code § 2802 to be

20 73. Defendant CHARLOTTE PATRONITE is personally liable for this claim per Cal.

21 Labor Code § 558.1 for violating Cal. Labor Code § 2802 and for causing Cal. Labor Code § 2802

22 to be violated.

23 74. DEFENDANTS owes PLAINTIFF unreimbursed expenses in the currently
24 estimated amount of approximately $5,226.
25 75. Pursuant to Labor Code § 2802, PLAINTIFF requests that the Court award
26 PLAINTIFF reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs she incurs in this action.
27 76. Pursuant to Labor Code § 2802, PLAINTIFF requests that the Court award
28 PLAINTIFF’S interest, at the legal rate specified by Civil Code § 3289(b), accruing from the

12
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 date on which PLAINTIFF incurred the necessary expenditure or loss.
2 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
3 Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
(Violation of Cal. Labor Code § 1194)
4 [Against all DEFENDANTS]
77. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in
5
paragraphs 1 through 76, inclusive, and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set
6
forth herein.
7
78. Cal. Labor Code § 510 requires employers to pay employees overtime pay of one
8
9
a l
and one-half times their hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of eight hours in a day and

10
11
overtime compensation from her employer.
o rt
forty hours in a week. Cal. Labor Code § 1194 gives an employee the right to recover her unpaid

12
79.
P
During her employment with DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF performed work for

s
13

e s
DEFENDANTS in excess of eight hours per day and forty hours per week, for which she was

c
not paid one and one-half times her hourly rate or the minimum hourly wage rate, in an amount
14
15
to be proven at trial.

80.
A c
DEFENDANTS knew or should have known that PLAINTIFF was working

a
16
17
d i
overtime without being paid the appropriate compensation for those hours worked.

18
19
81.

M e PLAINTIFF worked approximately one and a half hours of overtime per week

during her employment with DEFENDANTS and was not paid overtime. PLAINTIFF’S
overtime wages owed are approximately $1,909.59.
20
82. Defendant GREGG MOORE is personally liable for this claim per Cal. Labor Code
21
§ 558.1 for violating IWC Wage Order 4-2001 and Cal. Labor Code §§ 510 and 1194 and for
22
causing IWC Wage Order 4-2001 and Cal. Labor Code §§ 510 and 1194 to be violated.
23
83. Defendant CHARLOTTE PATRONITE is personally liable for this claim per Cal.
24
Labor Code § 558.1 for violating IWC Wage Order 4-2001 and Cal. Labor Code §§ 510 and 1194
25
and for causing IWC Wage Order 4-2001 and Cal. Labor Code §§ 510 and 1194 to be violated.
26
84. Pursuant to Labor Code § 1194, PLAINTIFF requests that the Court award
27
PLAINTIFF reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by him in this action.
28

13
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 85. Pursuant to Labor Code § 218.6, PLAINTIFF requests that the Court award

2 PLAINTIFF interest on all due and unpaid wages, at the legal rate specified by Civil Code

3 § 3289(b), accruing from the date the wages were due and payable.

4 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Non-Payment Of Earned Wages
5 (Violation of Cal. Labor Code §§ 201, 204, and 218)
[Against all DEFENDANTS]
6
86. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in
7
paragraphs 1 through 85, inclusive, and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set
8
9
forth herein.

a l
rt
87. PLAINTIFF earned wages for her employment with DEFENDANTS.
10
11
88.

according to proof at trial.
P o
DEFENDANTS failed to pay PLAINTIFF her earned wages in an amount

12
13
89.

s s
DEFENDANTS failed to pay PLAINTIFF all earned wages and compensation on

14
c e
her regular payday per Cal. Labor Code § 204 or at the time her employment ended per Cal.

15
Labor Code § 201.

90.
A c
During PLAINTIFF’S employment with DEFENDANTS, she earned wages, but

a
16
17
d i
she was not paid all her earned wages. DEFENDANTS also made improper deductions from her

e
wages.
18

M
91. PLAINTIFF had approximately $37.30 deducted from her final paycheck to cover
19
benefits for October 2021 even though she was not employed with DEFENDANTS at any time
20
in October 2021.
21
92. PLAINTIFF reported this to DEFENDANTS, but the deductions were not
22
reversed. Therefore, PLAINTIFF is still owed approximately $37.30 in earned wages that were
23
deducted from her wages.
24
93. Defendant GREGG MOORE is personally liable for this claim per Cal. Labor Code
25
§ 558.1 for violating IWC Wage Order 4-2001 and Cal. Labor Code §§ 201 and 204 and for
26
causing IWC Wage Order 4-2001 and Cal. Labor Code §§ 201 and 204 to be violated.
27
94. Defendant CHARLOTTE PATRONITE is personally liable for this claim per Cal.
28
Labor Code § 558.1 for violating IWC Wage Order 4-2001 and Cal. Labor Code §§ 201 and 204
14
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 and for causing IWC Wage Order 4-2001 and Cal. Labor Code §§ 201 and 204 to be violated.

2 95. Pursuant to Labor Code §218.5, PLAINTIFF requests that the Court award

3 PLAINTIFF reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by her in this action.

4 96. Pursuant to Labor Code § 218.6, PLAINTIFF requests that the Court award

5 PLAINTIFF interest on all due and unpaid wages, at the legal rate specified by Civil Code §

6 3289(b), accruing from the date the wages were due and payable.

7 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Illegal Wage Deductions
8 (Violation of Cal. Labor Code § 221)
9
[Against all COREVEST AMERICAN FINANCE LENDER, LLC, REDWOOD TRUST,

a l
rt
INC., and DOES 1-50]
10 97. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in
11

P o
paragraphs 1 through 96, inclusive, and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set
12
13
forth herein.

s s
e
98. PLAINTIFF earned wages for her employment with COREVEST AMERICAN
14
15 c
FINANCE LENDER, LLC, REDWOOD TRUST, INC., and DOES 1-50.

c
16
99.

a A
COREVEST AMERICAN FINANCE LENDER, LLC, REDWOOD TRUST,

INC., and DOES 1-50 failed to pay PLAINTIFF her earned wages in an amount according to
17 proof at trial
d i
18
19
100.

M e COREVEST AMERICAN FINANCE LENDER, LLC, REDWOOD TRUST,

INC., and DOES 1-50 made illegal deductions from PLAINTIFF’S wages including making a
20 deduction from her wages to pay for a portion of her benefits for October 2021 even though
21 PLAINTIFF’s employment was terminated on September 28, 2021.
22 101. As a result of the illegal deductions, COREVEST AMERICAN FINANCE
23 LENDER, LLC, REDWOOD TRUST, INC., and DOES 1-50 failed to pay PLAINTIFF all
24 earned wages and compensation on her regular payday per Cal. Labor Code § 204 or at the time
25 her employment ended per Cal. Labor Code § 201.
26 102. Pursuant to Labor Code §218.5, PLAINTIFF requests that the Court award
27 PLAINTIFF reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by her in this action.
28 103. Pursuant to Labor Code § 218.6, PLAINTIFF requests that the Court award

15
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 PLAINTIFF interest on all due and unpaid wages, at the legal rate specified by Civil Code §

2 3289(b), accruing from the date the wages were due and payable.

3
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
4 Deficient Pay Penalties
5 (Violation of Cal. Labor Code § 210)
[COREVEST AMERICAN FINANCE LENDER, LLC, REDWOOD TRUST, INC., and
6 DOES 1-50]

7 104. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in

8 paragraphs 1 through 103, inclusive, and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set

9 forth herein.

a l
10
11
105.

o rt
At all times herein set forth, Labor Code § 210 provides that in addition to and
independent from any other penalty provided in the Labor Code, every person who fails to pay

12
s P
the wages of the employee shall be subject to an initial penalty of $100.00 for each failure to pay

13
of the amount unlawfully held.
e s
each employee, and a penalty of $200.00 for each willful or intentional violation, plus 25 percent

14
15
106.
c c
As set forth herein, COREVEST AMERICAN FINANCE LENDER, LLC,

a A
REDWOOD TRUST, INC., and DOES 1-50 failed to pay PLAINTIFF all her earned wages at

17
107. i
the time the wages were due to be paid, which is a violation of Cal. Labor Code § 210.

d
Since COREVEST AMERICAN FINANCE LENDER, LLC, REDWOOD
18
19
M e
TRUST, INC., and DOES 1-50 failed to pay PLAINTIFF all her earned wages on each of her
pay periods, she is entitled to additional penalties of $100 for the initial violation and $200 for
20 each additional violation plus 25% of the wages withheld.
21 108. PLAINTIFF is entitled to recover all remedies available for violations of the
22 California Labor Code as provided by Labor Code § 210 and its interpretive case law.
23 109. Pursuant to Cal. Labor Code § 210(c), PLAINTIFF requests that the Court award
24 PLAINTIFF reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs she incurs in this action.
25
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
26 Waiting Time Penalties
(Violation of Labor Code § 203)
27 [Against all DEFENDANTS]
28 110. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in

16
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 paragraphs 1 through 109, inclusive, and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set

2 forth herein.

3 111. DEFENDANTS failed to pay PLAINTIFF all her wages and compensation when

4 her employment ended. PLAINTIFF is owed unpaid wages in an amount to be proven at trial.

5 112. On September 28, 2021, DEFENDANTS discharged PLAINT

Case Info

Judge

Stephanie George Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

June 06, 2022

Case Filing Date

June 06, 2022

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Complaint,Petition: KIMBERLY WILLIAMS VS. COREVEST AMERICAN FINANCE LENDER, LLC

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties