Preview
JCL LAW FIRM, APC
1 Jean-Claude Lapuyade (State Bar #248676)
2 Sydney Castillo Johnson (State Bar #343881)
Monnett De La Torre (State Bar #272884)
3 5440 Morehouse Drive, Suite 3600
San Diego, CA 92121
4 Telephone: (619) 599-8292
Facsimile: (619) 599-8291
5 jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com
6 scastillo@jcl-lawfirm.com
mdelatorre@jcl-lawfirm.com
7
ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
8 Shani O. Zakay (State Bar #277924)
5440 Morehouse Drive, Suite 5400
9 San Diego, CA 92121
10 Telephone: (619) 255-9047
Facsimile: (858) 404-9203
11 shani@zakaylaw.com
12 Attorneys for PLAINTIFF
13
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
15
CYNTHIA MILLER, an individual, on behalf Case No:
16 of herself, and on behalf of all persons similarly
17 situated, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR:
18 Plaintiffs, 1) UNFAIR COMPETITION IN VIOLATION
v. OF CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §17200 et
19 seq;
GSSI, INC., a California corporation; and 2) FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES IN
20
DOES 1-50, Inclusive, VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE §§
21 1194, 1197 & 1197.1;
Defendants. 3) FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES
22 IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE §§
510, et seq;
23 4) FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED
MEAL PERIODS IN VIOLATION OF
24
CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 226.7 & 512 AND
25 THE APPLICABLE IWC WAGE ORDER;
5) FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED
26 REST PERIODS IN VIOLATION OF CAL.
LAB. CODE §§ 226.7 & 512 AND THE
27 APPLICABLE IWC WAGE ORDER;
28
1
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
6) FAILURE TO REIMBURSE EMPLOYEES
1 FOR REQUIRED EXPENSES IN
2 VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE § 2802;
7) FAILURE TO PROVIDE WAGES WHEN
3 DUE IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB.
CODE §§ 201, 202 AND 203;
4 8) FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE
ITEMIZED STATEMENTS IN
5 VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE § 226.
6
DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
7
8
PLAINTIFF CYNTHIA MILLER (“PLAINTIFF”), an individual, on behalf of herself and
9
all other similarly situated current and former employees, allege on information and belief, except
10
for her own acts and knowledge which are based on personal knowledge, the following:
11
PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS
12
1. Defendant GSSI, INC. (“DEFENDANT” and/or “DEFENDANTS”) is a
13
California corporation that at all relevant times mentioned herein conducted and continues to
14
conduct substantial and regular business throughout California.
15
2. DEFENDANT provides security services throughout the state of California,
16
including the county of Los Angeles, where PLAINTIFF worked.
17
3. PLAINTIFF was employed by DEFENDANT in California from March of 2022
18
to June of 2022 as a non-exempt employee, paid on an hourly basis, and entitled to the legally
19
required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages due for all time
20
worked.
21
4. PLAINTIFF brings this Class Action on behalf of herself and a California class,
22
defined as all persons who are or previously were employed by DEFENDANT in California and
23
classified as non-exempt employees (the “CALIFORNIA CLASS”) at any time during the period
24
beginning four (4) years prior to the filing of this Complaint and ending on the date as determined
25
by the Court (the “CLASS PERIOD”). The amount in controversy for the aggregate claim of the
26
CALIFORNIA CLASS Members is under five million dollars ($5,000,000.00).
27
5. PLAINTIFF brings this Class Action on behalf of herself and a CALIFORNIA
28
CLASS in order to fully compensate the CALIFORNIA CLASS for their losses incurred during
2
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 the CLASS PERIOD caused by DEFENDANT’s uniform policy and practice which failed to
2 lawfully compensate these employees. DEFENDANT’s uniform policy and practice alleged
3 herein was an unlawful, unfair, and deceptive business practice whereby DEFENDANT retained
4 and continues to retain wages due PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA
5 CLASS. PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS seek an injunction
6 enjoining such conduct by DEFENDANT in the future, relief for the named PLAINTIFF and the
7 other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS who have been economically injured by
8 DEFENDANT’s past and current unlawful conduct, and all other appropriate legal and equitable
9 relief.
10 6. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, subsidiary,
11 partnership, associate or otherwise of DEFENDANTS DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are
12 presently unknown to PLAINTIFF who therefore sues these DEFENDANTS by such fictitious
13 names pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 474. PLAINTIFF will seek leave to amend this
14 Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of Does 1 through 50, inclusive, when they are
15 ascertained. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and based upon that information and belief
16 alleges, that the DEFENDANTS named in this Complaint, including DOES 1 through 50,
17 inclusive, are responsible in some manner for one or more of the events and happenings that
18 proximately caused the injuries and damages hereinafter alleged.
19 7. The agents, servants and/or employees of the Defendants and each of them acting
20 on behalf of the Defendants acted within the course and scope of his, her or its authority as the
21 agent, servant and/or employee of the Defendants, and personally participated in the conduct
22 alleged herein on behalf of the Defendants with respect to the conduct alleged herein.
23 Consequently, the acts of each Defendant are legally attributable to the other Defendants and all
24 Defendants are jointly and severally liable to PLAINTIFF and the other members of the
25 CALIFORNIA CLASS, for the loss sustained as a proximate result of the conduct of the
26 Defendants’ agents, servants and/or employees.
27 8. DEFENDANTS were PLAINTIFF’S employers or persons acting on behalf of the
28 PLAINTIFF’S employer, within the meaning of California Labor Code § 558, who violated or
3
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 caused to be violated, a section of Part 2, Chapter 1 of the California Labor Code or any provision
2 regulating hours and days of work in any order of the Industrial Welfare Commission and, as
3 such, are subject to civil penalties for each underpaid employee, as set forth in Labor Code § 558,
4 at all relevant times.
5 9. DEFENDANTS were PLAINTIFF’S employers or persons acting on behalf of
6 PLAINTIFF’S employer either individually or as an officer, agent, or employee of another person,
7 within the meaning of California Labor Code § 1197.1, who paid or caused to be paid to any
8 employee a wage less than the minimum fixed by California state law, and as such, are subject to
9 civil penalties for each underpaid employee.
10 10. DEFENDANT’s uniform policies and practices alleged herein were unlawful,
11 unfair, and deceptive business practices whereby DEFENDANT retained and continue to retain
12 wages due to PLAINTIFF and other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS.
13 11. PLAINTIFF and other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS seek an injunction
14 enjoining such conduct by DEFENDANT in the future, relief for the named PLAINTIFF and
15 other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS who has been economically injured by
16 DEFENDANT’s past and current unlawful conduct, and all other appropriate legal and equitable
17 relief.
18 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
19 12. This Court has jurisdiction over this Action pursuant to California Code of Civil
20 Procedure, Section 410.10 and California Business & Professions Code, Section 17203. This
21 action is brought as a Class Action on behalf of PLAINTIFF and similarly situated employees of
22 DEFENDANT pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382.
23 13. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure,
24 Sections 395 and 395.5, because DEFENDANT operates in locations across California, employs
25 the CALIFORNIA CLASS across California, including in this County, and committed the
26 wrongful conduct herein alleged in this County against the CALIFORNIA CLASS.
27
28 ///
4
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 THE CONDUCT
2 14. In violation of the applicable sections of the California Labor Code and the
3 requirements of the Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order, DEFENDANT as a
4 matter of company policy, practice, and procedure, intentionally, knowingly, and systematically
5 failed to provide legally compliant meal and rest periods, failed to accurately compensate
6 PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS for missed meal and rest
7 periods, failed to pay PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS for all
8 time worked, failed compensate PLAINTIFF for off-the-clock work, failed to pay PLAINTIFF
9 and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS overtime at the correct regular rate of pay,
10 failed to compensate PLAINTIFF and other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS meal rest
11 premiums at the regular rate, failed to reimburse PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS
12 Members for business expenses, and failed to issue to PLAINTIFF and the members of the
13 CALIFORNIA CLASS with accurate itemized wage statements showing, among other things, all
14 applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay periods and the corresponding amount of time
15 worked at each hourly rate. DEFENDANT’s uniform policies and practices are intended to
16 purposefully avoid the accurate and full payment for all time worked as required by California
17 law which allows DEFENDANT to illegally profit and gain an unfair advantage over competitors
18 who comply with the law. To the extent equitable tolling operates to toll claims by the
19 CALIFORNIA CLASS against DEFENDANT, the CLASS PERIOD should be adjusted
20 accordingly.
21 A. Meal Period Violations
22 15. Pursuant to the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, DEFENDANT was
23 required to pay PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for all their time worked,
24 meaning the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer, including
25 all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work. From time to time during the CLASS
26 PERIOD, DEFENDANT required PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members to work
27 without paying them for all the time they were under DEFENDANT’s control. Specifically,
28 DEFENDANT required PLAINTIFF to work while clocked out during what was supposed to be
5
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 PLAINTIFF’s off-duty meal break. Indeed, there were many days where PLAINTIFF did not
2 even receive a partial lunch. As a result, the PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS
3 Members forfeited minimum wage and overtime compensation by regularly working without their
4 time being accurately recorded and without compensation at the applicable minimum wage and
5 overtime rates. DEFENDANT’s uniform policy and practice not to pay PLAINTIFF and other
6 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for all time worked is evidenced by DEFENDANT’s business
7 records.
8 16. From time to time during the CLASS PERIOD, as a result of their rigorous work
9 schedules and DEFENDANT’s inadequate staffing practices, PLAINTIFF and other
10 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members are from time to time unable to take thirty (30) minute off duty
11 meal breaks and were not fully relieved of duty for their meal periods. PLAINTIFF and other
12 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members are required to perform work as ordered by DEFENDANT for
13 more than five (5) hours during some shifts without receiving a meal break. Further,
14 DEFENDANT fails to provide PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members with a second
15 off-duty meal period for some workdays in which these employees are required by DEFENDANT
16 to work ten (10) hours of work. The nature of the work performed by PLAINTIFF and other
17 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members does not qualify for the limited and narrowly construed “on-
18 duty” meal period exception. When they were provided with meal periods, PLAINTIFF and other
19 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were, from time to time, required to remain on premises, on
20 duty and on call. Further, from time to time, DEFENDANT required PLAINTIFF and other
21 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members to maintain cordless communication devices in order to receive
22 and/or respond to work-related communications during their off-duty meal periods.
23 DEFENDANT’s failure to provide PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA CLASS Members with
24 legally required meal breaks is evidenced by DEFENDANT’s business records. PLAINTIFF and
25 other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS therefore forfeit meal breaks without additional
26 compensation and in accordance with DEFENDANT’s strict corporate policy and practice.
27
28
///
6
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 B. Rest Period Violations
2 17. From time to time during the CLASS PERIOD, PLAINTIFF and other
3 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were also required to work in excess of four (4) hours without
4 being provided ten (10) minute rest periods as a result of their rigorous work requirements and
5 DEFENDANT’s inadequate staffing. Further, for the same reasons, these employees were denied
6 their first rest periods of at least ten (10) minutes for some shifts worked of at least two (2) to four
7 (4) hours from time to time, a first and second rest period of at least ten (10) minutes for some
8 shifts worked of between six (6) and eight (8) hours from time to time, and a first, second and
9 third rest period of at least ten (10) minutes for some shifts worked of ten (10) hours or more from
10 time to time. When they were provided with rest breaks, PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA
11 CLASS Members were, from time to time, required to remain on premises, on duty and/or on call.
12 Further, from time to time, DEFENDANT required PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA
13 CLASS Members to maintain cordless communication devices in order to receive and/or respond
14 to work-related communications during their off-duty rest periods. PLAINTIFF and other
15 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were also not provided with one-hour wages in lieu thereof. As
16 a result of their rigorous work schedules and DEFENDANT’s inadequate staffing, PLAINTIFF
17 and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were from time to time denied their proper rest
18 periods by DEFENDANT and DEFENDANT’s managers.
19 C. Unreimbursed Business Expenses
20 18. DEFENDANT as a matter of corporate policy, practice, and procedure,
21 intentionally, knowingly, and systematically failed to reimburse and indemnify the PLAINTIFF
22 and the other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for required business expenses incurred by the
23 PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members in direct consequence of discharging
24 their duties on behalf of DEFENDANT. Under California Labor Code Section 2802, employers
25 are required to indemnify employees for all expenses incurred in the course and scope of their
26 employment. Cal. Lab. Code § 2802 expressly states that "an employer shall indemnify his or her
27 employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence
28 of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of the employer,
7
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 even though unlawful, unless the employee, at the time of obeying the directions, believed them
2 to be unlawful."
3 19. In the course of their employment, DEFENDANT required PLAINTIFF and other
4 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members to use their personal cellular phones as a result of and in
5 furtherance of their job duties, including but not limited to receiving and/or responding to work-
6 related communications and perform work-related duties. Further, DEFENDANT from time to
7 time also required PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members to purchase uniforms
8 and incur personal expenses for the maintenance of said uniforms as a result of and in furtherance
9 of their job duties. However, DEFENDANT unlawfully failed to reimburse PLAINTIFF and
10 other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for the use of their personal cellular phones and for
11 personal expenses incurred for the purchase and maintenance of uniforms. As a result, in the
12 course of their employment with DEFENDANT, the PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA
13 CLASS Members incurred unreimbursed business expenses that included, but were not limited
14 to, costs related to the use of their personal cellular phones and for personal expenses incurred for
15 the purchase of and maintenance of uniforms, all on behalf of and for the benefit of
16 DEFENDANT.
17 D. Wage Statement Violations
18 20. California Labor Code Section 226 required an employer to furnish its employees
19 and accurate itemized wage statement in writing showing (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours
20 worked, (3) the number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece-rate, (4) all deductions,
21 (5) net wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the
22 name of the employee and only the last four digits of the employee’s social security number or an
23 employee identification number other than a social security number, (8) the name and address of
24 the legal entity that is the employer, and (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay
25 period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee.
26 21. From time to time during the CLASS PERIOD, when PLAINTIFF and other
27 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members missed meal and rest breaks, or were paid inaccurately for
28 missed meal and rest period premiums, or were not paid for all hours worked, DEFENDANT also
8
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 failed to provide PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members with complete and
2 accurate wage statements which failed to show, among other things, all deductions, the total hours
3 worked and all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding
4 amount of time worked at each hourly rate, correct rates of pay for penalty payments or missed
5 meal and rest periods.
6 22. In addition to the foregoing, DEFENDANT, from time to time, failed to provide
7 PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA CLASS Members with wage statements that comply with
8 Cal. Lab. Code § 226.
9 23. As a result, DEFENDANT issued PLAINTIFF and other members of the
10 CALIFORNIA CLASS with wage statements that violate Cal. Lab. Code § 226. Further,
11 DEFENDANT’s violations are knowing and intentional, were not isolated due to an unintentional
12 payroll error due to clerical or inadvertent mistake.
13 E. Off-the-Clock Work Resulting in Minimum Wage and Overtime Violations
14 24. During the CLASS PERIOD, from time-to-time DEFENDANT failed and
15 continues to fail to accurately pay PLAINTIFF and other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS
16 for all hours worked.
17 25. During the CLASS PERIOD, from time-to-time DEFENDANT required
18 PLAINTIFF and other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS to perform pre-shift or post-shift
19 work. This resulted in PLAINTIFF and other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS to have to
20 work while off-the-clock.
21 26. DEFENDANT directed and directly benefited from the undercompensated off-the-
22 clock work performed by PLAINTIFF and the other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members.
23 27. DEFENDANT controlled the work schedules, duties, and protocols, applications,
24 assignments, and employment conditions of PLAINTIFF and the other members of the
25 CALIFORNIA CLASS.
26 28. DEFENDANT was able to track the amount of time PLAINTIFF and the other
27 members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS spent working; however, DEFENDANT failed to
28
9
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 document, track, or pay PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS all
2 wages earned and owed for all the work they performed.
3 29. PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS were non-
4 exempt employees, subject to the requirements of the California Labor Code.
5 30. DEFENDANT’s policies and practices deprived PLAINTIFF and the other
6 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members of all minimum regular, overtime, and double time wages owed
7 for the off-the-clock work activities. Because PLAINTIFF and the other members of the
8 CALIFORNIA CLASS typically worked over forty (40) hours in a workweek, and more than
9 eight (8) hours per day, DEFENDANT’s policies and practices also deprived them of overtime
10 pay.
11 31. DEFENDANT knew or should have known that PLAINTIFF and the other
12 members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS off-the-clock work was compensable under the law.
13 32. As a result, PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS
14 forfeited wages due to them for all hours worked at DEFENDANT’s direction, control, and
15 benefit for the time spent working while off-the-clock. DEFENDANT’s uniform policy and
16 practice to not pay PLAINTIFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS wages for all
17 hours worked in accordance with applicable law is evidenced by DEFENDANT’s business
18 records.
19 F. Regular Rate Violation – Overtime, Double Time, Meal and Rest Period Premiums,
20 and Redeemed Sick Pay
21 33. From time to time during the CLASS PERIOD, DEFENDANT failed and
22 continues to fail to accurately calculate and pay PLAINTIFF and the other CALIFORNIA CLASS
23 Members for their overtime and double time hours worked, meal and rest period premiums, and
24 redeemed sick pay. As a result, PLAINTIFF and the other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members
25 forfeited wages due to them for working overtime without compensation at the correct overtime
26 and double time rates, meal and rest period premiums, and redeemed sick pay rates.
27 DEFENDANT’s uniform policy and practice not to pay the CALIFORNIA CLASS Members at
28
10
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 the correct rate for all overtime and double time worked, meal and rest period premiums, and sick
2 pay in accordance with applicable law is evidenced by DEFENDANT’s business records.
3 34. State law provides that employees must be paid overtime at one-and-one-half times
4 their “regular rate of pay.” PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were
5 compensated at an hourly rate plus incentive pay that was tied to specific elements of an
6 employee’s performance.
7 35. The second component of PLAINTIFF’S and other CALIFORNIA CLASS
8 Members’ compensation was DEFENDANTS’ non-discretionary incentive program that paid
9 PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members incentive wages based on their
10 performance for DEFENDANTS. The non-discretionary bonus program provided all employees
11 paid on an hourly basis with bonus compensation when the employees met the various
12 performance goals set by DEFENDANTS.
13 36. However, from time to time, when calculating the regular rate of pay in those pay
14 periods where PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members worked overtime, double
15 time, paid meal and rest period premium payments, and/or redeemed sick pay, and earned non-
16 discretionary bonuses, DEFENDANTS failed to accurately include the non-discretionary bonus
17 compensation as part of the employee’s “regular rate of pay” and/or calculated all hours worked
18 rather than just all non-overtime hours worked. Management and supervisors described the
19 incentive/bonus program to potential and new employees as part of the compensation package.
20 As a matter of law, the incentive compensation received by PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA
21 CLASS Members must be included in the “regular rate of pay.” The failure to do so has resulted
22 in a systematic underpayment of overtime and double time compensation, meal and rest period
23 premium payments, and redeemed sick pay to PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS
24 Members by DEFENDANTS. Specifically, California Labor Code Section 246 mandates that
25 paid sick time for non-exempt employees shall be calculated in the same manner as the regular
26 rate of pay for the workweek in which the non-exempt employee uses paid sick time, whether or
27 not the employee actually works overtime in that workweek. DEFENDANTS’ conduct, as
28 articulated herein, by failing to include the incentive compensation as part of the “regular rate of
11
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 pay” for purposes of sick pay compensation was in violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 246 the
2 underpayment of which is recoverable under Cal. Lab. Code Sections 201, 202, 203, and/or 204.
3 37. In violation of the applicable sections of the California Labor Code and the
4 requirements of the Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order, DEFENDANT as a
5 matter of company policy, practice, and procedure, intentionally and knowingly failed to
6 compensate PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS at the correct rate
7 of pay for all overtime and double time worked, meal and rest period premiums, and redeemed
8 sick pay as required by California law which allowed DEFENDANT to illegally profit and gain
9 an unfair advantage over competitors who complied with the law. To the extent equitable tolling
10 operates to toll claims by the CALIFORNIA CLASS Members against DEFENDANT, the
11 CLASS PERIOD should be adjusted accordingly.
12 G. Reporting Time Violations
13 38. Further, DEFENDANTS from time to time required PLAINTIFF and other
14 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members to report to work, but were furnished less than half their
15 scheduled shift’s worth of work and were not paid reporting time pay as required by Cal. Code
16 Regs., tit. 8 § 11040, subdivision(A). Specifically, Subdivision 5(A) states, “(A) Each workday
17 an employee is required to report for work and does report, but is not put to work or is furnished
18 less than half said employee's usual or scheduled day's work, the employee shall be paid for half
19 the usual or scheduled day's work, but in no event for less than two (2) hours nor more than four
20 (4) hours, at the employee's regular rate of pay, which shall not be less than the minimum wage.”
21 In addition, when DEFENDANTS required PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS
22 Members to engage in additional work, this sometimes resulted in a second reporting for work in
23 a single workday. In such a circumstance of a second reporting for work in a single workday,
24 DEFENDANT failed to pay these employees reporting time pay as required by Cal. Code Regs.,
25 tit. 8 § 11040. Subdivision 5(B) states: “If an employee is required to report for work a second
26 time in any one workday and is furnished less than two (2) hours of work on the second reporting,
27 said employee shall be paid for two (2) hours at the employee’s regular rate of pay, which shall
28 be not less than the minimum wage.” Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8 § 11040, subd. 5(B).
12
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 H. Violations for Untimely Payment of Wages
2 39. Pursuant to California Labor Code section 204, PLAINTIFF and the
3 CALIFORNIA CLASS members were entitled to timely payment of wages during their
4 employment. PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA CLASS members, from time to time, did not
5 receive payment of all wages, including, but not limited to, overtime wages, minimum wages,
6 meal period premium wages, and rest period premium wages within permissible time period.
7 I. Violations for Failure to Pay Vacation Wages
8 40. Upon PLAINTIFF’S and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members' separation of
9 employment, they had not used all of their vested vacation and thus their unused, vested vacation
10 was required to have been paid at their final rate upon separation of employment. DEFENDANT,
11 however failed to pay the vested vacation time, and when it did, it paid it at the wrong rate. As a
12 result, DEFENDANT violated Labor Code §227.3
13 J. Unlawful Deductions
14 41. DEFENDANT, from time-to-time unlawfully deducted wages from PLAINTIFF
15 and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members’ pay without explanations and without authorization to do
16 so or notice to PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA CLASS Members. As a result, DEFENDANT
17 violated Labor Code § 221.
18 K. Timekeeping Manipulation
19 42. During the CLASS PERIOD, DEFENDANT, from time-to-time, did not have an
20 immutable timekeeping system to accurately record and pay PLAINTIFF and other members of
21 the CALIFORNIA CLASS for the actual time PLAINTIFF and other members of the
22 CALIFORNIA CLASS worked each day, including regular time, overtime hours, sick pay, meal
23 and rest breaks. As a result, DEFENDANT was able to and did in fact, unlawfully, and
24 unilaterally alter the time recorded in DEFENDANT’S timekeeping system for PLAINTIFF and
25 other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS in order to avoid paying these employees for all
26 hours worked, applicable overtime compensation, applicable sick pay, missed meal breaks and
27 missed rest breaks.
28
13
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 43. As a result, PLAINTIFF and other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS, from
2 time-to-time, forfeited time worked by working without their time being accurately recorded and
3 without compensation at the applicable pay rates.
4 44. The mutability of the timekeeping system also allowed DEFENDANT to alter
5 employee time records by recording fictitious thirty (30) minute meal breaks in DEFENDANT’s
6 timekeeping system so as to create the appearance that PLAINTIFF and other members of the
7 CALIFORNIA CLASS clocked out for thirty (30) minute meal break when in fact the employees
8 were not at all times provided an off-duty meal break. This practice is a direct result of
9 DEFENDANT’s uniform policy and practice of denying employees uninterrupted thirty (30)
10 minute off-duty meal breaks each day or otherwise compensate them for missed meal breaks.
11 45. As a result, PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS
12 forfeited wages due them for all hours worked at DEFENDANT’S direction, control and benefit
13 for the time the timekeeping system was inoperable. DEFENDANT’S uniform policy and
14 practice to not pay PLAINTIFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS wages for all
15 hours worked in accordance with applicable law is evidenced by DEFENDANT’S business
16 records.
17 L. Unlawful Rounding Practices
18 46. During the CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD, DEFENDANTS did not have in
19 place an immutable timekeeping system to accurately record and pay PLAINTIFF and other
20 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for the actual time these employees worked each day,
21 including overtime hours. Specifically, DEFENDANTS had in place an unlawful rounding
22 policy and practice that resulted in PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members being
23 undercompensated for all of their time worked. As a result, DEFENDANTS were able to and did
24 in fact unlawfully, and unilaterally round the time recorded in DEFENDANTS’ timekeeping
25 system for PLAINTIFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS in order to avoid paying
26 these employees for all their time worked, including the applicable overtime compensation for
27 overtime worked. As a result, PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members, from
28 time to time, forfeited compensation for their time worked by working without their time being
14
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 accurately recorded and without compensation at the applicable overtime rates.
2 47. Further, the mutability of DEFENDANTS’ timekeeping system and unlawful
3 rounding policy and practice resulted in PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members’ time
4 being inaccurately recorded. As a result, from time to time, DEFENDANTS’ unlawful rounding
5 policy and practice caused PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members to perform work
6 as ordered by DEFENDANTS for more than five (5) hours during a shift without receiving an
7 off-duty meal break.
8 M. Failure to Provide Personnel Files
9 48. Subsequent to PLAINTIFF’S employment with DEFENDANT, on December 5,
10 2022 and January 24, 2023, PLAINTIFF caused written requests via certified mail to be delivered
11 to DEFENDANTS for PLAINTIFF’S personnel and employment records, including but not
12 limited to (1) payroll records; (2) employment contracts; (3) itemized pay stubs; and (4)
13 PLAINTIFF’S complete employment file.
14 49. DEFENDANTS failed to provide and/or make available to PLAINTIFF her
15 personnel records, payroll records, employment contracts, and entire employment file within
16 (30) days of all her requests stated above. In fact, as of the date of filing of this complaint,
17 DEFENDANTS have still failed to pay PLAINTIFF the statutory penalty in the amount of $750.
18 DEFENDANTS violated Cal. Lab. Code Section 1198.5 by failing to respond and provide
19 PLAINTIFF with her employment file. Section 1198.5 states that employees (and former
20 employees) have the right to inspect personnel records maintained by the employer “related to
21 the employee’s performance or to any grievance concerning the employee.” Employers must
22 allow inspection or copying within thirty (30) days of the request. PLAINTIFF requested his
23 employment file via certified mail and DEFENDANTS failed to respond. As a result,
24 PLAINTIFF is now entitled to and requests injunctive relief to obtain compliance with Cal. Lab.
25 Code Section 1198.5, a statutory penalty, and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs for bringing
26 this action.
27 50. Specifically, as to PLAINTIFF, PLAINTIFF was from time to time unable to take
28 off duty meal and rest breaks and were not fully relieved of duty for her rest and meal periods.
15
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 PLAINTIFF was required to perform work as ordered by DEFENDANT for more than five (5)
2 hours during a shift without receiving an off-duty meal break. Further, DEFENDANT failed to
3 provide PLAINTIFF with a second off-duty meal period each workday in which they were
4 required by DEFENDANT to work ten (10) hours of work. When DEFENDANT provided
5 PLAINTIFF with a rest break, they required PLAINTIFF to remain on-duty and on-call for the
6 rest break. DEFENDANT policy caused PLAINTIFF to remain on-call and on-duty during what
7 was supposed to be her off-duty meal periods. PLAINTIFF therefore forfeited meal and rest
8 breaks without additional compensation and in accordance with DEFENDANT’S strict corporate
9 policy and practice. Moreover, DEFENDANT also provided PLAINTIFF with paystubs that
10 failed to comply with Cal. Lab. Code § 226. Further, DEFENDANT also failed to reimburse
11 PLAINTIFF for required business expenses related to, the use of her personal cellular phones,
12 and for personal expenses incurred for the purchase and maintenance of uniforms, on behalf of
13 and in furtherance of her employment with DEFENDANT. Additionally, DEFENDANT failed
14 to provide PLAINTIFF with her personnel and employment records within the statutory times to
15 do so, in violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 1198.5. To date, DEFENDANT has not fully paid
16 PLAINTIFF the minimum, overtime and double time compensation still owed to them or any
17 penalty wages owed to them under Cal. Lab. Code § 203. The amount in controversy for
18 PLAINTIFF individually does not exceed the sum or value of $75,000.
19 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
20 51. PLAINTIFF brings this Class Action on behalf of herself, and a California class
21 defined as all persons who are or previously were employed by DEFENDANT in California and
22 classified as non-exempt employees (the “CALIFORNIA CLASS”) at any time during the period
23 beginning four (4) years prior to the filing of this Complaint and ending on the date as determined
24 by the Court (the “CLASS PERIOD”).
25 52. PLAINTIFF and the other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members have uniformly been
26 deprived of wages and penalties from unpaid wages earned and due, including but not limited to
27 unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid meal and rest period premiums,
28 illegal meal and rest period policies, failed to reimburse for business expenses, failed compensate
16
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 for off-the-clock work, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to maintain
2 required records, and interest, statutory and civil penalties, attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses.
3 53. The members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all class members is
4 impractical.
5 54. Common questions of law and fact regarding DEFENDANT’s conduct, including
6 but not limited to, off-the-clock work, unpaid meal and rest period premiums, failure to accurately
7 calculate the regular rate of pay for overtime compensation, failure to accurately calculate the
8 regular rate of compensation for missed meal and rest period premiums, failing to provide legally
9 compliant meal and rest periods, failed to reimburse for business expenses, failure to provide
10 accurate itemized wage statements accurate, and failure to ensure they are paid at least minimum
11 wage and overtime, exist as to all members of the class and predominate over any questions
12 affecting solely any individual members of the class. Among the questions of law and fact
13 common to the class are:
14 a. Whether DEFENDANT maintained legally compliant meal period policies and
15 practices;
16 b. Whether DEFENDANT maintained legally compliant rest period policies and
17 practices;
18 c. Whether DEFENDANT failed to pay PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA CLASS
19 Members accurate premium payments for missed meal and rest periods;
20 d. Whether DEFENDANT failed to pay PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA CLASS
21 Members accurate overtime wages;
22 e. Whether DEFENDANT failed to pay PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA CLASS
23 Members at least minimum wage for all hours worked;
24 f. Whether DEFENDANT failed to compensate PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA
25 CLASS Members for required business expenses;
26 g. Whether DEFENDANT issued legally compliant wage statements;
27
28
17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 h. Whether DEFENDANT committed an act of unfair competition by systematically
2 failing to record and pay PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA
3 CLASS for all time worked;
4 i. Whether DEFENDANT committed an act of unfair competition by systematically
5 failing to record all meal and rest breaks missed by PLAINTIFF and other
6 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members, even though DEFENDANT enjoyed the benefit
7 of this work, required employees to perform this work and permits or suffers to
8 permit this work;
9 j. Whether DEFENDANT committed an act of unfair competition in violation of the
10 UCL, by failing to provide the PLAINTIFF and the other members of the
11 CALIFORNIA CLASS with the legally required meal and rest periods.
12 55. PLAINTIFF are members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS and suffered damages as
13 a result of DEFENDANT’s conduct and actions alleged herein.
14 56. PLAINTIFF’S claims are typical of the claims of the CALIFORNIA CLASS, and
15 PLAINTIFF have the same interests as the other members of the class.
16 57. PLAINTIFF will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the
17 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members.
18 58. PLAINTIFF retained able class counsel with extensive experience in class action
19 litigation.
20 59. Further, PLAINTIFF’S interests are coincident with, and not antagonistic to, the
21 interest of the other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members.
22 60. There is a strong community of interest among PLAINTIFF and the members of
23 the CALIFORNIA CLASS to, inter alia, ensure that the combined assets of DEFENDANT are
24 sufficient to adequately compensate the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS for the injuries
25 sustained.
26 61. The questions of law and fact common to the CALIFORNIA CLASS Members
27 predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, including legal and factual
28 issues relating to liability and damages.
18
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 62. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
2 adjudication of this controversy because joinder of all class members in impractical. Moreover,
3 since the damages suffered by individual members of the class may be relatively small, the
4 expense and burden of individual litigation makes it practically impossible for the members of the
5 class individually to redress the wrongs done to them. Without class certification and
6 determination of declaratory, injunctive, statutory, and other legal questions within the class
7 format, prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS will
8 create the risk of:
9 a. Inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the
10 CALIFORNIA CLASS which would establish incompatible standards of conduct
11 for the parties opposing the CALIFORNIA CLASS; and/or,
12 b. Adjudication with respect to individual members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS
13 which would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests of the other
14 members not party to the adjudication or substantially impair or impeded their
15 ability to protect their interests.
16 63. Class treatment provides manageable judicial treatment calculated to bring an
17 efficient and rapid conclusion to all litigation of all wage and hour related claims arising out of
18 the conduct of DEFENDANT.
19 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
20 Unlawful Business Practices
21 (Cal. Bus. And Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.)
22 (Alleged by PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA CLASS against all Defendants)
23 64. PLAINTIFF, and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS, reallege and
24 incorporate by this reference, as though fully set forth herein, the prior paragraphs of this
25 Complaint.
26 65. DEFENDANT is a “person” as that term is defined under Cal. Bus. And Prof.
27 Code § 17021.
28
19
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 66. California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. (the “UCL”) defines
2 unfair competition as any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice. Section 17203
3 authorizes injunctive, declaratory, and/or other equitable relief with respect to unfair competition
4 as follows:
Any person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in unfair competition may
5 be enjoined in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court may make such orders or
6 judgments, including the appointment of a receiver, as may be necessary to prevent the
use or employment by any person of any practice which constitutes unfair competition, as
7 defined in this chapter, or as may be necessary to restore to any person in interest any
money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of such
8 unfair competition. (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203).
9 67. By the conduct alleged herein, DEFENDANT has engaged and continues to
10 engage in a business practice which violates California law, including but not limited to, the
11 applicable Wage Order(s), the California Code of Regulations and the California Labor Code
12 including Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and
13 2802, for which this Court should issue declaratory and other equitable relief pursuant to Cal.
14 Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203 as may be necessary to prevent and remedy the conduct held to
15 constitute unfair competition, including restitution of wages wrongfully withheld.
16 68. By the conduct alleged herein, DEFENDANT’s practices were unlawful and unfair
17 in that these practices violated public policy, were immoral, unethical, oppressive unscrupulous
18 or substantially injurious to employees, and were without valid justification or utility for which
19 this Court should issue equitable and injunctive relief pursuant to Section 17203 of the California
20 Business & Professions Code, including restitution of wages wrongfully withheld.
21 69. By the conduct alleged herein, DEFENDANT’s practices were deceptive and
22 fraudulent in that DEFENDANT’s uniform policy and practice failed
Preview
JCL LAW FIRM, APC 1 Jean-Claude Lapuyade (State Bar #248676) 2 Sydney Castillo Johnson (State Bar #343881) Monnett De La Torre (State Bar #272884) 3 5440 Morehouse Drive, Suite 3600 San Diego, CA 92121 4 Telephone: (619) 599-8292 Facsimile: (619) 599-8291 5 jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com 6 scastillo@jcl-lawfirm.com mdelatorre@jcl-lawfirm.com 7 ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC 8 Shani O. Zakay (State Bar #277924) 5440 Morehouse Drive, Suite 5400 9 San Diego, CA 92121 10 Telephone: (619) 255-9047 Facsimile: (858) 404-9203 11 shani@zakaylaw.com 12 Attorneys for PLAINTIFF 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 15 CYNTHIA MILLER, an individual, on behalf Case No: 16 of herself, and on behalf of all persons similarly 17 situated, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR: 18 Plaintiffs, 1) UNFAIR COMPETITION IN VIOLATION v. OF CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §17200 et 19 seq; GSSI, INC., a California corporation; and 2) FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES IN 20 DOES 1-50, Inclusive, VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 21 1194, 1197 & 1197.1; Defendants. 3) FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES 22 IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 510, et seq; 23 4) FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED MEAL PERIODS IN VIOLATION OF 24 CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 226.7 & 512 AND 25 THE APPLICABLE IWC WAGE ORDER; 5) FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED 26 REST PERIODS IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 226.7 & 512 AND THE 27 APPLICABLE IWC WAGE ORDER; 28 1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 6) FAILURE TO REIMBURSE EMPLOYEES 1 FOR REQUIRED EXPENSES IN 2 VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE § 2802; 7) FAILURE TO PROVIDE WAGES WHEN 3 DUE IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 201, 202 AND 203; 4 8) FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE ITEMIZED STATEMENTS IN 5 VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE § 226. 6 DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL 7 8 PLAINTIFF CYNTHIA MILLER (“PLAINTIFF”), an individual, on behalf of herself and 9 all other similarly situated current and former employees, allege on information and belief, except 10 for her own acts and knowledge which are based on personal knowledge, the following: 11 PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS 12 1. Defendant GSSI, INC. (“DEFENDANT” and/or “DEFENDANTS”) is a 13 California corporation that at all relevant times mentioned herein conducted and continues to 14 conduct substantial and regular business throughout California. 15 2. DEFENDANT provides security services throughout the state of California, 16 including the county of Los Angeles, where PLAINTIFF worked. 17 3. PLAINTIFF was employed by DEFENDANT in California from March of 2022 18 to June of 2022 as a non-exempt employee, paid on an hourly basis, and entitled to the legally 19 required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages due for all time 20 worked. 21 4. PLAINTIFF brings this Class Action on behalf of herself and a California class, 22 defined as all persons who are or previously were employed by DEFENDANT in California and 23 classified as non-exempt employees (the “CALIFORNIA CLASS”) at any time during the period 24 beginning four (4) years prior to the filing of this Complaint and ending on the date as determined 25 by the Court (the “CLASS PERIOD”). The amount in controversy for the aggregate claim of the 26 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members is under five million dollars ($5,000,000.00). 27 5. PLAINTIFF brings this Class Action on behalf of herself and a CALIFORNIA 28 CLASS in order to fully compensate the CALIFORNIA CLASS for their losses incurred during 2 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 the CLASS PERIOD caused by DEFENDANT’s uniform policy and practice which failed to 2 lawfully compensate these employees. DEFENDANT’s uniform policy and practice alleged 3 herein was an unlawful, unfair, and deceptive business practice whereby DEFENDANT retained 4 and continues to retain wages due PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA 5 CLASS. PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS seek an injunction 6 enjoining such conduct by DEFENDANT in the future, relief for the named PLAINTIFF and the 7 other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS who have been economically injured by 8 DEFENDANT’s past and current unlawful conduct, and all other appropriate legal and equitable 9 relief. 10 6. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, subsidiary, 11 partnership, associate or otherwise of DEFENDANTS DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are 12 presently unknown to PLAINTIFF who therefore sues these DEFENDANTS by such fictitious 13 names pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 474. PLAINTIFF will seek leave to amend this 14 Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of Does 1 through 50, inclusive, when they are 15 ascertained. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and based upon that information and belief 16 alleges, that the DEFENDANTS named in this Complaint, including DOES 1 through 50, 17 inclusive, are responsible in some manner for one or more of the events and happenings that 18 proximately caused the injuries and damages hereinafter alleged. 19 7. The agents, servants and/or employees of the Defendants and each of them acting 20 on behalf of the Defendants acted within the course and scope of his, her or its authority as the 21 agent, servant and/or employee of the Defendants, and personally participated in the conduct 22 alleged herein on behalf of the Defendants with respect to the conduct alleged herein. 23 Consequently, the acts of each Defendant are legally attributable to the other Defendants and all 24 Defendants are jointly and severally liable to PLAINTIFF and the other members of the 25 CALIFORNIA CLASS, for the loss sustained as a proximate result of the conduct of the 26 Defendants’ agents, servants and/or employees. 27 8. DEFENDANTS were PLAINTIFF’S employers or persons acting on behalf of the 28 PLAINTIFF’S employer, within the meaning of California Labor Code § 558, who violated or 3 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 caused to be violated, a section of Part 2, Chapter 1 of the California Labor Code or any provision 2 regulating hours and days of work in any order of the Industrial Welfare Commission and, as 3 such, are subject to civil penalties for each underpaid employee, as set forth in Labor Code § 558, 4 at all relevant times. 5 9. DEFENDANTS were PLAINTIFF’S employers or persons acting on behalf of 6 PLAINTIFF’S employer either individually or as an officer, agent, or employee of another person, 7 within the meaning of California Labor Code § 1197.1, who paid or caused to be paid to any 8 employee a wage less than the minimum fixed by California state law, and as such, are subject to 9 civil penalties for each underpaid employee. 10 10. DEFENDANT’s uniform policies and practices alleged herein were unlawful, 11 unfair, and deceptive business practices whereby DEFENDANT retained and continue to retain 12 wages due to PLAINTIFF and other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS. 13 11. PLAINTIFF and other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS seek an injunction 14 enjoining such conduct by DEFENDANT in the future, relief for the named PLAINTIFF and 15 other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS who has been economically injured by 16 DEFENDANT’s past and current unlawful conduct, and all other appropriate legal and equitable 17 relief. 18 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 19 12. This Court has jurisdiction over this Action pursuant to California Code of Civil 20 Procedure, Section 410.10 and California Business & Professions Code, Section 17203. This 21 action is brought as a Class Action on behalf of PLAINTIFF and similarly situated employees of 22 DEFENDANT pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382. 23 13. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, 24 Sections 395 and 395.5, because DEFENDANT operates in locations across California, employs 25 the CALIFORNIA CLASS across California, including in this County, and committed the 26 wrongful conduct herein alleged in this County against the CALIFORNIA CLASS. 27 28 /// 4 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 THE CONDUCT 2 14. In violation of the applicable sections of the California Labor Code and the 3 requirements of the Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order, DEFENDANT as a 4 matter of company policy, practice, and procedure, intentionally, knowingly, and systematically 5 failed to provide legally compliant meal and rest periods, failed to accurately compensate 6 PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS for missed meal and rest 7 periods, failed to pay PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS for all 8 time worked, failed compensate PLAINTIFF for off-the-clock work, failed to pay PLAINTIFF 9 and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS overtime at the correct regular rate of pay, 10 failed to compensate PLAINTIFF and other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS meal rest 11 premiums at the regular rate, failed to reimburse PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS 12 Members for business expenses, and failed to issue to PLAINTIFF and the members of the 13 CALIFORNIA CLASS with accurate itemized wage statements showing, among other things, all 14 applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay periods and the corresponding amount of time 15 worked at each hourly rate. DEFENDANT’s uniform policies and practices are intended to 16 purposefully avoid the accurate and full payment for all time worked as required by California 17 law which allows DEFENDANT to illegally profit and gain an unfair advantage over competitors 18 who comply with the law. To the extent equitable tolling operates to toll claims by the 19 CALIFORNIA CLASS against DEFENDANT, the CLASS PERIOD should be adjusted 20 accordingly. 21 A. Meal Period Violations 22 15. Pursuant to the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, DEFENDANT was 23 required to pay PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for all their time worked, 24 meaning the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer, including 25 all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work. From time to time during the CLASS 26 PERIOD, DEFENDANT required PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members to work 27 without paying them for all the time they were under DEFENDANT’s control. Specifically, 28 DEFENDANT required PLAINTIFF to work while clocked out during what was supposed to be 5 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 PLAINTIFF’s off-duty meal break. Indeed, there were many days where PLAINTIFF did not 2 even receive a partial lunch. As a result, the PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS 3 Members forfeited minimum wage and overtime compensation by regularly working without their 4 time being accurately recorded and without compensation at the applicable minimum wage and 5 overtime rates. DEFENDANT’s uniform policy and practice not to pay PLAINTIFF and other 6 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for all time worked is evidenced by DEFENDANT’s business 7 records. 8 16. From time to time during the CLASS PERIOD, as a result of their rigorous work 9 schedules and DEFENDANT’s inadequate staffing practices, PLAINTIFF and other 10 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members are from time to time unable to take thirty (30) minute off duty 11 meal breaks and were not fully relieved of duty for their meal periods. PLAINTIFF and other 12 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members are required to perform work as ordered by DEFENDANT for 13 more than five (5) hours during some shifts without receiving a meal break. Further, 14 DEFENDANT fails to provide PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members with a second 15 off-duty meal period for some workdays in which these employees are required by DEFENDANT 16 to work ten (10) hours of work. The nature of the work performed by PLAINTIFF and other 17 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members does not qualify for the limited and narrowly construed “on- 18 duty” meal period exception. When they were provided with meal periods, PLAINTIFF and other 19 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were, from time to time, required to remain on premises, on 20 duty and on call. Further, from time to time, DEFENDANT required PLAINTIFF and other 21 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members to maintain cordless communication devices in order to receive 22 and/or respond to work-related communications during their off-duty meal periods. 23 DEFENDANT’s failure to provide PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA CLASS Members with 24 legally required meal breaks is evidenced by DEFENDANT’s business records. PLAINTIFF and 25 other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS therefore forfeit meal breaks without additional 26 compensation and in accordance with DEFENDANT’s strict corporate policy and practice. 27 28 /// 6 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 B. Rest Period Violations 2 17. From time to time during the CLASS PERIOD, PLAINTIFF and other 3 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were also required to work in excess of four (4) hours without 4 being provided ten (10) minute rest periods as a result of their rigorous work requirements and 5 DEFENDANT’s inadequate staffing. Further, for the same reasons, these employees were denied 6 their first rest periods of at least ten (10) minutes for some shifts worked of at least two (2) to four 7 (4) hours from time to time, a first and second rest period of at least ten (10) minutes for some 8 shifts worked of between six (6) and eight (8) hours from time to time, and a first, second and 9 third rest period of at least ten (10) minutes for some shifts worked of ten (10) hours or more from 10 time to time. When they were provided with rest breaks, PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA 11 CLASS Members were, from time to time, required to remain on premises, on duty and/or on call. 12 Further, from time to time, DEFENDANT required PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA 13 CLASS Members to maintain cordless communication devices in order to receive and/or respond 14 to work-related communications during their off-duty rest periods. PLAINTIFF and other 15 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were also not provided with one-hour wages in lieu thereof. As 16 a result of their rigorous work schedules and DEFENDANT’s inadequate staffing, PLAINTIFF 17 and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were from time to time denied their proper rest 18 periods by DEFENDANT and DEFENDANT’s managers. 19 C. Unreimbursed Business Expenses 20 18. DEFENDANT as a matter of corporate policy, practice, and procedure, 21 intentionally, knowingly, and systematically failed to reimburse and indemnify the PLAINTIFF 22 and the other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for required business expenses incurred by the 23 PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members in direct consequence of discharging 24 their duties on behalf of DEFENDANT. Under California Labor Code Section 2802, employers 25 are required to indemnify employees for all expenses incurred in the course and scope of their 26 employment. Cal. Lab. Code § 2802 expressly states that "an employer shall indemnify his or her 27 employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence 28 of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of the employer, 7 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 even though unlawful, unless the employee, at the time of obeying the directions, believed them 2 to be unlawful." 3 19. In the course of their employment, DEFENDANT required PLAINTIFF and other 4 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members to use their personal cellular phones as a result of and in 5 furtherance of their job duties, including but not limited to receiving and/or responding to work- 6 related communications and perform work-related duties. Further, DEFENDANT from time to 7 time also required PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members to purchase uniforms 8 and incur personal expenses for the maintenance of said uniforms as a result of and in furtherance 9 of their job duties. However, DEFENDANT unlawfully failed to reimburse PLAINTIFF and 10 other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for the use of their personal cellular phones and for 11 personal expenses incurred for the purchase and maintenance of uniforms. As a result, in the 12 course of their employment with DEFENDANT, the PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA 13 CLASS Members incurred unreimbursed business expenses that included, but were not limited 14 to, costs related to the use of their personal cellular phones and for personal expenses incurred for 15 the purchase of and maintenance of uniforms, all on behalf of and for the benefit of 16 DEFENDANT. 17 D. Wage Statement Violations 18 20. California Labor Code Section 226 required an employer to furnish its employees 19 and accurate itemized wage statement in writing showing (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours 20 worked, (3) the number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece-rate, (4) all deductions, 21 (5) net wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the 22 name of the employee and only the last four digits of the employee’s social security number or an 23 employee identification number other than a social security number, (8) the name and address of 24 the legal entity that is the employer, and (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay 25 period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee. 26 21. From time to time during the CLASS PERIOD, when PLAINTIFF and other 27 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members missed meal and rest breaks, or were paid inaccurately for 28 missed meal and rest period premiums, or were not paid for all hours worked, DEFENDANT also 8 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 failed to provide PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members with complete and 2 accurate wage statements which failed to show, among other things, all deductions, the total hours 3 worked and all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding 4 amount of time worked at each hourly rate, correct rates of pay for penalty payments or missed 5 meal and rest periods. 6 22. In addition to the foregoing, DEFENDANT, from time to time, failed to provide 7 PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA CLASS Members with wage statements that comply with 8 Cal. Lab. Code § 226. 9 23. As a result, DEFENDANT issued PLAINTIFF and other members of the 10 CALIFORNIA CLASS with wage statements that violate Cal. Lab. Code § 226. Further, 11 DEFENDANT’s violations are knowing and intentional, were not isolated due to an unintentional 12 payroll error due to clerical or inadvertent mistake. 13 E. Off-the-Clock Work Resulting in Minimum Wage and Overtime Violations 14 24. During the CLASS PERIOD, from time-to-time DEFENDANT failed and 15 continues to fail to accurately pay PLAINTIFF and other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS 16 for all hours worked. 17 25. During the CLASS PERIOD, from time-to-time DEFENDANT required 18 PLAINTIFF and other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS to perform pre-shift or post-shift 19 work. This resulted in PLAINTIFF and other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS to have to 20 work while off-the-clock. 21 26. DEFENDANT directed and directly benefited from the undercompensated off-the- 22 clock work performed by PLAINTIFF and the other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members. 23 27. DEFENDANT controlled the work schedules, duties, and protocols, applications, 24 assignments, and employment conditions of PLAINTIFF and the other members of the 25 CALIFORNIA CLASS. 26 28. DEFENDANT was able to track the amount of time PLAINTIFF and the other 27 members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS spent working; however, DEFENDANT failed to 28 9 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 document, track, or pay PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS all 2 wages earned and owed for all the work they performed. 3 29. PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS were non- 4 exempt employees, subject to the requirements of the California Labor Code. 5 30. DEFENDANT’s policies and practices deprived PLAINTIFF and the other 6 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members of all minimum regular, overtime, and double time wages owed 7 for the off-the-clock work activities. Because PLAINTIFF and the other members of the 8 CALIFORNIA CLASS typically worked over forty (40) hours in a workweek, and more than 9 eight (8) hours per day, DEFENDANT’s policies and practices also deprived them of overtime 10 pay. 11 31. DEFENDANT knew or should have known that PLAINTIFF and the other 12 members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS off-the-clock work was compensable under the law. 13 32. As a result, PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS 14 forfeited wages due to them for all hours worked at DEFENDANT’s direction, control, and 15 benefit for the time spent working while off-the-clock. DEFENDANT’s uniform policy and 16 practice to not pay PLAINTIFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS wages for all 17 hours worked in accordance with applicable law is evidenced by DEFENDANT’s business 18 records. 19 F. Regular Rate Violation – Overtime, Double Time, Meal and Rest Period Premiums, 20 and Redeemed Sick Pay 21 33. From time to time during the CLASS PERIOD, DEFENDANT failed and 22 continues to fail to accurately calculate and pay PLAINTIFF and the other CALIFORNIA CLASS 23 Members for their overtime and double time hours worked, meal and rest period premiums, and 24 redeemed sick pay. As a result, PLAINTIFF and the other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members 25 forfeited wages due to them for working overtime without compensation at the correct overtime 26 and double time rates, meal and rest period premiums, and redeemed sick pay rates. 27 DEFENDANT’s uniform policy and practice not to pay the CALIFORNIA CLASS Members at 28 10 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 the correct rate for all overtime and double time worked, meal and rest period premiums, and sick 2 pay in accordance with applicable law is evidenced by DEFENDANT’s business records. 3 34. State law provides that employees must be paid overtime at one-and-one-half times 4 their “regular rate of pay.” PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were 5 compensated at an hourly rate plus incentive pay that was tied to specific elements of an 6 employee’s performance. 7 35. The second component of PLAINTIFF’S and other CALIFORNIA CLASS 8 Members’ compensation was DEFENDANTS’ non-discretionary incentive program that paid 9 PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members incentive wages based on their 10 performance for DEFENDANTS. The non-discretionary bonus program provided all employees 11 paid on an hourly basis with bonus compensation when the employees met the various 12 performance goals set by DEFENDANTS. 13 36. However, from time to time, when calculating the regular rate of pay in those pay 14 periods where PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members worked overtime, double 15 time, paid meal and rest period premium payments, and/or redeemed sick pay, and earned non- 16 discretionary bonuses, DEFENDANTS failed to accurately include the non-discretionary bonus 17 compensation as part of the employee’s “regular rate of pay” and/or calculated all hours worked 18 rather than just all non-overtime hours worked. Management and supervisors described the 19 incentive/bonus program to potential and new employees as part of the compensation package. 20 As a matter of law, the incentive compensation received by PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA 21 CLASS Members must be included in the “regular rate of pay.” The failure to do so has resulted 22 in a systematic underpayment of overtime and double time compensation, meal and rest period 23 premium payments, and redeemed sick pay to PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS 24 Members by DEFENDANTS. Specifically, California Labor Code Section 246 mandates that 25 paid sick time for non-exempt employees shall be calculated in the same manner as the regular 26 rate of pay for the workweek in which the non-exempt employee uses paid sick time, whether or 27 not the employee actually works overtime in that workweek. DEFENDANTS’ conduct, as 28 articulated herein, by failing to include the incentive compensation as part of the “regular rate of 11 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 pay” for purposes of sick pay compensation was in violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 246 the 2 underpayment of which is recoverable under Cal. Lab. Code Sections 201, 202, 203, and/or 204. 3 37. In violation of the applicable sections of the California Labor Code and the 4 requirements of the Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order, DEFENDANT as a 5 matter of company policy, practice, and procedure, intentionally and knowingly failed to 6 compensate PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS at the correct rate 7 of pay for all overtime and double time worked, meal and rest period premiums, and redeemed 8 sick pay as required by California law which allowed DEFENDANT to illegally profit and gain 9 an unfair advantage over competitors who complied with the law. To the extent equitable tolling 10 operates to toll claims by the CALIFORNIA CLASS Members against DEFENDANT, the 11 CLASS PERIOD should be adjusted accordingly. 12 G. Reporting Time Violations 13 38. Further, DEFENDANTS from time to time required PLAINTIFF and other 14 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members to report to work, but were furnished less than half their 15 scheduled shift’s worth of work and were not paid reporting time pay as required by Cal. Code 16 Regs., tit. 8 § 11040, subdivision(A). Specifically, Subdivision 5(A) states, “(A) Each workday 17 an employee is required to report for work and does report, but is not put to work or is furnished 18 less than half said employee's usual or scheduled day's work, the employee shall be paid for half 19 the usual or scheduled day's work, but in no event for less than two (2) hours nor more than four 20 (4) hours, at the employee's regular rate of pay, which shall not be less than the minimum wage.” 21 In addition, when DEFENDANTS required PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS 22 Members to engage in additional work, this sometimes resulted in a second reporting for work in 23 a single workday. In such a circumstance of a second reporting for work in a single workday, 24 DEFENDANT failed to pay these employees reporting time pay as required by Cal. Code Regs., 25 tit. 8 § 11040. Subdivision 5(B) states: “If an employee is required to report for work a second 26 time in any one workday and is furnished less than two (2) hours of work on the second reporting, 27 said employee shall be paid for two (2) hours at the employee’s regular rate of pay, which shall 28 be not less than the minimum wage.” Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8 § 11040, subd. 5(B). 12 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 H. Violations for Untimely Payment of Wages 2 39. Pursuant to California Labor Code section 204, PLAINTIFF and the 3 CALIFORNIA CLASS members were entitled to timely payment of wages during their 4 employment. PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA CLASS members, from time to time, did not 5 receive payment of all wages, including, but not limited to, overtime wages, minimum wages, 6 meal period premium wages, and rest period premium wages within permissible time period. 7 I. Violations for Failure to Pay Vacation Wages 8 40. Upon PLAINTIFF’S and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members' separation of 9 employment, they had not used all of their vested vacation and thus their unused, vested vacation 10 was required to have been paid at their final rate upon separation of employment. DEFENDANT, 11 however failed to pay the vested vacation time, and when it did, it paid it at the wrong rate. As a 12 result, DEFENDANT violated Labor Code §227.3 13 J. Unlawful Deductions 14 41. DEFENDANT, from time-to-time unlawfully deducted wages from PLAINTIFF 15 and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members’ pay without explanations and without authorization to do 16 so or notice to PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA CLASS Members. As a result, DEFENDANT 17 violated Labor Code § 221. 18 K. Timekeeping Manipulation 19 42. During the CLASS PERIOD, DEFENDANT, from time-to-time, did not have an 20 immutable timekeeping system to accurately record and pay PLAINTIFF and other members of 21 the CALIFORNIA CLASS for the actual time PLAINTIFF and other members of the 22 CALIFORNIA CLASS worked each day, including regular time, overtime hours, sick pay, meal 23 and rest breaks. As a result, DEFENDANT was able to and did in fact, unlawfully, and 24 unilaterally alter the time recorded in DEFENDANT’S timekeeping system for PLAINTIFF and 25 other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS in order to avoid paying these employees for all 26 hours worked, applicable overtime compensation, applicable sick pay, missed meal breaks and 27 missed rest breaks. 28 13 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 43. As a result, PLAINTIFF and other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS, from 2 time-to-time, forfeited time worked by working without their time being accurately recorded and 3 without compensation at the applicable pay rates. 4 44. The mutability of the timekeeping system also allowed DEFENDANT to alter 5 employee time records by recording fictitious thirty (30) minute meal breaks in DEFENDANT’s 6 timekeeping system so as to create the appearance that PLAINTIFF and other members of the 7 CALIFORNIA CLASS clocked out for thirty (30) minute meal break when in fact the employees 8 were not at all times provided an off-duty meal break. This practice is a direct result of 9 DEFENDANT’s uniform policy and practice of denying employees uninterrupted thirty (30) 10 minute off-duty meal breaks each day or otherwise compensate them for missed meal breaks. 11 45. As a result, PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS 12 forfeited wages due them for all hours worked at DEFENDANT’S direction, control and benefit 13 for the time the timekeeping system was inoperable. DEFENDANT’S uniform policy and 14 practice to not pay PLAINTIFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS wages for all 15 hours worked in accordance with applicable law is evidenced by DEFENDANT’S business 16 records. 17 L. Unlawful Rounding Practices 18 46. During the CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD, DEFENDANTS did not have in 19 place an immutable timekeeping system to accurately record and pay PLAINTIFF and other 20 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for the actual time these employees worked each day, 21 including overtime hours. Specifically, DEFENDANTS had in place an unlawful rounding 22 policy and practice that resulted in PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members being 23 undercompensated for all of their time worked. As a result, DEFENDANTS were able to and did 24 in fact unlawfully, and unilaterally round the time recorded in DEFENDANTS’ timekeeping 25 system for PLAINTIFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS in order to avoid paying 26 these employees for all their time worked, including the applicable overtime compensation for 27 overtime worked. As a result, PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members, from 28 time to time, forfeited compensation for their time worked by working without their time being 14 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 accurately recorded and without compensation at the applicable overtime rates. 2 47. Further, the mutability of DEFENDANTS’ timekeeping system and unlawful 3 rounding policy and practice resulted in PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members’ time 4 being inaccurately recorded. As a result, from time to time, DEFENDANTS’ unlawful rounding 5 policy and practice caused PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members to perform work 6 as ordered by DEFENDANTS for more than five (5) hours during a shift without receiving an 7 off-duty meal break. 8 M. Failure to Provide Personnel Files 9 48. Subsequent to PLAINTIFF’S employment with DEFENDANT, on December 5, 10 2022 and January 24, 2023, PLAINTIFF caused written requests via certified mail to be delivered 11 to DEFENDANTS for PLAINTIFF’S personnel and employment records, including but not 12 limited to (1) payroll records; (2) employment contracts; (3) itemized pay stubs; and (4) 13 PLAINTIFF’S complete employment file. 14 49. DEFENDANTS failed to provide and/or make available to PLAINTIFF her 15 personnel records, payroll records, employment contracts, and entire employment file within 16 (30) days of all her requests stated above. In fact, as of the date of filing of this complaint, 17 DEFENDANTS have still failed to pay PLAINTIFF the statutory penalty in the amount of $750. 18 DEFENDANTS violated Cal. Lab. Code Section 1198.5 by failing to respond and provide 19 PLAINTIFF with her employment file. Section 1198.5 states that employees (and former 20 employees) have the right to inspect personnel records maintained by the employer “related to 21 the employee’s performance or to any grievance concerning the employee.” Employers must 22 allow inspection or copying within thirty (30) days of the request. PLAINTIFF requested his 23 employment file via certified mail and DEFENDANTS failed to respond. As a result, 24 PLAINTIFF is now entitled to and requests injunctive relief to obtain compliance with Cal. Lab. 25 Code Section 1198.5, a statutory penalty, and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs for bringing 26 this action. 27 50. Specifically, as to PLAINTIFF, PLAINTIFF was from time to time unable to take 28 off duty meal and rest breaks and were not fully relieved of duty for her rest and meal periods. 15 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 PLAINTIFF was required to perform work as ordered by DEFENDANT for more than five (5) 2 hours during a shift without receiving an off-duty meal break. Further, DEFENDANT failed to 3 provide PLAINTIFF with a second off-duty meal period each workday in which they were 4 required by DEFENDANT to work ten (10) hours of work. When DEFENDANT provided 5 PLAINTIFF with a rest break, they required PLAINTIFF to remain on-duty and on-call for the 6 rest break. DEFENDANT policy caused PLAINTIFF to remain on-call and on-duty during what 7 was supposed to be her off-duty meal periods. PLAINTIFF therefore forfeited meal and rest 8 breaks without additional compensation and in accordance with DEFENDANT’S strict corporate 9 policy and practice. Moreover, DEFENDANT also provided PLAINTIFF with paystubs that 10 failed to comply with Cal. Lab. Code § 226. Further, DEFENDANT also failed to reimburse 11 PLAINTIFF for required business expenses related to, the use of her personal cellular phones, 12 and for personal expenses incurred for the purchase and maintenance of uniforms, on behalf of 13 and in furtherance of her employment with DEFENDANT. Additionally, DEFENDANT failed 14 to provide PLAINTIFF with her personnel and employment records within the statutory times to 15 do so, in violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 1198.5. To date, DEFENDANT has not fully paid 16 PLAINTIFF the minimum, overtime and double time compensation still owed to them or any 17 penalty wages owed to them under Cal. Lab. Code § 203. The amount in controversy for 18 PLAINTIFF individually does not exceed the sum or value of $75,000. 19 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 20 51. PLAINTIFF brings this Class Action on behalf of herself, and a California class 21 defined as all persons who are or previously were employed by DEFENDANT in California and 22 classified as non-exempt employees (the “CALIFORNIA CLASS”) at any time during the period 23 beginning four (4) years prior to the filing of this Complaint and ending on the date as determined 24 by the Court (the “CLASS PERIOD”). 25 52. PLAINTIFF and the other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members have uniformly been 26 deprived of wages and penalties from unpaid wages earned and due, including but not limited to 27 unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid meal and rest period premiums, 28 illegal meal and rest period policies, failed to reimburse for business expenses, failed compensate 16 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 for off-the-clock work, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to maintain 2 required records, and interest, statutory and civil penalties, attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses. 3 53. The members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all class members is 4 impractical. 5 54. Common questions of law and fact regarding DEFENDANT’s conduct, including 6 but not limited to, off-the-clock work, unpaid meal and rest period premiums, failure to accurately 7 calculate the regular rate of pay for overtime compensation, failure to accurately calculate the 8 regular rate of compensation for missed meal and rest period premiums, failing to provide legally 9 compliant meal and rest periods, failed to reimburse for business expenses, failure to provide 10 accurate itemized wage statements accurate, and failure to ensure they are paid at least minimum 11 wage and overtime, exist as to all members of the class and predominate over any questions 12 affecting solely any individual members of the class. Among the questions of law and fact 13 common to the class are: 14 a. Whether DEFENDANT maintained legally compliant meal period policies and 15 practices; 16 b. Whether DEFENDANT maintained legally compliant rest period policies and 17 practices; 18 c. Whether DEFENDANT failed to pay PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA CLASS 19 Members accurate premium payments for missed meal and rest periods; 20 d. Whether DEFENDANT failed to pay PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA CLASS 21 Members accurate overtime wages; 22 e. Whether DEFENDANT failed to pay PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA CLASS 23 Members at least minimum wage for all hours worked; 24 f. Whether DEFENDANT failed to compensate PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA 25 CLASS Members for required business expenses; 26 g. Whether DEFENDANT issued legally compliant wage statements; 27 28 17 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 h. Whether DEFENDANT committed an act of unfair competition by systematically 2 failing to record and pay PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA 3 CLASS for all time worked; 4 i. Whether DEFENDANT committed an act of unfair competition by systematically 5 failing to record all meal and rest breaks missed by PLAINTIFF and other 6 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members, even though DEFENDANT enjoyed the benefit 7 of this work, required employees to perform this work and permits or suffers to 8 permit this work; 9 j. Whether DEFENDANT committed an act of unfair competition in violation of the 10 UCL, by failing to provide the PLAINTIFF and the other members of the 11 CALIFORNIA CLASS with the legally required meal and rest periods. 12 55. PLAINTIFF are members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS and suffered damages as 13 a result of DEFENDANT’s conduct and actions alleged herein. 14 56. PLAINTIFF’S claims are typical of the claims of the CALIFORNIA CLASS, and 15 PLAINTIFF have the same interests as the other members of the class. 16 57. PLAINTIFF will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the 17 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members. 18 58. PLAINTIFF retained able class counsel with extensive experience in class action 19 litigation. 20 59. Further, PLAINTIFF’S interests are coincident with, and not antagonistic to, the 21 interest of the other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members. 22 60. There is a strong community of interest among PLAINTIFF and the members of 23 the CALIFORNIA CLASS to, inter alia, ensure that the combined assets of DEFENDANT are 24 sufficient to adequately compensate the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS for the injuries 25 sustained. 26 61. The questions of law and fact common to the CALIFORNIA CLASS Members 27 predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, including legal and factual 28 issues relating to liability and damages. 18 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 62. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient 2 adjudication of this controversy because joinder of all class members in impractical. Moreover, 3 since the damages suffered by individual members of the class may be relatively small, the 4 expense and burden of individual litigation makes it practically impossible for the members of the 5 class individually to redress the wrongs done to them. Without class certification and 6 determination of declaratory, injunctive, statutory, and other legal questions within the class 7 format, prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS will 8 create the risk of: 9 a. Inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the 10 CALIFORNIA CLASS which would establish incompatible standards of conduct 11 for the parties opposing the CALIFORNIA CLASS; and/or, 12 b. Adjudication with respect to individual members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS 13 which would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests of the other 14 members not party to the adjudication or substantially impair or impeded their 15 ability to protect their interests. 16 63. Class treatment provides manageable judicial treatment calculated to bring an 17 efficient and rapid conclusion to all litigation of all wage and hour related claims arising out of 18 the conduct of DEFENDANT. 19 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 20 Unlawful Business Practices 21 (Cal. Bus. And Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.) 22 (Alleged by PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA CLASS against all Defendants) 23 64. PLAINTIFF, and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS, reallege and 24 incorporate by this reference, as though fully set forth herein, the prior paragraphs of this 25 Complaint. 26 65. DEFENDANT is a “person” as that term is defined under Cal. Bus. And Prof. 27 Code § 17021. 28 19 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 66. California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. (the “UCL”) defines 2 unfair competition as any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice. Section 17203 3 authorizes injunctive, declaratory, and/or other equitable relief with respect to unfair competition 4 as follows: Any person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in unfair competition may 5 be enjoined in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court may make such orders or 6 judgments, including the appointment of a receiver, as may be necessary to prevent the use or employment by any person of any practice which constitutes unfair competition, as 7 defined in this chapter, or as may be necessary to restore to any person in interest any money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of such 8 unfair competition. (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203). 9 67. By the conduct alleged herein, DEFENDANT has engaged and continues to 10 engage in a business practice which violates California law, including but not limited to, the 11 applicable Wage Order(s), the California Code of Regulations and the California Labor Code 12 including Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 13 2802, for which this Court should issue declaratory and other equitable relief pursuant to Cal. 14 Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203 as may be necessary to prevent and remedy the conduct held to 15 constitute unfair competition, including restitution of wages wrongfully withheld. 16 68. By the conduct alleged herein, DEFENDANT’s practices were unlawful and unfair 17 in that these practices violated public policy, were immoral, unethical, oppressive unscrupulous 18 or substantially injurious to employees, and were without valid justification or utility for which 19 this Court should issue equitable and injunctive relief pursuant to Section 17203 of the California 20 Business & Professions Code, including restitution of wages wrongfully withheld. 21 69. By the conduct alleged herein, DEFENDANT’s practices were deceptive and 22 fraudulent in that DEFENDANT’s uniform policy and practice failed