Preview
21STCV44450
Assigned for all purposes to: Spring Street Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Daniel Buckley
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 12/07/2021 10:47 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by R. Lozano,Deputy Clerk
1 AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
SAMUEL A. WONG, State Bar No. 217104
2 KASHIF HAQUE, State Bar No. 218672
3 JESSICA L. CAMPBELL, State Bar No. 280626
9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
4 Irvine, California 92618
Telephone: (949) 379-6250
5 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff Joseph Paul James Sciberras, individually,
7 and on behalf of all others similarly situated.
8
9
10
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
13
14 JOSEPH PAUL JAMES SCIBERRAS, Case No.
individually and on behalf of all others
15 similarly situated, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR:
16 Plaintiffs, 1. Failure to Pay Minimum Wages;
17
v. 2. Failure to Pay Overtime Wages;
18
CALIFORNIA FINE WINE & SPIRITS 3. Failure to Provide Meal Periods;
19 LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
4. Failure to Permit Rest Breaks;
20 Defendants.
5. Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses;
21
6. Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage
22 Statements;
23
7. Failure to Pay All Wages Due Upon
24 Separation of Employment; and
25 8. Violation of Business and Professions
Code §§ 17200, et seq.
26
27
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
28
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiff Joseph Paul James Sciberras, individually and on behalf of others similarly
2 situated, alleges as follows:
3 NATURE OF ACTION AND INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
4 1. Plaintiff Joseph Paul James Sciberras (“Plaintiff”) brings this putative class action
5 against defendants California Fine Wine & Spirits LLC, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive
6 (collectively, “Defendants”), on Plaintiff’s own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of
7 California citizens who are and were employed by Defendants as non-exempt employees
8 throughout California.
9 2. Defendants are in the retail industry.
10 3. Through this action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a systematic
11 pattern of wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare
12 Commission (“IWC”) Wage Orders, all of which contribute to Defendants’ deliberate unfair
13 competition.
14 4. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and thereon alleges, that Defendants have
15 increased their profits by violating state wage and hour laws by, among other things:
16 (a) failing to pay all wages (including minimum wages and overtime wages);
17 (b) failing to provide lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof;
18 (c) failing to authorize or permit lawful rest breaks or provide compensation
19 in lieu thereof;
20 (d) failing to reimburse necessary business-related costs;
21 (e) failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and
22 (f) failing to pay all wages due upon separation of employment.
23 5. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief against Defendants on behalf of himself and all
24 others similarly situated in California to recover, among other things, unpaid wages, un-
25 reimbursed business expenses, benefits, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, and
26 penalties pursuant to Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 227.3, 246, 510, 512,
27 1182.12, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1198, 2800, 2802, and Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5.
28
-1-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2 6. This is a class action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 382. The
3 monetary damages and restitution sought by Plaintiff exceed the minimal jurisdictional limits of
4 the Superior Court and will be established according to proof at trial.
5 7. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the California
6 Constitution, Article VI, § 10, which grants the Superior Court original jurisdiction in all causes
7 except those given by statutes to other courts. The statutes under which this action is brought do
8 not specify any other basis for jurisdiction.
9 8. This Court has jurisdiction over all Defendants because, upon information and
10 belief, they are citizens of California, have sufficient minimum contacts in California, or
11 otherwise intentionally avail themselves of the California market so as to render the exercise of
12 jurisdiction over them by the California courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play and
13 substantial justice.
14 9. Venue is proper in this Court because, upon information and belief, Defendants
15 reside, transact business, or have offices in this county, and the acts and omissions alleged herein
16 took place in this county.
17 THE PARTIES
18 10. Plaintiff is a resident of California and worked for Defendants during the relevant
19 time periods as alleged herein.
20 11. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that at all times hereinafter
21 mentioned, Defendants were and are subject to the Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders as
22 employers, whose employees were and are engaged throughout this county and the State of
23 California.
24 12. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names or capacities of the defendants sued herein
25 under the fictitious names DOES 1 through 20, but will seek leave of this Court to amend this
26 Complaint and serve such fictitiously named defendants once their names and capacities become
27 known.
28
-2-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DOES 1 through 20
2 are or were the partners, agents, owners, shareholders, managers, or employees of Defendants at
3 all relevant times.
4 14. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and 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
6 scheme, business plan, or policy in all respects pertinent hereto, and the acts of each defendant
7 are legally attributable to the other defendant. Furthermore, defendants in all respects acted as the
8 employer and/or joint employer of Plaintiff and the class members.
9 15. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each and all of the acts
10 and omissions alleged herein were performed by, or are attributable to, Defendants and/or DOES
11 1 through 20, acting as the agent or alter ego for the other, with legal authority to act on the
12 other’s behalf. The acts of any and all Defendants were in accordance with, and represent, the
13 official policy of Defendants.
14 16. At all relevant times, Defendants, and each of them, acted within the scope of
15 such agency or employment, or ratified each and every act or omission complained of herein. At
16 all relevant times, Defendants, and each of them, aided and abetted the acts and omissions of
17 each and all the other Defendants in proximately causing the damages herein alleged.
18 17. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of said
19 Defendants is in some manner intentionally, negligently, or otherwise responsible for the acts,
20 omissions, occurrences, and transactions alleged herein.
21 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
22 18. Plaintiff brings this action under Code of Civil Procedure § 382 on Plaintiff’s own
23 behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated who were affected by Defendants’ Labor
24 Code, Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, and IWC Wage Order violations.
25 19. All claims alleged herein arise under California law for which Plaintiff seeks
26 relief authorized by California law.
27 20. Plaintiff’s proposed class consists of and is defined as follows:
28
-3-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Class
2 All California citizens currently or formerly employed by Defendants as non-
3 exempt employees in the State of California at any time between June 12, 20171
4 and the date of class certification (“Class”).
5 21. Plaintiff also seeks to certify the following subclasses of employees:
6 Waiting Time Subclass
7 All members of the Class who separated their employment with Defendant at any
8 time between June 12, 2018 and the date of class certification (“Waiting Time
9 Subclass”).
10 22. Plaintiff reserves the right to modify or re-define the Class, establish additional
11 subclasses, or modify or re-define any class or subclass definition as appropriate based on
12 investigation, discovery, and specific theories of liability.
13 23. Members of the Class and the Waiting Time Subclass described above will be
14 collectively referred to as “Class Members.”
15 24. There are common questions of law and fact as to the Class Members that
16 predominate over any questions affecting only individual members including, but not limited to,
17 the following:
18 (a) Whether Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members all wages
19 (including minimum wages and overtime wages) for all hours worked by
20 Plaintiff and Class Members.
21 (b) Whether Defendants required Plaintiff and Class Members to work over
22 eight (8) hours per day, over twelve (12) hours per day, and/or over forty
23 (40) hours per week and failed to pay them proper overtime compensation
24 for all overtime hours worked.
25
26
27 1
The statute of limitations for this matter was tolled between April 6, 2020 and October 1, 2020
pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, Appendix I, Emergency Rule No. 9.
28
-4-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 (c) Whether Defendants deprived Plaintiff and Class Members of timely meal
2 periods or required Plaintiff and Class Members to work through meal
3 periods without legal compensation.
4 (d) Whether Defendants deprived Plaintiff and Class Members of rest breaks
5 or required Plaintiff and Class Members to work through rest breaks.
6 (e) Whether Defendants failed to reimburse Plaintiff and Class Members for
7 necessary business-related costs expended for the benefit of Defendants.
8 (f) Whether Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and Class Members
9 accurate itemized wage statements.
10 (g) Whether Defendants failed to timely pay the Waiting Time Subclass all
11 wages due upon termination or within seventy-two (72) hours of
12 resignation.
13 (h) Whether Defendants’ conduct was willful or reckless.
14 (i) Whether Defendants engaged in unfair business practices in violation of
15 Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.
16 25. There is a well-defined community of interest in this litigation and the proposed
17 Class and subclasses are readily ascertainable:
18 (a) Numerosity: The Class Members are so numerous that joinder of all
19 members is impractical. Although the members of the Class are unknown to Plaintiff at this time,
20 on information and belief, the Class is estimated to be greater than fifty (50) individuals. The
21 identities of the Class Members are readily ascertainable by inspection of Defendants’
22 employment and payroll records.
23 (b) Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims (or defenses, if any) are typical of the claims
24 (or defenses, if any) of the Class Members because Defendants’ failure to comply with the
25 provisions of California’s wage and hour laws entitled each Class Member to similar pay,
26 benefits, and other relief. The injuries sustained by Plaintiff are also typical of the injuries
27 sustained by the Class Members, because they arise out of and are caused by Defendants’
28 common course of conduct as alleged herein.
-5-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 (c) Adequacy: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the
2 interests of all Class Members because itis in Plaintiff’s best interest to prosecute the claims
3 alleged herein to obtain full compensation and penalties due. Plaintiff’s attorneys, as proposed
4 class counsel, are competent and experienced in litigating large employment class actions and
5 versed in the rules governing class action discovery, certification, and settlement. Plaintiff has
6 incurred and, throughout the duration of this action, will continue to incur attorneys’ fees and
7 costs that have been and will be necessarily expended for the prosecution of this action for the
8 substantial benefit of the Class Members.
9 (d) Superiority: The nature of this action makes use of class action
10 adjudication superior to other methods. A class action will achieve economies of time, effort, and
11 expense as compared with separate lawsuits and will avoid inconsistent outcomes because the
12 same issues can be adjudicated in the same manner for the entire Class and Waiting Time
13 Subclass at the same time. If appropriate, this Court can, and is empowered to, fashion methods
14 to efficiently manage this case as a class action.
15 (e) Public Policy Considerations: Employers in the State of California violate
16 employment and labor laws every day. Current employees are often afraid to assert their rights
17 out of fear of direct or indirect retaliation. Former employees are fearful of bringing actions
18 because they believe their former employers might damage their future endeavors through
19 negative references and/or other means. Class actions provide class members who are not named
20 in the complaint with a type of anonymity that allows for the vindication of their rights while
21 affording them privacy protections.
22 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
23 26. At all relevant times mentioned herein, Defendants employed Plaintiff and other
24 California residents as non-exempt employees throughout California at Defendants’ California
25 business location(s).
26 27. Defendants continue to employ non-exempt employees within California.
27 28. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein
28 mentioned, Defendants were advised by skilled lawyers, employees, and other professionals who
-6-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 were knowledgeable about California’s wage and hour laws, employment and personnel
2 practices, and the requirements of California law.
3 29. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or
4 should have known that Plaintiff and Class Members were entitled to receive wages for all time
5 worked (including minimum wages and overtime wages) and that they were not receiving all
6 wages earned for work that was required to be performed. In violation of the Labor Code and
7 IWC Wage Orders, Plaintiff and Class Members were not paid all wages (including minimum
8 wages and overtime wages) for all hours worked, including, but not limited to requiring Plaintiff
9 and Class Members to work or remain under Defendants’ control off-the-clock, and failing to
10 compensate Plaintiff and Class Members for these hours, and failing to include bonuses and
11 incentive pay in the overtime rate.
12 30. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or
13 should have known that Plaintiff and Class Members were entitled to receive all required meal
14 periods or payment of one (1) additional hour of pay at Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ regular
15 rate of pay when they did not receive a timely, uninterrupted meal period. In violation of the
16 Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, Plaintiff and Class Members did not receive all meal periods
17 or payment of one (1) additional hour of pay at Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ regular rate of
18 pay when they did not receive a timely, uninterrupted meal period.
19 31. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or
20 should have known that Plaintiff and Class Members were entitled to receive all rest breaks or
21 payment of one (1) additional hour of pay at Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ regular rate of pay
22 when a rest break was late, missed, or interrupted. In violation of the Labor Code and IWC Wage
23 Orders, Plaintiff and Class Members did not receive all rest breaks or payment of one (1)
24 additional hour of pay at Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ regular rate of pay when a rest break
25 was missed, late, or interrupted.
26 32. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or
27 should have known that Plaintiff and Class Members were entitled to reimbursement and/or
28 indemnification for all necessary business expenditures or losses as a direct consequence of the
-7-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 discharge of their duties, or of their obedience to the directions of Defendants. In violation of the
2 Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, Plaintiff and Class Members incurred necessary business
3 expenses or losses, but were not reimbursed nor indemnified of such expenses or losses that were
4 incurred as a direct consequence of the discharge of their duties, or of their obedience to the
5 directions of Defendants.
6 33. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or
7 should have known that Plaintiff and Class Members were entitled to receive itemized wage
8 statements that accurately showed the following information pursuant to the Labor Code: (1)
9 gross wages earned; (2) total hours worked by the employee; (3) the number of piece-rate units
10 earned and any applicable piece rate if the employee is paid on a piece-rate basis; (4) all
11 deductions, provided that all deductions made on written orders of the employee may be
12 aggregated and shown as one item; (5) net wages earned; (6) the inclusive dates of the period for
13 which the employee is paid; (7) the name of the employee and only the last four digits of his or
14 her social security number or an employee identification number other than a social security
15 number; (8) the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer; and (9) all applicable
16 hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at
17 each hourly rate by the employee. In violation of the Labor Code, Plaintiff and Class Members
18 were not provided with accurate itemized wage statements.
19 34. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or
20 should have known that the Waiting Time Subclass was entitled to timely payment of wages due
21 upon separation of employment. In violation of the Labor Code, the Waiting Time Subclass did
22 not receive payment of all wages within the permissible time periods.
23 35. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or
24 should have known they had a duty to compensate Plaintiff and Class Members, and Defendants
25 had the financial ability to pay such compensation but willfully, knowingly, and intentionally
26 failed to do so in order to increase Defendants’ profits.
27 36. Therefore, Plaintiff brings this lawsuit seeking monetary and injunctive relief
28 against Defendants on Plaintiff’s own behalf and on behalf of all Class Members to recover,
-8-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 among other things, unpaid wages (including minimum wages and overtime wages), unpaid meal
2 period premium payments, unpaid rest period premium payments, unreimbursed business
3 expenditures, interest, attorneys’ fees, penalties, costs, and expenses.
4 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
5 FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES
6 (Violation of Labor Code §§ 1182.12, 1194, 1194.2, 1197; Violation of IWC Wage Order §3-4)
7 37. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as
8 though fully set forth herein.
9 38. Labor Code §§ 1194 and 1197 provide that the minimum wage for employees
10 fixed by the IWC is the minimum wage to be paid to employees, and the payment of a lesser
11 wage than the minimum so fixed is unlawful.
12 39. Plaintiff and Class Members were employees entitled to the protections of Labor
13 Code §§ 1194 and 1197.
14 40. During the relevant time period, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Class
15 Members all wages owed when Defendants did not pay for all hours worked, including, but not
16 limited to, hours spent working or remaining under Defendants’ control while off-the-clock,
17 among others.
18 41. During the relevant time period, Defendants failed to pay at least minimum wage
19 to Plaintiff and Class Members for all hours worked pursuant to Labor Code §§ 1194 and 1197.
20 42. Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and Class Members the required minimum
21 wage violates Labor Code §§ 1194 and 1197. Pursuant to these sections, Plaintiff and Class
22 Members are entitled to recover the unpaid balance of their minimum wage compensation as
23 well as interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees.
24 43. Pursuant to Labor Code § 1194.2, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to
25 recover liquidated damages in an amount equal to the wages unlawfully unpaid and the accrued
26 interest thereon.
27 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
28 FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME
-9-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 (Violation of Labor Code §§ 510, 1194, and 1198; Violation of IWC Wage Order § 3)
2 44. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as
3 though fully set forth herein.
4 45. Labor Code § 1198 and the applicable IWC Wage Order provide that it is
5 unlawful to employ persons without compensating them at a rate of pay either one and one-half
6 (1½) or two (2) times the person’s regular rate of pay, depending on the number of hours
7 worked by the person on a daily or weekly basis.
8 46. Specifically, the applicable IWC Wage Orders provide that Defendants are and
9 were required to pay overtime compensation to Plaintiff and Class Members at the rate of one
10 and one-half times (1½) their regular rate of pay when working and for all hours worked in
11 excess of eight (8) hours in a day or more than forty (40) hours in a workweek and for the first
12 eight (8) hours of work on the seventh day of work in a workweek.
13 47. The applicable IWC Wage Orders further provide that Defendants are and were
14 required to pay overtime compensation to Plaintiff and Class Members at a rate of two times
15 their regular rate of pay when working and for all hours worked in excess of twelve (12) hours in
16 a day or in excess of eight (8) hours on the seventh day of work in a workweek.
17 48. California Labor Code § 510 codifies the right to overtime compensation at one
18 and one-half (1½) times the regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a
19 day or forty (40) hours in a week and for the first eight (8) hours worked on the seventh
20 consecutive day of work, and overtime compensation at twice the regular hourly rate for hours
21 worked in excess of twelve (12) hours in a day or in excess of eight (8) hours in a day on the
22 seventh day of work in a workweek.
23 49. Labor Code § 510 and the applicable IWC Wage Orders provide that employment
24 of more than six days in a workweek is only permissible if the employer pays proper overtime
25 compensation as set forth herein.
26 50. Plaintiff and Class Members were employees entitled to the protections of
27 California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1194.
28
-10-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 51. During the relevant time period, Defendants required Plaintiff and Class Members
2 to work in excess of eight (8) hours in a day, forty (40) hours in a week, and/or on a seventh
3 consecutive day of work, entitling them to overtime wages.
4 52. During the relevant time period, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Class
5 Members overtime wages for all overtime hours worked when Defendants failed to pay for time
6 spent working or remaining under Defendants’ control while off-the-clock. To the extent these
7 hours qualify for the payment of overtime wages, Plaintiff and Class Members were not paid
8 proper overtime wages. Further, when Defendants paid overtime wages, they were sometimes
9 miscalculated because, among other reasons, Defendants did not include all non-discretionary
10 pay in the calculation.
11 53. In violation of California law, Defendants knowingly and willfully refused to
12 perform their obligations and compensate Plaintiff and Class Members for all wages earned and
13 all hours worked.
14 54. Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and Class Members the unpaid balance of
15 overtime compensation, as required by California law, violates the provisions of Labor Code §§
16 510 and 1198, and is therefore unlawful.
17 55. Pursuant to Labor Code § 1194, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to
18 recover their unpaid overtime and double time compensation as well as interest, costs, and
19 attorneys’ fees.
20 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
21 FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIODS
22 (Violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512; Violation of IWC Wage Order § 11)
23 56. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as
24 though fully set forth herein.
25 57. Labor Code § 226.7 provides that no employer shall require an employee to work
26 during any meal period mandated by the IWC Wage Orders.
27 58. Section 11 of the applicable IWC Wage Order states, “[n]o employer shall
28 employ any person for a work period of more than five (5) hours without a meal period of not
-11-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 less than 30 minutes, except that when a work period of not more than six (6) hours will
2 complete the day’s work the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of the employer and
3 the employee.”
4 59. Labor Code § 512(a) provides that an employer may not require, cause, or permit
5 an employee to work for a period of more than five (5) hours per day without providing the
6 employee with an uninterrupted meal period of not less than thirty (30) minutes, except that if
7 the total work period per day of the employee is not more than six (6) hours, the meal period may
8 be waived by mutual consent of both the employer and the employee.
9 60. Labor Code § 512(a) also provides that an employer may not employ an employee
10 for a work period of more than ten (10) hours per day without providing the employee with a
11 second meal period of not less than thirty (30) minutes, except that if the total hours worked is no
12 more than twelve (12) hours, the second meal period may be waived by mutual consent of the
13 employer and the employee only if the first meal period was not waived.
14 61. During the relevant time period, Plaintiff and Class Members did not receive
15 compliant meal periods for working more than five (5) and ten (10) hours per day because their
16 meal periods were missed, late, short, interrupted, and/or they were not permitted to take a
17 second meal period.
18 62. Labor Code § 226.7(b) and section 11 of the applicable IWC Wage Order require
19 an employer to pay an employee one (1) additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of
20 compensation for each work day that a compliant meal period is not provided.
21 63. At all relevant times, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members meal
22 period premiums for missed, late, and/or short meal periods pursuant to Labor Code § 226.7(b)
23 and section 11 of the applicable IWC Wage Order.
24 64. As a result of Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and Class Members an
25 additional hour of pay for each day a compliant meal period was not provided, Plaintiff and
26 Class Members suffered and continue to suffer a loss of wages and compensation.
27 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
28 FAILURE TO PERMIT REST BREAKS
-12-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 (Violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7; Violation of IWC Wage Order § 12)
2 65. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as
3 though fully set forth herein.
4 66. Labor Code § 226.7(a) provides that no employer shall require an employee to
5 work during any rest period mandated by the IWC Wage Orders.
6 67. Section 12 of the applicable IWC Wage Order states “[e]very employer shall
7 authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods, which insofar as practicable shall be in
8 the middle of each work period[,]” and the “[a]uthorized rest period time shall be based on the
9 total hours worked daily at the rate of ten (10) minutes net rest time per four (4) hours or major
10 fraction thereof[,]” unless the total daily work time is less than three and one-half (3½) hours.
11 68. During the relevant time period, Plaintiff and Class Members did not receive a ten
12 (10) minute rest period for every four (4) hours or major fraction thereof worked, including
13 working in excess of ten (10) hours in a day, because they were required to work through their
14 rest periods and/or were not authorized to take their rest periods.
15 69. Labor Code § 226.7(b) and section 12 of the applicable IWC Wage Order requires
16 an employer to pay an employee one (1) additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of
17 compensation for each work day that a compliant rest period is not provided.
18 70. At all relevant times, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members rest
19 period premiums for missed, late, and/or interrupted rest periods pursuant to Labor Code §
20 226.7(b) and section 12 of the applicable IWC Wage Order.
21 71. As a result of Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and Class Members an
22 additional hour of pay for each day a compliant rest period was not provided, Plaintiff and Class
23 Members suffered and continue to suffer a loss of wages and compensation.
24 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
25 FAILURE TO REIMBURSE BUSINESS EXPENSES
26 (Violation of Labor Code §§ 2800, 2802)
27 72. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as
28 though fully set forth herein.
-13-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 73. Labor Code § 2800 states that “[a]n employer shall in all cases indemnify his
2 employee for losses caused by the employer’s want of ordinary care.”
3 74. Labor Code § 2802(a) states that “[a]n employer shall indemnify his or her
4 employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct
5 consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of
6 the employer . . . .”
7 75. Labor Code § 2802(b) states that “[a]ll awards made by a court . . . for
8 reimbursement of necessary expenditures under this section shall carry interest at the same rate
9 as judgments in civil actions. Interest shall accrue from the date on which the employee incurred
10 the necessary expenditure or loss.”
11 76. Labor Code § 2802(c) states that “[f]or purposes of this section, the term
12 “necessary expenditures or losses” shall include all reasonable costs, including, but not limited
13 to, attorney’s fees incurred by the employee enforcing the rights granted by this section.”
14 77. During the relevant time period, Plaintiff and Class Members i
Preview
21STCV44450 Assigned for all purposes to: Spring Street Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Daniel Buckley Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 12/07/2021 10:47 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by R. Lozano,Deputy Clerk 1 AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC SAMUEL A. WONG, State Bar No. 217104 2 KASHIF HAQUE, State Bar No. 218672 3 JESSICA L. CAMPBELL, State Bar No. 280626 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 4 Irvine, California 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 5 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff Joseph Paul James Sciberras, individually, 7 and on behalf of all others similarly situated. 8 9 10 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 13 14 JOSEPH PAUL JAMES SCIBERRAS, Case No. individually and on behalf of all others 15 similarly situated, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR: 16 Plaintiffs, 1. Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; 17 v. 2. Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; 18 CALIFORNIA FINE WINE & SPIRITS 3. Failure to Provide Meal Periods; 19 LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, 4. Failure to Permit Rest Breaks; 20 Defendants. 5. Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; 21 6. Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage 22 Statements; 23 7. Failure to Pay All Wages Due Upon 24 Separation of Employment; and 25 8. Violation of Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. 26 27 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 Plaintiff Joseph Paul James Sciberras, individually and on behalf of others similarly 2 situated, alleges as follows: 3 NATURE OF ACTION AND INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT 4 1. Plaintiff Joseph Paul James Sciberras (“Plaintiff”) brings this putative class action 5 against defendants California Fine Wine & Spirits LLC, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive 6 (collectively, “Defendants”), on Plaintiff’s own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of 7 California citizens who are and were employed by Defendants as non-exempt employees 8 throughout California. 9 2. Defendants are in the retail industry. 10 3. Through this action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a systematic 11 pattern of wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare 12 Commission (“IWC”) Wage Orders, all of which contribute to Defendants’ deliberate unfair 13 competition. 14 4. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and thereon alleges, that Defendants have 15 increased their profits by violating state wage and hour laws by, among other things: 16 (a) failing to pay all wages (including minimum wages and overtime wages); 17 (b) failing to provide lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; 18 (c) failing to authorize or permit lawful rest breaks or provide compensation 19 in lieu thereof; 20 (d) failing to reimburse necessary business-related costs; 21 (e) failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and 22 (f) failing to pay all wages due upon separation of employment. 23 5. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief against Defendants on behalf of himself and all 24 others similarly situated in California to recover, among other things, unpaid wages, un- 25 reimbursed business expenses, benefits, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, and 26 penalties pursuant to Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 227.3, 246, 510, 512, 27 1182.12, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1198, 2800, 2802, and Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5. 28 -1- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2 6. This is a class action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 382. The 3 monetary damages and restitution sought by Plaintiff exceed the minimal jurisdictional limits of 4 the Superior Court and will be established according to proof at trial. 5 7. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the California 6 Constitution, Article VI, § 10, which grants the Superior Court original jurisdiction in all causes 7 except those given by statutes to other courts. The statutes under which this action is brought do 8 not specify any other basis for jurisdiction. 9 8. This Court has jurisdiction over all Defendants because, upon information and 10 belief, they are citizens of California, have sufficient minimum contacts in California, or 11 otherwise intentionally avail themselves of the California market so as to render the exercise of 12 jurisdiction over them by the California courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play and 13 substantial justice. 14 9. Venue is proper in this Court because, upon information and belief, Defendants 15 reside, transact business, or have offices in this county, and the acts and omissions alleged herein 16 took place in this county. 17 THE PARTIES 18 10. Plaintiff is a resident of California and worked for Defendants during the relevant 19 time periods as alleged herein. 20 11. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that at all times hereinafter 21 mentioned, Defendants were and are subject to the Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders as 22 employers, whose employees were and are engaged throughout this county and the State of 23 California. 24 12. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names or capacities of the defendants sued herein 25 under the fictitious names DOES 1 through 20, but will seek leave of this Court to amend this 26 Complaint and serve such fictitiously named defendants once their names and capacities become 27 known. 28 -2- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DOES 1 through 20 2 are or were the partners, agents, owners, shareholders, managers, or employees of Defendants at 3 all relevant times. 4 14. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and 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 6 scheme, business plan, or policy in all respects pertinent hereto, and the acts of each defendant 7 are legally attributable to the other defendant. Furthermore, defendants in all respects acted as the 8 employer and/or joint employer of Plaintiff and the class members. 9 15. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each and all of the acts 10 and omissions alleged herein were performed by, or are attributable to, Defendants and/or DOES 11 1 through 20, acting as the agent or alter ego for the other, with legal authority to act on the 12 other’s behalf. The acts of any and all Defendants were in accordance with, and represent, the 13 official policy of Defendants. 14 16. At all relevant times, Defendants, and each of them, acted within the scope of 15 such agency or employment, or ratified each and every act or omission complained of herein. At 16 all relevant times, Defendants, and each of them, aided and abetted the acts and omissions of 17 each and all the other Defendants in proximately causing the damages herein alleged. 18 17. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of said 19 Defendants is in some manner intentionally, negligently, or otherwise responsible for the acts, 20 omissions, occurrences, and transactions alleged herein. 21 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 22 18. Plaintiff brings this action under Code of Civil Procedure § 382 on Plaintiff’s own 23 behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated who were affected by Defendants’ Labor 24 Code, Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, and IWC Wage Order violations. 25 19. All claims alleged herein arise under California law for which Plaintiff seeks 26 relief authorized by California law. 27 20. Plaintiff’s proposed class consists of and is defined as follows: 28 -3- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 Class 2 All California citizens currently or formerly employed by Defendants as non- 3 exempt employees in the State of California at any time between June 12, 20171 4 and the date of class certification (“Class”). 5 21. Plaintiff also seeks to certify the following subclasses of employees: 6 Waiting Time Subclass 7 All members of the Class who separated their employment with Defendant at any 8 time between June 12, 2018 and the date of class certification (“Waiting Time 9 Subclass”). 10 22. Plaintiff reserves the right to modify or re-define the Class, establish additional 11 subclasses, or modify or re-define any class or subclass definition as appropriate based on 12 investigation, discovery, and specific theories of liability. 13 23. Members of the Class and the Waiting Time Subclass described above will be 14 collectively referred to as “Class Members.” 15 24. There are common questions of law and fact as to the Class Members that 16 predominate over any questions affecting only individual members including, but not limited to, 17 the following: 18 (a) Whether Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members all wages 19 (including minimum wages and overtime wages) for all hours worked by 20 Plaintiff and Class Members. 21 (b) Whether Defendants required Plaintiff and Class Members to work over 22 eight (8) hours per day, over twelve (12) hours per day, and/or over forty 23 (40) hours per week and failed to pay them proper overtime compensation 24 for all overtime hours worked. 25 26 27 1 The statute of limitations for this matter was tolled between April 6, 2020 and October 1, 2020 pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, Appendix I, Emergency Rule No. 9. 28 -4- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 (c) Whether Defendants deprived Plaintiff and Class Members of timely meal 2 periods or required Plaintiff and Class Members to work through meal 3 periods without legal compensation. 4 (d) Whether Defendants deprived Plaintiff and Class Members of rest breaks 5 or required Plaintiff and Class Members to work through rest breaks. 6 (e) Whether Defendants failed to reimburse Plaintiff and Class Members for 7 necessary business-related costs expended for the benefit of Defendants. 8 (f) Whether Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and Class Members 9 accurate itemized wage statements. 10 (g) Whether Defendants failed to timely pay the Waiting Time Subclass all 11 wages due upon termination or within seventy-two (72) hours of 12 resignation. 13 (h) Whether Defendants’ conduct was willful or reckless. 14 (i) Whether Defendants engaged in unfair business practices in violation of 15 Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. 16 25. There is a well-defined community of interest in this litigation and the proposed 17 Class and subclasses are readily ascertainable: 18 (a) Numerosity: The Class Members are so numerous that joinder of all 19 members is impractical. Although the members of the Class are unknown to Plaintiff at this time, 20 on information and belief, the Class is estimated to be greater than fifty (50) individuals. The 21 identities of the Class Members are readily ascertainable by inspection of Defendants’ 22 employment and payroll records. 23 (b) Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims (or defenses, if any) are typical of the claims 24 (or defenses, if any) of the Class Members because Defendants’ failure to comply with the 25 provisions of California’s wage and hour laws entitled each Class Member to similar pay, 26 benefits, and other relief. The injuries sustained by Plaintiff are also typical of the injuries 27 sustained by the Class Members, because they arise out of and are caused by Defendants’ 28 common course of conduct as alleged herein. -5- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 (c) Adequacy: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the 2 interests of all Class Members because itis in Plaintiff’s best interest to prosecute the claims 3 alleged herein to obtain full compensation and penalties due. Plaintiff’s attorneys, as proposed 4 class counsel, are competent and experienced in litigating large employment class actions and 5 versed in the rules governing class action discovery, certification, and settlement. Plaintiff has 6 incurred and, throughout the duration of this action, will continue to incur attorneys’ fees and 7 costs that have been and will be necessarily expended for the prosecution of this action for the 8 substantial benefit of the Class Members. 9 (d) Superiority: The nature of this action makes use of class action 10 adjudication superior to other methods. A class action will achieve economies of time, effort, and 11 expense as compared with separate lawsuits and will avoid inconsistent outcomes because the 12 same issues can be adjudicated in the same manner for the entire Class and Waiting Time 13 Subclass at the same time. If appropriate, this Court can, and is empowered to, fashion methods 14 to efficiently manage this case as a class action. 15 (e) Public Policy Considerations: Employers in the State of California violate 16 employment and labor laws every day. Current employees are often afraid to assert their rights 17 out of fear of direct or indirect retaliation. Former employees are fearful of bringing actions 18 because they believe their former employers might damage their future endeavors through 19 negative references and/or other means. Class actions provide class members who are not named 20 in the complaint with a type of anonymity that allows for the vindication of their rights while 21 affording them privacy protections. 22 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 23 26. At all relevant times mentioned herein, Defendants employed Plaintiff and other 24 California residents as non-exempt employees throughout California at Defendants’ California 25 business location(s). 26 27. Defendants continue to employ non-exempt employees within California. 27 28. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein 28 mentioned, Defendants were advised by skilled lawyers, employees, and other professionals who -6- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 were knowledgeable about California’s wage and hour laws, employment and personnel 2 practices, and the requirements of California law. 3 29. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or 4 should have known that Plaintiff and Class Members were entitled to receive wages for all time 5 worked (including minimum wages and overtime wages) and that they were not receiving all 6 wages earned for work that was required to be performed. In violation of the Labor Code and 7 IWC Wage Orders, Plaintiff and Class Members were not paid all wages (including minimum 8 wages and overtime wages) for all hours worked, including, but not limited to requiring Plaintiff 9 and Class Members to work or remain under Defendants’ control off-the-clock, and failing to 10 compensate Plaintiff and Class Members for these hours, and failing to include bonuses and 11 incentive pay in the overtime rate. 12 30. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or 13 should have known that Plaintiff and Class Members were entitled to receive all required meal 14 periods or payment of one (1) additional hour of pay at Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ regular 15 rate of pay when they did not receive a timely, uninterrupted meal period. In violation of the 16 Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, Plaintiff and Class Members did not receive all meal periods 17 or payment of one (1) additional hour of pay at Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ regular rate of 18 pay when they did not receive a timely, uninterrupted meal period. 19 31. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or 20 should have known that Plaintiff and Class Members were entitled to receive all rest breaks or 21 payment of one (1) additional hour of pay at Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ regular rate of pay 22 when a rest break was late, missed, or interrupted. In violation of the Labor Code and IWC Wage 23 Orders, Plaintiff and Class Members did not receive all rest breaks or payment of one (1) 24 additional hour of pay at Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ regular rate of pay when a rest break 25 was missed, late, or interrupted. 26 32. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or 27 should have known that Plaintiff and Class Members were entitled to reimbursement and/or 28 indemnification for all necessary business expenditures or losses as a direct consequence of the -7- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 discharge of their duties, or of their obedience to the directions of Defendants. In violation of the 2 Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, Plaintiff and Class Members incurred necessary business 3 expenses or losses, but were not reimbursed nor indemnified of such expenses or losses that were 4 incurred as a direct consequence of the discharge of their duties, or of their obedience to the 5 directions of Defendants. 6 33. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or 7 should have known that Plaintiff and Class Members were entitled to receive itemized wage 8 statements that accurately showed the following information pursuant to the Labor Code: (1) 9 gross wages earned; (2) total hours worked by the employee; (3) the number of piece-rate units 10 earned and any applicable piece rate if the employee is paid on a piece-rate basis; (4) all 11 deductions, provided that all deductions made on written orders of the employee may be 12 aggregated and shown as one item; (5) net wages earned; (6) the inclusive dates of the period for 13 which the employee is paid; (7) the name of the employee and only the last four digits of his or 14 her social security number or an employee identification number other than a social security 15 number; (8) the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer; and (9) all applicable 16 hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at 17 each hourly rate by the employee. In violation of the Labor Code, Plaintiff and Class Members 18 were not provided with accurate itemized wage statements. 19 34. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or 20 should have known that the Waiting Time Subclass was entitled to timely payment of wages due 21 upon separation of employment. In violation of the Labor Code, the Waiting Time Subclass did 22 not receive payment of all wages within the permissible time periods. 23 35. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or 24 should have known they had a duty to compensate Plaintiff and Class Members, and Defendants 25 had the financial ability to pay such compensation but willfully, knowingly, and intentionally 26 failed to do so in order to increase Defendants’ profits. 27 36. Therefore, Plaintiff brings this lawsuit seeking monetary and injunctive relief 28 against Defendants on Plaintiff’s own behalf and on behalf of all Class Members to recover, -8- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 among other things, unpaid wages (including minimum wages and overtime wages), unpaid meal 2 period premium payments, unpaid rest period premium payments, unreimbursed business 3 expenditures, interest, attorneys’ fees, penalties, costs, and expenses. 4 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 5 FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES 6 (Violation of Labor Code §§ 1182.12, 1194, 1194.2, 1197; Violation of IWC Wage Order §3-4) 7 37. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as 8 though fully set forth herein. 9 38. Labor Code §§ 1194 and 1197 provide that the minimum wage for employees 10 fixed by the IWC is the minimum wage to be paid to employees, and the payment of a lesser 11 wage than the minimum so fixed is unlawful. 12 39. Plaintiff and Class Members were employees entitled to the protections of Labor 13 Code §§ 1194 and 1197. 14 40. During the relevant time period, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Class 15 Members all wages owed when Defendants did not pay for all hours worked, including, but not 16 limited to, hours spent working or remaining under Defendants’ control while off-the-clock, 17 among others. 18 41. During the relevant time period, Defendants failed to pay at least minimum wage 19 to Plaintiff and Class Members for all hours worked pursuant to Labor Code §§ 1194 and 1197. 20 42. Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and Class Members the required minimum 21 wage violates Labor Code §§ 1194 and 1197. Pursuant to these sections, Plaintiff and Class 22 Members are entitled to recover the unpaid balance of their minimum wage compensation as 23 well as interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. 24 43. Pursuant to Labor Code § 1194.2, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to 25 recover liquidated damages in an amount equal to the wages unlawfully unpaid and the accrued 26 interest thereon. 27 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 28 FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME -9- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 (Violation of Labor Code §§ 510, 1194, and 1198; Violation of IWC Wage Order § 3) 2 44. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as 3 though fully set forth herein. 4 45. Labor Code § 1198 and the applicable IWC Wage Order provide that it is 5 unlawful to employ persons without compensating them at a rate of pay either one and one-half 6 (1½) or two (2) times the person’s regular rate of pay, depending on the number of hours 7 worked by the person on a daily or weekly basis. 8 46. Specifically, the applicable IWC Wage Orders provide that Defendants are and 9 were required to pay overtime compensation to Plaintiff and Class Members at the rate of one 10 and one-half times (1½) their regular rate of pay when working and for all hours worked in 11 excess of eight (8) hours in a day or more than forty (40) hours in a workweek and for the first 12 eight (8) hours of work on the seventh day of work in a workweek. 13 47. The applicable IWC Wage Orders further provide that Defendants are and were 14 required to pay overtime compensation to Plaintiff and Class Members at a rate of two times 15 their regular rate of pay when working and for all hours worked in excess of twelve (12) hours in 16 a day or in excess of eight (8) hours on the seventh day of work in a workweek. 17 48. California Labor Code § 510 codifies the right to overtime compensation at one 18 and one-half (1½) times the regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a 19 day or forty (40) hours in a week and for the first eight (8) hours worked on the seventh 20 consecutive day of work, and overtime compensation at twice the regular hourly rate for hours 21 worked in excess of twelve (12) hours in a day or in excess of eight (8) hours in a day on the 22 seventh day of work in a workweek. 23 49. Labor Code § 510 and the applicable IWC Wage Orders provide that employment 24 of more than six days in a workweek is only permissible if the employer pays proper overtime 25 compensation as set forth herein. 26 50. Plaintiff and Class Members were employees entitled to the protections of 27 California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1194. 28 -10- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 51. During the relevant time period, Defendants required Plaintiff and Class Members 2 to work in excess of eight (8) hours in a day, forty (40) hours in a week, and/or on a seventh 3 consecutive day of work, entitling them to overtime wages. 4 52. During the relevant time period, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Class 5 Members overtime wages for all overtime hours worked when Defendants failed to pay for time 6 spent working or remaining under Defendants’ control while off-the-clock. To the extent these 7 hours qualify for the payment of overtime wages, Plaintiff and Class Members were not paid 8 proper overtime wages. Further, when Defendants paid overtime wages, they were sometimes 9 miscalculated because, among other reasons, Defendants did not include all non-discretionary 10 pay in the calculation. 11 53. In violation of California law, Defendants knowingly and willfully refused to 12 perform their obligations and compensate Plaintiff and Class Members for all wages earned and 13 all hours worked. 14 54. Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and Class Members the unpaid balance of 15 overtime compensation, as required by California law, violates the provisions of Labor Code §§ 16 510 and 1198, and is therefore unlawful. 17 55. Pursuant to Labor Code § 1194, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to 18 recover their unpaid overtime and double time compensation as well as interest, costs, and 19 attorneys’ fees. 20 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 21 FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIODS 22 (Violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512; Violation of IWC Wage Order § 11) 23 56. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as 24 though fully set forth herein. 25 57. Labor Code § 226.7 provides that no employer shall require an employee to work 26 during any meal period mandated by the IWC Wage Orders. 27 58. Section 11 of the applicable IWC Wage Order states, “[n]o employer shall 28 employ any person for a work period of more than five (5) hours without a meal period of not -11- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 less than 30 minutes, except that when a work period of not more than six (6) hours will 2 complete the day’s work the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of the employer and 3 the employee.” 4 59. Labor Code § 512(a) provides that an employer may not require, cause, or permit 5 an employee to work for a period of more than five (5) hours per day without providing the 6 employee with an uninterrupted meal period of not less than thirty (30) minutes, except that if 7 the total work period per day of the employee is not more than six (6) hours, the meal period may 8 be waived by mutual consent of both the employer and the employee. 9 60. Labor Code § 512(a) also provides that an employer may not employ an employee 10 for a work period of more than ten (10) hours per day without providing the employee with a 11 second meal period of not less than thirty (30) minutes, except that if the total hours worked is no 12 more than twelve (12) hours, the second meal period may be waived by mutual consent of the 13 employer and the employee only if the first meal period was not waived. 14 61. During the relevant time period, Plaintiff and Class Members did not receive 15 compliant meal periods for working more than five (5) and ten (10) hours per day because their 16 meal periods were missed, late, short, interrupted, and/or they were not permitted to take a 17 second meal period. 18 62. Labor Code § 226.7(b) and section 11 of the applicable IWC Wage Order require 19 an employer to pay an employee one (1) additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of 20 compensation for each work day that a compliant meal period is not provided. 21 63. At all relevant times, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members meal 22 period premiums for missed, late, and/or short meal periods pursuant to Labor Code § 226.7(b) 23 and section 11 of the applicable IWC Wage Order. 24 64. As a result of Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and Class Members an 25 additional hour of pay for each day a compliant meal period was not provided, Plaintiff and 26 Class Members suffered and continue to suffer a loss of wages and compensation. 27 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 28 FAILURE TO PERMIT REST BREAKS -12- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 (Violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7; Violation of IWC Wage Order § 12) 2 65. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as 3 though fully set forth herein. 4 66. Labor Code § 226.7(a) provides that no employer shall require an employee to 5 work during any rest period mandated by the IWC Wage Orders. 6 67. Section 12 of the applicable IWC Wage Order states “[e]very employer shall 7 authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods, which insofar as practicable shall be in 8 the middle of each work period[,]” and the “[a]uthorized rest period time shall be based on the 9 total hours worked daily at the rate of ten (10) minutes net rest time per four (4) hours or major 10 fraction thereof[,]” unless the total daily work time is less than three and one-half (3½) hours. 11 68. During the relevant time period, Plaintiff and Class Members did not receive a ten 12 (10) minute rest period for every four (4) hours or major fraction thereof worked, including 13 working in excess of ten (10) hours in a day, because they were required to work through their 14 rest periods and/or were not authorized to take their rest periods. 15 69. Labor Code § 226.7(b) and section 12 of the applicable IWC Wage Order requires 16 an employer to pay an employee one (1) additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of 17 compensation for each work day that a compliant rest period is not provided. 18 70. At all relevant times, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members rest 19 period premiums for missed, late, and/or interrupted rest periods pursuant to Labor Code § 20 226.7(b) and section 12 of the applicable IWC Wage Order. 21 71. As a result of Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and Class Members an 22 additional hour of pay for each day a compliant rest period was not provided, Plaintiff and Class 23 Members suffered and continue to suffer a loss of wages and compensation. 24 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 25 FAILURE TO REIMBURSE BUSINESS EXPENSES 26 (Violation of Labor Code §§ 2800, 2802) 27 72. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as 28 though fully set forth herein. -13- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 73. Labor Code § 2800 states that “[a]n employer shall in all cases indemnify his 2 employee for losses caused by the employer’s want of ordinary care.” 3 74. Labor Code § 2802(a) states that “[a]n employer shall indemnify his or her 4 employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct 5 consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of 6 the employer . . . .” 7 75. Labor Code § 2802(b) states that “[a]ll awards made by a court . . . for 8 reimbursement of necessary expenditures under this section shall carry interest at the same rate 9 as judgments in civil actions. Interest shall accrue from the date on which the employee incurred 10 the necessary expenditure or loss.” 11 76. Labor Code § 2802(c) states that “[f]or purposes of this section, the term 12 “necessary expenditures or losses” shall include all reasonable costs, including, but not limited 13 to, attorney’s fees incurred by the employee enforcing the rights granted by this section.” 14 77. During the relevant time period, Plaintiff and Class Members i