Preview
a so ee
yb NR YP MY YN NR DY Dm mm it
eS ryI nn FF BW Nn &§ FS OMA DH BF WwW NY = CS
19STCV39594
Assigned for all purposes to: Stanley Mosk Courthouse, J udicial Officer: William Fahey
Douglas H. Hoang, Esq. (SBN 193412)
dhoang@k2employmentlaw.com
Matthew T. Kramer, Esq. (SBN 255465)
mkramer@k2employmentlaw.com
K2 Employment Law Group, LLP
11129 White Oak Avenue
Granada Hills, California 91344
Tel. No.: (800) 590-7674
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
JOHN WALKER
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
JOHN WALKER, an individual, CASENO::
PLAINTIFF,
COMPLAINT FOR:
ve
1. FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM
WAGE (Cal. Labor Code §§ 1182, 1182.12,
11980;
2. FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME
(Cal. Labor Code § 510);
3. FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL
BREAKS (Cal. Labor Code § 226.7);
4, FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST
BREAKS (Cal. Labor Code § 226.7);
3s FAILURE TO COMPENSATE ALL
HOURS (Cal. Labor Code § 204);
6. FAILURE TO PROVIDE
ACCURATE WAGE STATEMENTS (Cal.
Labor Code § 226);
7. FAILURE TO MAINTAIN
PAYROLL RECORDS (Cal. Labor Code §§
1174 AND 1174.5);
HNM SYSTEMS; and DOES 1-50
inclusive,
DEFENDANTS.
SS SES See
1
a FOR DAMAGESCoC mnt De kek BW NY
NY NY YP YP NN YN KD B&B Be Be ee ee ee
oI AA BF ON FF SF SODA AA FB HH mS S
8. WAITING TIME PENALTIES (Cal.
Labor Code §§ 201. 202 AND 203);
9. VIOLATION OF BUS. & PROF. §
17200, et seq.
10. FAILURE TO TIMELY PROVIDE
EMPLOYMENT RECORDS (CAL. LABOR
CODE § 1198.5)
11. FAILURE TO TIMELY PROVIDE
PAY RECORDS (CAL. LABOR CODE §
226)
[DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL]
Plaintiff, JOHN WALKER, individually alleges:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Plaintiff JOHN WALKER (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’), an individual,
alleges knowledge as to her own, and information and belief as to all other matters, as follows:
2. Plaintiff was, at all times mentioned herein, a resident of the County of Los
Angeles in the State of California.
3. Defendant HNM System, a California corporation, is and was at all material times
mentioned herein, (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant” or “HNM”), is a business and
employer with its headquarters and corporate office in the city of Solano Beach, California.
Plaintiff is further informed and believes Defendant is doing business in Los Angeles County
and elsewhere in the State of California.
4. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names of Defendants DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, and has therefore sued them by the above names which are fictitious. Plaintiff will
amend this complaint by inserting true names in lieu of the fictitious names when the true names
are ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the
Defendants designated in this Complaint as DOE is responsible and liable to Plaintiff in some
manner for the events, happenings, and contentions referred to in this complaint. All references
in this complaint to “Defendants” shall be deemed to include HNM and all DOE Defendants
collectively.
2
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESCc Oe NBD HN ke YD YD =
Y N YB YM RN NK NY Dw we eee a
ont A nH ke BW NY &F FS SC HAN De FF YW NK K& CS
3s Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each Defendant,
including DOES, was and is the agent, employee, servant, subsidiary, partner, member,
associate, or representative of each other Defendant, including DOES, and all of the things
alleged to have been done by the Defendants, and each of them, were done in the course and
scope of the agency, employment, service, or representative relationship and with the knowledge
and consent of their respective principals, employers, masters, parent corporations, partners,
members, associates, or representatives.
6. The unlawful practices and tortious conduct complained of herein occurred in the
County of Los Angeles, State of California.
FACTS RELATED TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
7. HNM hired Plaintiff in or around June 2019 as a non-exempt hourly employee
earning approximately $18.00 and $25.00 per hour with production bonuses. Plaintiff worked
for HNM until in or about September 2019.
8. During the course of employment, Plaintiff continually worked an eight (8) hour
day, five and more days a week, with no break or meal time periods provided. Further, Plaintiff]
was not compensated for any overtime hours worked, including compensation for overtime on
production bonuses. Furthermore, Defendant lacked any policy with regard to provision of 10
minute rest periods or 30 minute meal breaks as required by California’s Labor Code. Plaintiff,
worked overtime which he was not properly compensated for.
9. Further, Defendant did not allow Plaintiff ten (10) minute rest periods or thirty
(30) meal periods. Nor did Defendant pay Plaintiff a premium for the missed rest and/or meal
periods.
10. Plaintiff worked overtime both beyond his eight (8) hour shifts and over forty
(40) hours per week.
ll. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff for his overtime work, including overtime
compensation for production bonuses.
3
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESCS Oe NY Den eR BW YY
_
So
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12. Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee entitled to overtime and entitled to meal and
rest breaks under Labor Code § 512 and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission wage
order.
13. At his separation, Plaintiff was not all paid all wages owed to him and during his
employment, Plaintiff was not provided with accurate wage statements.
14. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions against Plaintiff, as
alleged above, Plaintiff has suffered special damages including but not limited to loss of wages,
including front and back pay, and benefits, including consequential damages in an amount to be
proven at time of trial, in excess of the minimum jurisdictional requirements of this Court.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGE
(Cal. Labor Code § §1182 et seq., 1198)
(Against All Defendants)
13% Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
contained in each and every aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein.
16. The Industrial Welfare Commission (hereinafter “IWC”) sets the “minimum wage
to supply the necessary cost of proper living to, and maintain the health and welfare of
employees in this state.” California Labor Code § 1178.5(a). Minimum wage requirements
apply to all nonexempt employees, including those not specifically covered under wage orders
applicable to specific occupations, trades, or industries.
17. Plaintiff was, in fact, a nonexempt employee and Defendants were required b
law to pay Plaintiff minimum wage during hours worked.
18. Further, during Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, Defendants failed to pa}
Plaintiff the applicable minimum wage.
19. As a proximate result of Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff minimum wage,
pursuant to the provisions of California Labor Code § 1182.12 and IWC orders, Plaintiff suffered
losses in earnings, and other employment benefits along with other incidental and consequential
damages and losses, all in an amount to be proven at trial.
4
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESen eS
_
oS
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20. As a proximate result of Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff minimum wage,
pursuant to the provisions of California Labor Code § 1182.12 and IWC orders, Plaintiff has
suffered and will continue to suffer economic damages in the form of lost retirement benefits in
an amount to be proven at trial.
21. Pursuant to California Labor Code § 218.5, Plaintiff requests that the Court award
reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in this action.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME
(Cal. Labor Code §510(a))
(Against All Defendants)
22. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
contained in each and every aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein.
2B. Under California Labor Code § 510(a), “Eight hours of labor constitutes a day’s
work. Any work in excess of eight hours in one workday and any work in excess of 40 hours in
any one workweek and the first eight hours worked on the seventh day of work in any one
workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate
of pay for an employee.”
24. During Plaintiff's employment with Defendants on several occasions, Defendants
requested that Plaintiff work and Plaintiff actually worked in excess of eight (8) hours in one
workday and in excess of 40 hours in one workweek. On such occasions, Defendants failed to
pay Plaintiff at least one and one-half times or two times her regular rate of pay for overtime
hours worked. Further, Plaintiff was not compensated for overtime pay related to production
bonuses received.
25. Defendants to this date have not paid Plaintiff for the overtime hours she worked.
26. As a proximate result of Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff overtime, pursuant to
the provisions of California Labor Code § 510(a), Plaintiff suffered losses in earnings, and other
employment benefits along with other incidental and consequential damages and losses, all in an
amount to be proven at trial.
5
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESa ee ~
~~» NR YP YB YBN NR KR DQ we ie
ont An kB Bw NY & FS Oe NI DA KH BF BW NY SF CS
pis Pursuant to California Labor Code § 218.5, Plaintiff requests that the court award
reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in this action.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL BREAKS
(Cal. Labor Code §226.7)
(Against All Defendants)
28. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
contained in each and every aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein.
29. California Labor Code § 226.7 requires an employer to pay an additional hour of
compensation for each required meal period the employer fails to provide. Employees are
entitled to a meal period of at least thirty (30) minutes per five (5) hour work period. Plaintiff
consistently worked over five (5) hours shifts without a meal period. Pursuant to the Labor Code
and Wage Order 5-2001, Plaintiff was entitled to a meal period of not less than thirty (30)
minutes prior to exceeding five (5) hours of employment.
30. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with either timely meal breaks of not less
than thirty (30) minutes, or to provide Plaintiff with an additional hour of compensation for each
meal period missed as required during the time that Plaintiff was employed with Defendants.
31. Pursuant to California Labor Code § 226.7, Plaintiff is entitled to damages of one
(1) hour of wages per missed meal break, in a sum to be proven at trial.
32. Plaintiff also seeks damages pursuant to California Labor Code § 558.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST BREAKS
(Cal. Labor Code §226.7)
(Against All Defendants)
33. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
contained in each and every aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein.
34, California Labor Code § 226.7 requires an employer to pay an additional hour of
compensation for each workday where an employee fails to receive a rest period for each
consecutive four (4) hour shift worked. Employees are entitled to a net rest period of at least ten
(10) minutes per each consecutive four (4) hour work period or major fraction thereof, after the
6
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESCo ey DK FF WB NH
a
o
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
first three and one-half (31/2) hours worked in a workday. Plaintiff consistently worked four (4)
hour shifts. Pursuant to the California Labor Code and Wage Order 5-2001, Plaintiff was
entitled to a rest period of not less than ten (10) minutes for each consecutive four (4) hour shift
worked or major fraction thereof.
39s Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with either timely rest breaks of not less
than ten (10) minutes, or to provide Plaintiff with an additional hour of compensation for each
day when said rest period was missed, as required during the time period Plaintiff was employed
with Defendants.
36. Pursuant to California Labor Code § 226.7, Plaintiff is entitled to damages of one
(1) hour of wages per missed rest break, in a sum to be proven at trial.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO COMPENSATE ALL HOURS
(Cal. Labor Code §204)
(Against All Defendants)
37. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
contained in each and every aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein.
38. Section 204 of the California Labor Code states that all wages, other than those
mentioned in 201, 201.3, 202, 204.1, or 204.2, earned by any person in any employment are due
and payable twice during each calendar month, on days designated in advance by the employer
as the regular paydays.
39. As described hereinabove, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff per pay period any
and all wages due in a timely manner.
40. Defendants therefore owe damages in the amount of any remaining unpaid wages
in addition to penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 210 in the amount of $100 for each failure to
pay Plaintiff.
/it
Mt
Ml
Mt
7
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESoem nN DAH BRB BW YD
_
oS
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE WAGE
STATEMENTS
(Cal. Labor Code §226)
(Against All Defendants)
41. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
contained in each and every aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein.
42. The allegations of every other paragraph of this Complaint are hereby
incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
43. Defendants were obligated under Labor Code § 226 and Industrial Wage Order 5-
2001, to keep an accurate record of the hours of labor worked by Plaintiff and to prepare and
submit to Plaintiff with each payment of wages an itemized statement accurately showing the
total hours worked by Plaintiff.
44, Defendants failed to keep precise records of Plaintiffs hours worked, and further
failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements with each payment of wages to Plaintiff as
required by law. Instead, Defendants issued false or incorrect or fraudulent or no wage
statements to certain employees, including without limitation Plaintiff.
45. Pursuant to Labor Code § 226, Plaintiff is entitled to a penalty of $50.00 for the
first violation and $100.00 per pay period for each subsequent violation of this section, according
to proof, up to a maximum amount of $4,000.00.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO MAINTAIN PAYROLL RECORDS
(CAL. LABOR CODE §§ 1174 AND 1174.5)
(Against All Defendants)
46. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
contained in each and every aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein.
47. Defendants failed to maintain complete and accurate payroll records for Plaintiff,
showing gross wages earned, total hours worked, all deductions made, net wages earned, the
name and address of the legal entity employing Plaintiff, all applicable hourly rates in effect
during each pay period, and the corresponding number of hours worked by Plaintiff at each
8
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESCo ent Dn F WB NY =
Y N YP Ye RN NR KR Dw wm mi
eon DN KH ek HY NM F&F SCS BO BAN De FF Ww VY & SS
hourly rate, and Defendants are therefore not able to furnish to the commission said documents
and/or information.
48. Defendants are liable for statutory arid civil penalties pursuant to Cal. Labor Code
§§ 1174.5, 558 and other applicable laws and regulations.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION WAITING TIME PENALTIES
(CAL. LABOR CODE §§ 201. 202 AND 203)
(Against All Defendants)
49. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
contained in each and every aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein.
50. Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff all accrued wages and other
compensation due to Plaintiff within 72 hours of Plaintiffs constructive discharge.
SL. Defendants are liable for statutory and civil waiting time penalties of up to 30
days of pay pursuant to Cal. Labor Code § 203 and other applicable laws and regulations.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND
PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200
(Against All Defendants)
52. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
contained in each and every aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein.
535 California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq. prohibits unlawful and
unfair business practices. Plaintiff is a “person” within the meaning of California Business &
Professions Code (hereinafter “B&P”) § 17204, and has standing to bring this cause of action for
injunctive relief, restitution, and other appropriate equitable relief.
54, Wage and hour laws express fundamental public policies. California Labor Code
§ 90.5(a) and § 98.6 articulate the public policies of this State to enforce vigorously minimum
labor standards, to ensure that employees are not required or permitted to work under
substandard and unlawful conditions, to ensure employees are not retaliated against for
complaining of violations under the Labor Code, and to protect law-abiding employers and their
9
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESi — ) ~ d
e
oS
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
employees from competitors who lower their costs by failing to comply with minimum labor
standards.
55. Defendants have violated statutes and public policies. Through the conduct
alleged in this Complaint, Defendants have acted contrary to these public policies, have violated
specific provisions of the California Labor Code, and have engaged in other unlawful and unfair
business practices in violation of B&P § 17200, et seq., depriving Plaintiff of the rights, benefits,
and privileges guaranteed to all employees under the law.
56. Defendants by violating wage and hour laws as described above under the
California Labor Code, creating a hostile work environment, retaliating against Plaintiff and
wrongfully terminating Plaintiff on the basis of his complaints regarding Defendants’ wage and
hour violations and not providing Plaintiff with proper compensation, either knew or in the
exercise of reasonable care should have known that the conduct was unlawful. Therefore,
Defendants’ conduct, as alleged herein, constitutes unfair competition in violation of B&P §
17200, et seq.
57. As a proximate result of the above-mentioned acts of Defendants, Plaintiff has
been damaged in a sum as may be proven.
58. Unless restrained by this Court, Defendants will continue to engage in the
unlawful conduct as alleged herein. Pursuant to the B&P, this Court should make such orders or
judgments, including the appointment of a receiver, as may be necessary to prevent the use or
employment, by Defendants, their agents or employees, of any unlawful or deceptive practice
prohibited by the B&P and/or, including but not limited to, disgorgement of profits which may
be necessary to restore Plaintiff to the money Defendants have unlawfully failed to pay.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY PROVIDE
EMPLOYMENT RECORDS
(CAL. LABOR CODE § 1198.5)
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
59. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
contained in each and every aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein.
10
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESCem yt DH RB Ww NY eS
_
=
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
60. Employers in California are required to maintain a copy of each employee's
personnel records and make a current or former employee's personnel records available for
inspection, and, if requested by the employee or his or her representative, provide a copy
thereof. Cal. Labor Code § 1198.5(c)(1)-(3). “Every current and former employee, or his or her
representative, has the right to inspect and receive a copy of the personnel records that the
employer maintains relating to the employee's performance or to any grievance concerning the
employee.” Cal. Labor Code § 1198.5(a).
61. Employers are required to “make the contents of those personnel records
available for inspection to the current or former employee, or his or her representative, at
reasonable intervals and at reasonable times, but not later than 30 calendar days from the date
the employer receives a written request.” Cal. Labor Code § 1198.5(b)(1).
62. Plaintiff requested his personnel records on or about September 16, 2019 through
his representative. Defendants have failed to provide Plaintiffs personnel file to him.
63. Plaintiff has been prejudiced in his efforts to obtain relief by his inability to
access critical employment information.
64. Defendants have violated Labor Code section 1198.5 by failing to provide
employee personnel records within thirty (30) days of the initial request for their production.
As a result, Plaintiff is entitled to recover the seven-hundred and fifty dollar ($750) penalty
from Defendants and attorney’s fees provided by Labor Code section 1198.5(1).
65. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as hereinafter provided.
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY PROVIDE PAY
RECORDS
(CAL. LABOR CODE § 226)
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
66. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
contained in each and every aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein.
11
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESCo en Dna F RB YD =
y N Ye Y YP N NR N VY Be Be Be Be Be Be Be Be Be oe
on Dn HN ke BW Ne Fe SOS Oo ONY DH Re HD NY & SS
67. Under Labor Code section 226(c) Employers in California are required to provide
wage statements within 21 days of a request to inspect the records. Cal. Labor Code Section
226(c).
68. Moreover, “[a] failure by an employer to permit a current or former employee to
inspect or receive a copy of records within the time set forth in subdivision (c) entitles the
current or former employee or the Labor Commissioner to recover a seven-hundred-fifty-dollar
($750) penalty from the employer” Cal. Labor Code Section 226(f).
69. Plaintiff requested his pay records and wage statements on September 6, 2019
through his representative. Defendants have failed to provide Plaintiffs pay records and wage
statements to him.
70. Plaintiff has been prejudiced in his efforts to obtain relief by his inability to
access critical employment information.
71. Defendants have violated Labor Code section 226 by failing to provide employee
pay records and wage statements within twenty-one (21) days of the initial request for their
production. As a result, Plaintiff is entitled to recover the seven-hundred and fifty dollar ($750)
penalty from Defendants and attorney’s fees provided by Labor Code section 226. :
72s WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as hereinafter provided.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief and judgment against Defendants, as follows:
1. For general damages in an amount according to proof;
2. For special damages in an amount according to proof;
3. For compensatory damages including but not limited to lost wages, overtime
compensation, damages for lost meal and rest periods, and other special, general
and compensatory damages in an amount according to proof;
4. For attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Labor Code;
3s For statutory and civil penalties;
6. For interest as allowed by law;
7. For injunctive relief;
12
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESoO NY DH F BW N
YN YP NY NY NR NR KD Dem its
oy Dn Mn Fs BW Ne KF OCS OBO Ge NHN DA KH F&F BW NY SF SCS
8. For costs of suit; and
9. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
DATED: November , 2019 k2 Employment Law Group, LLP
py: O VNU”
Douglas H. Hoang
Matthew T. Kramer
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
JOHN WALKER
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff JOHN WALKER demands a trial by jury of all issues.
DATED: November ___, 2019 K2 Employment Law Group, LLP
Douglas H. Hoang
Matthew T. Kramer
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
JOHN WALKER
13
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Preview
a so ee yb NR YP MY YN NR DY Dm mm it eS ryI nn FF BW Nn &§ FS OMA DH BF WwW NY = CS 19STCV39594 Assigned for all purposes to: Stanley Mosk Courthouse, J udicial Officer: William Fahey Douglas H. Hoang, Esq. (SBN 193412) dhoang@k2employmentlaw.com Matthew T. Kramer, Esq. (SBN 255465) mkramer@k2employmentlaw.com K2 Employment Law Group, LLP 11129 White Oak Avenue Granada Hills, California 91344 Tel. No.: (800) 590-7674 Attorneys for Plaintiff, JOHN WALKER SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES JOHN WALKER, an individual, CASENO:: PLAINTIFF, COMPLAINT FOR: ve 1. FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGE (Cal. Labor Code §§ 1182, 1182.12, 11980; 2. FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME (Cal. Labor Code § 510); 3. FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL BREAKS (Cal. Labor Code § 226.7); 4, FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST BREAKS (Cal. Labor Code § 226.7); 3s FAILURE TO COMPENSATE ALL HOURS (Cal. Labor Code § 204); 6. FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE WAGE STATEMENTS (Cal. Labor Code § 226); 7. FAILURE TO MAINTAIN PAYROLL RECORDS (Cal. Labor Code §§ 1174 AND 1174.5); HNM SYSTEMS; and DOES 1-50 inclusive, DEFENDANTS. SS SES See 1 a FOR DAMAGESCoC mnt De kek BW NY NY NY YP YP NN YN KD B&B Be Be ee ee ee oI AA BF ON FF SF SODA AA FB HH mS S 8. WAITING TIME PENALTIES (Cal. Labor Code §§ 201. 202 AND 203); 9. VIOLATION OF BUS. & PROF. § 17200, et seq. 10. FAILURE TO TIMELY PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT RECORDS (CAL. LABOR CODE § 1198.5) 11. FAILURE TO TIMELY PROVIDE PAY RECORDS (CAL. LABOR CODE § 226) [DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL] Plaintiff, JOHN WALKER, individually alleges: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff JOHN WALKER (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’), an individual, alleges knowledge as to her own, and information and belief as to all other matters, as follows: 2. Plaintiff was, at all times mentioned herein, a resident of the County of Los Angeles in the State of California. 3. Defendant HNM System, a California corporation, is and was at all material times mentioned herein, (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant” or “HNM”), is a business and employer with its headquarters and corporate office in the city of Solano Beach, California. Plaintiff is further informed and believes Defendant is doing business in Los Angeles County and elsewhere in the State of California. 4. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names of Defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and has therefore sued them by the above names which are fictitious. Plaintiff will amend this complaint by inserting true names in lieu of the fictitious names when the true names are ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants designated in this Complaint as DOE is responsible and liable to Plaintiff in some manner for the events, happenings, and contentions referred to in this complaint. All references in this complaint to “Defendants” shall be deemed to include HNM and all DOE Defendants collectively. 2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESCc Oe NBD HN ke YD YD = Y N YB YM RN NK NY Dw we eee a ont A nH ke BW NY &F FS SC HAN De FF YW NK K& CS 3s Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each Defendant, including DOES, was and is the agent, employee, servant, subsidiary, partner, member, associate, or representative of each other Defendant, including DOES, and all of the things alleged to have been done by the Defendants, and each of them, were done in the course and scope of the agency, employment, service, or representative relationship and with the knowledge and consent of their respective principals, employers, masters, parent corporations, partners, members, associates, or representatives. 6. The unlawful practices and tortious conduct complained of herein occurred in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. FACTS RELATED TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 7. HNM hired Plaintiff in or around June 2019 as a non-exempt hourly employee earning approximately $18.00 and $25.00 per hour with production bonuses. Plaintiff worked for HNM until in or about September 2019. 8. During the course of employment, Plaintiff continually worked an eight (8) hour day, five and more days a week, with no break or meal time periods provided. Further, Plaintiff] was not compensated for any overtime hours worked, including compensation for overtime on production bonuses. Furthermore, Defendant lacked any policy with regard to provision of 10 minute rest periods or 30 minute meal breaks as required by California’s Labor Code. Plaintiff, worked overtime which he was not properly compensated for. 9. Further, Defendant did not allow Plaintiff ten (10) minute rest periods or thirty (30) meal periods. Nor did Defendant pay Plaintiff a premium for the missed rest and/or meal periods. 10. Plaintiff worked overtime both beyond his eight (8) hour shifts and over forty (40) hours per week. ll. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff for his overtime work, including overtime compensation for production bonuses. 3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESCS Oe NY Den eR BW YY _ So 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12. Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee entitled to overtime and entitled to meal and rest breaks under Labor Code § 512 and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission wage order. 13. At his separation, Plaintiff was not all paid all wages owed to him and during his employment, Plaintiff was not provided with accurate wage statements. 14. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions against Plaintiff, as alleged above, Plaintiff has suffered special damages including but not limited to loss of wages, including front and back pay, and benefits, including consequential damages in an amount to be proven at time of trial, in excess of the minimum jurisdictional requirements of this Court. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGE (Cal. Labor Code § §1182 et seq., 1198) (Against All Defendants) 13% Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in each and every aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein. 16. The Industrial Welfare Commission (hereinafter “IWC”) sets the “minimum wage to supply the necessary cost of proper living to, and maintain the health and welfare of employees in this state.” California Labor Code § 1178.5(a). Minimum wage requirements apply to all nonexempt employees, including those not specifically covered under wage orders applicable to specific occupations, trades, or industries. 17. Plaintiff was, in fact, a nonexempt employee and Defendants were required b law to pay Plaintiff minimum wage during hours worked. 18. Further, during Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, Defendants failed to pa} Plaintiff the applicable minimum wage. 19. As a proximate result of Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff minimum wage, pursuant to the provisions of California Labor Code § 1182.12 and IWC orders, Plaintiff suffered losses in earnings, and other employment benefits along with other incidental and consequential damages and losses, all in an amount to be proven at trial. 4 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESen eS _ oS 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20. As a proximate result of Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff minimum wage, pursuant to the provisions of California Labor Code § 1182.12 and IWC orders, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer economic damages in the form of lost retirement benefits in an amount to be proven at trial. 21. Pursuant to California Labor Code § 218.5, Plaintiff requests that the Court award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in this action. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME (Cal. Labor Code §510(a)) (Against All Defendants) 22. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in each and every aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein. 2B. Under California Labor Code § 510(a), “Eight hours of labor constitutes a day’s work. Any work in excess of eight hours in one workday and any work in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek and the first eight hours worked on the seventh day of work in any one workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for an employee.” 24. During Plaintiff's employment with Defendants on several occasions, Defendants requested that Plaintiff work and Plaintiff actually worked in excess of eight (8) hours in one workday and in excess of 40 hours in one workweek. On such occasions, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at least one and one-half times or two times her regular rate of pay for overtime hours worked. Further, Plaintiff was not compensated for overtime pay related to production bonuses received. 25. Defendants to this date have not paid Plaintiff for the overtime hours she worked. 26. As a proximate result of Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff overtime, pursuant to the provisions of California Labor Code § 510(a), Plaintiff suffered losses in earnings, and other employment benefits along with other incidental and consequential damages and losses, all in an amount to be proven at trial. 5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESa ee ~ ~~» NR YP YB YBN NR KR DQ we ie ont An kB Bw NY & FS Oe NI DA KH BF BW NY SF CS pis Pursuant to California Labor Code § 218.5, Plaintiff requests that the court award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in this action. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL BREAKS (Cal. Labor Code §226.7) (Against All Defendants) 28. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in each and every aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein. 29. California Labor Code § 226.7 requires an employer to pay an additional hour of compensation for each required meal period the employer fails to provide. Employees are entitled to a meal period of at least thirty (30) minutes per five (5) hour work period. Plaintiff consistently worked over five (5) hours shifts without a meal period. Pursuant to the Labor Code and Wage Order 5-2001, Plaintiff was entitled to a meal period of not less than thirty (30) minutes prior to exceeding five (5) hours of employment. 30. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with either timely meal breaks of not less than thirty (30) minutes, or to provide Plaintiff with an additional hour of compensation for each meal period missed as required during the time that Plaintiff was employed with Defendants. 31. Pursuant to California Labor Code § 226.7, Plaintiff is entitled to damages of one (1) hour of wages per missed meal break, in a sum to be proven at trial. 32. Plaintiff also seeks damages pursuant to California Labor Code § 558. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST BREAKS (Cal. Labor Code §226.7) (Against All Defendants) 33. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in each and every aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein. 34, California Labor Code § 226.7 requires an employer to pay an additional hour of compensation for each workday where an employee fails to receive a rest period for each consecutive four (4) hour shift worked. Employees are entitled to a net rest period of at least ten (10) minutes per each consecutive four (4) hour work period or major fraction thereof, after the 6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESCo ey DK FF WB NH a o 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 first three and one-half (31/2) hours worked in a workday. Plaintiff consistently worked four (4) hour shifts. Pursuant to the California Labor Code and Wage Order 5-2001, Plaintiff was entitled to a rest period of not less than ten (10) minutes for each consecutive four (4) hour shift worked or major fraction thereof. 39s Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with either timely rest breaks of not less than ten (10) minutes, or to provide Plaintiff with an additional hour of compensation for each day when said rest period was missed, as required during the time period Plaintiff was employed with Defendants. 36. Pursuant to California Labor Code § 226.7, Plaintiff is entitled to damages of one (1) hour of wages per missed rest break, in a sum to be proven at trial. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO COMPENSATE ALL HOURS (Cal. Labor Code §204) (Against All Defendants) 37. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in each and every aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein. 38. Section 204 of the California Labor Code states that all wages, other than those mentioned in 201, 201.3, 202, 204.1, or 204.2, earned by any person in any employment are due and payable twice during each calendar month, on days designated in advance by the employer as the regular paydays. 39. As described hereinabove, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff per pay period any and all wages due in a timely manner. 40. Defendants therefore owe damages in the amount of any remaining unpaid wages in addition to penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 210 in the amount of $100 for each failure to pay Plaintiff. /it Mt Ml Mt 7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESoem nN DAH BRB BW YD _ oS 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE WAGE STATEMENTS (Cal. Labor Code §226) (Against All Defendants) 41. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in each and every aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein. 42. The allegations of every other paragraph of this Complaint are hereby incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 43. Defendants were obligated under Labor Code § 226 and Industrial Wage Order 5- 2001, to keep an accurate record of the hours of labor worked by Plaintiff and to prepare and submit to Plaintiff with each payment of wages an itemized statement accurately showing the total hours worked by Plaintiff. 44, Defendants failed to keep precise records of Plaintiffs hours worked, and further failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements with each payment of wages to Plaintiff as required by law. Instead, Defendants issued false or incorrect or fraudulent or no wage statements to certain employees, including without limitation Plaintiff. 45. Pursuant to Labor Code § 226, Plaintiff is entitled to a penalty of $50.00 for the first violation and $100.00 per pay period for each subsequent violation of this section, according to proof, up to a maximum amount of $4,000.00. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO MAINTAIN PAYROLL RECORDS (CAL. LABOR CODE §§ 1174 AND 1174.5) (Against All Defendants) 46. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in each and every aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein. 47. Defendants failed to maintain complete and accurate payroll records for Plaintiff, showing gross wages earned, total hours worked, all deductions made, net wages earned, the name and address of the legal entity employing Plaintiff, all applicable hourly rates in effect during each pay period, and the corresponding number of hours worked by Plaintiff at each 8 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESCo ent Dn F WB NY = Y N YP Ye RN NR KR Dw wm mi eon DN KH ek HY NM F&F SCS BO BAN De FF Ww VY & SS hourly rate, and Defendants are therefore not able to furnish to the commission said documents and/or information. 48. Defendants are liable for statutory arid civil penalties pursuant to Cal. Labor Code §§ 1174.5, 558 and other applicable laws and regulations. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION WAITING TIME PENALTIES (CAL. LABOR CODE §§ 201. 202 AND 203) (Against All Defendants) 49. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in each and every aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein. 50. Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff all accrued wages and other compensation due to Plaintiff within 72 hours of Plaintiffs constructive discharge. SL. Defendants are liable for statutory and civil waiting time penalties of up to 30 days of pay pursuant to Cal. Labor Code § 203 and other applicable laws and regulations. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 (Against All Defendants) 52. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in each and every aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein. 535 California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq. prohibits unlawful and unfair business practices. Plaintiff is a “person” within the meaning of California Business & Professions Code (hereinafter “B&P”) § 17204, and has standing to bring this cause of action for injunctive relief, restitution, and other appropriate equitable relief. 54, Wage and hour laws express fundamental public policies. California Labor Code § 90.5(a) and § 98.6 articulate the public policies of this State to enforce vigorously minimum labor standards, to ensure that employees are not required or permitted to work under substandard and unlawful conditions, to ensure employees are not retaliated against for complaining of violations under the Labor Code, and to protect law-abiding employers and their 9 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESi — ) ~ d e oS 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 employees from competitors who lower their costs by failing to comply with minimum labor standards. 55. Defendants have violated statutes and public policies. Through the conduct alleged in this Complaint, Defendants have acted contrary to these public policies, have violated specific provisions of the California Labor Code, and have engaged in other unlawful and unfair business practices in violation of B&P § 17200, et seq., depriving Plaintiff of the rights, benefits, and privileges guaranteed to all employees under the law. 56. Defendants by violating wage and hour laws as described above under the California Labor Code, creating a hostile work environment, retaliating against Plaintiff and wrongfully terminating Plaintiff on the basis of his complaints regarding Defendants’ wage and hour violations and not providing Plaintiff with proper compensation, either knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that the conduct was unlawful. Therefore, Defendants’ conduct, as alleged herein, constitutes unfair competition in violation of B&P § 17200, et seq. 57. As a proximate result of the above-mentioned acts of Defendants, Plaintiff has been damaged in a sum as may be proven. 58. Unless restrained by this Court, Defendants will continue to engage in the unlawful conduct as alleged herein. Pursuant to the B&P, this Court should make such orders or judgments, including the appointment of a receiver, as may be necessary to prevent the use or employment, by Defendants, their agents or employees, of any unlawful or deceptive practice prohibited by the B&P and/or, including but not limited to, disgorgement of profits which may be necessary to restore Plaintiff to the money Defendants have unlawfully failed to pay. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT RECORDS (CAL. LABOR CODE § 1198.5) (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 59. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in each and every aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein. 10 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESCem yt DH RB Ww NY eS _ = 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 60. Employers in California are required to maintain a copy of each employee's personnel records and make a current or former employee's personnel records available for inspection, and, if requested by the employee or his or her representative, provide a copy thereof. Cal. Labor Code § 1198.5(c)(1)-(3). “Every current and former employee, or his or her representative, has the right to inspect and receive a copy of the personnel records that the employer maintains relating to the employee's performance or to any grievance concerning the employee.” Cal. Labor Code § 1198.5(a). 61. Employers are required to “make the contents of those personnel records available for inspection to the current or former employee, or his or her representative, at reasonable intervals and at reasonable times, but not later than 30 calendar days from the date the employer receives a written request.” Cal. Labor Code § 1198.5(b)(1). 62. Plaintiff requested his personnel records on or about September 16, 2019 through his representative. Defendants have failed to provide Plaintiffs personnel file to him. 63. Plaintiff has been prejudiced in his efforts to obtain relief by his inability to access critical employment information. 64. Defendants have violated Labor Code section 1198.5 by failing to provide employee personnel records within thirty (30) days of the initial request for their production. As a result, Plaintiff is entitled to recover the seven-hundred and fifty dollar ($750) penalty from Defendants and attorney’s fees provided by Labor Code section 1198.5(1). 65. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as hereinafter provided. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY PROVIDE PAY RECORDS (CAL. LABOR CODE § 226) (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 66. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in each and every aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein. 11 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESCo en Dna F RB YD = y N Ye Y YP N NR N VY Be Be Be Be Be Be Be Be Be oe on Dn HN ke BW Ne Fe SOS Oo ONY DH Re HD NY & SS 67. Under Labor Code section 226(c) Employers in California are required to provide wage statements within 21 days of a request to inspect the records. Cal. Labor Code Section 226(c). 68. Moreover, “[a] failure by an employer to permit a current or former employee to inspect or receive a copy of records within the time set forth in subdivision (c) entitles the current or former employee or the Labor Commissioner to recover a seven-hundred-fifty-dollar ($750) penalty from the employer” Cal. Labor Code Section 226(f). 69. Plaintiff requested his pay records and wage statements on September 6, 2019 through his representative. Defendants have failed to provide Plaintiffs pay records and wage statements to him. 70. Plaintiff has been prejudiced in his efforts to obtain relief by his inability to access critical employment information. 71. Defendants have violated Labor Code section 226 by failing to provide employee pay records and wage statements within twenty-one (21) days of the initial request for their production. As a result, Plaintiff is entitled to recover the seven-hundred and fifty dollar ($750) penalty from Defendants and attorney’s fees provided by Labor Code section 226. : 72s WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as hereinafter provided. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief and judgment against Defendants, as follows: 1. For general damages in an amount according to proof; 2. For special damages in an amount according to proof; 3. For compensatory damages including but not limited to lost wages, overtime compensation, damages for lost meal and rest periods, and other special, general and compensatory damages in an amount according to proof; 4. For attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Labor Code; 3s For statutory and civil penalties; 6. For interest as allowed by law; 7. For injunctive relief; 12 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESoO NY DH F BW N YN YP NY NY NR NR KD Dem its oy Dn Mn Fs BW Ne KF OCS OBO Ge NHN DA KH F&F BW NY SF SCS 8. For costs of suit; and 9. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. DATED: November , 2019 k2 Employment Law Group, LLP py: O VNU” Douglas H. Hoang Matthew T. Kramer Attorneys for Plaintiff, JOHN WALKER JURY DEMAND Plaintiff JOHN WALKER demands a trial by jury of all issues. DATED: November ___, 2019 K2 Employment Law Group, LLP Douglas H. Hoang Matthew T. Kramer Attorneys for Plaintiff, JOHN WALKER 13 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES