Preview
1 BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK
DE BLOUW LLP
2 Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687)
3 Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975)
Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066)
4 Christine T. LeVu (State Bar #288271)
Andrew Ronan (State Bar #312316)
5 Randy Hy (State Bar #290395)
2255 Calle Clara
6 La Jolla, CA 92037
7 Telephone: (858)551-1223
Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
8
Attorneys for Plaintiff PRECIOUS CHATMAN
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
12 PRECIOUS CHATMAN, an individual, on Case No. 22-CIV-02197
behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons
13 similarly situated, CLASS ACTION
14
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE T.
15 LEVU IN SUPPORT PLAINTIFF’S
vs. OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
16 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES
WEDRIVEU, INC., a California Corporation;
17 and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Date: May 12, 2023
Time: 2:00 p.m.
18
Defendants. Judge: Hon. Robert D. Foiles
19 Dept.: 21
20 Action Filed: June 2, 2022
Remanded: October 28, 2022
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE T. LEVU IN SUPPORT PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO CONSOLIDATE CASES
1 DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE T. LEVU
2 I, Christine T. LeVu, declare as follows:
3 1. I am one of attorneys of record for the Plaintiffs in the above entitled action, and have
4 personal knowledge of each of the facts set forth herein, and if called upon as a witness could testify
5 competently thereto, except as to the matters stated on information and belief, and as to such matters I
6 believe them to be true.
7 2. Plaintiff Precious Chatman filed this action on June 2, 2022, bringing claims on behalf of
8 herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated for violations of: (1) Unfair Competition in
9 Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.; (2) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages in Violation
10 of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1197 & 1197.1; (3) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in Violation of Cal. Lab.
11 Code §§ 510, et seq.; (4) Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§
12 226.7 and 512 and the Applicable IWC Wage Order; (5) Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods in
13 Violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7 and 512 and the Applicable IWC Wage Order; (6) Failure to Provide
14 Accurate Itemized Wage Statements in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 226; (7) Failure to Reimburse
15 Employees for Required Expenses in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 2802; and (8) Failure to Pay Sick
16 Pay Wages in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201-204, 233, 246.
17 3. On August 24, 2022 Defendant WeDriveU, Inc. (“Defendant”) removed the case to the
18 United States District Court for the Northern District of California, however the case was remanded to
19 this Court on October 28, 2022.
20 4. On July 11, 2022, Plaintiff Precious Chatman filed a Representative Action Complaint,
21 as a proxy on behalf of the State of California and as an “Aggrieved Employee,” acting as a private
22 attorney general under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004, § 2699, et seq. (“PAGA”),
23 seeking fixed civil penalties for Defendant’s violations of California Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204,
24 210, 226(a), 226.7, 510, 512, 558(a)(1)(2), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802. The PAGA action is
25 pending in San Diego County Superior Court, Case No. 37-2021-00011774-CU-OE-CTL. A true and
26 correct copy of Plaintiff Chatman’s filed PAGA-only Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.)
27 5. On February 1, 2023, Defendant filed a Notice of Related Case in this matter on the basis
28
2
DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE T. LEVU IN SUPPORT PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO CONSOLIDATE CASES
1 that the Class action (i) “involves the same parties and is based on the same or similar claims, (ii) arises
2 from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of
3 the same or substantially identical questions of fact or law, and (iii) is likely for other reasons to require
4 substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges” as the PAGA-only action. A
5 true and correct copy of Defendant’s Notice of Related Case is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
6 6. On April 20, 2023, Defendant filed its Motion to Consolidate Cases in this matter, which
7 is the subject of the instant Opposition.
8 7. A true and correct copy of the February 1, 2021 Minute Order in Shylaine Roberts v.
9 Solantic Corporation (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 20NWCV00603) deeming the PAGA and
10 Class matters not related is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
11 8. A true and correct copy of the February 18, 2021 Minute Order in Iris Astudillo v.
12 Torrance Health Association, Inc. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 20TRCV00721) deeming the
13 PAGA and Class matters not related is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
14
15 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
16 true and correct. Executed this 28th day in April of 2023, at San Diego, California
17
18
19 By: ______________________
Christine T. LeVu
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE T. LEVU IN SUPPORT PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO CONSOLIDATE CASES
EXHIBIT 1
1 BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687)
2 Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975)
Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066)
3 Nicholas J. De Blouw (State Bar #280922)
2255 Calle Clara 7/11/2022
4 La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858)551-1223
5 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
Website: www.bamlawca.com
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
9
10 22-CIV-02810
PRECIOUS CHATMAN, on behalf of the Case No. ____________________
11 State of California, as a private attorney
general, REPRESENTATIVE ACTION
12 COMPLAINT FOR:
13 1. Civil Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code
Plaintiff, § 2699, et seq. for violations of Labor
14 Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204 et seq., 210,
vs. 221, 226(a), 226.7, 227.3, 510, 512,
15 558(a)(1)(2), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198,
WEDRIVEU, INC., a California Corporation; 2802, California Code of Regulations,
16 and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Title 8, Section 11040, Subdivision 5(A)-
(B), and the applicable Wage Order(s).
17
18 Defendants.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiff Precious Chatman (“PLAINTIFF”), on behalf of the people of the State of
2 California and as an “aggrieved employee” acting as a private attorney general under the Labor
3 Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004, § 2699, et seq. (“PAGA”) only, alleges on
4 information and belief, except for her own acts and knowledge which are based on personal
5 knowledge, the following:
6 INTRODUCTION
7 1. PLAINTIFF brings this action against Defendant WeDriveU, Inc. (referred to as
8 “DEFENDANT”) seeking only to recover PAGA civil penalties for herself, and on behalf of
9 all current and former aggrieved employees that worked for DEFENDANT. PLAINTIFF does
10 not seek to recover anything other than penalties as permitted by California Labor Code
11 § 2699. To the extent that statutory violations are mentioned for wage violations, PLAINTIFF
12 does not seek underlying general and/or special damages for those violations, but simply the
13 civil penalties permitted by California Labor Code § 2699.
14 2. California has enacted the PAGA to permit an individual to bring an action on
15 behalf of herself and on behalf of others for PAGA penalties only, which is the precise and sole
16 nature of this action.
17 3. Accordingly, PLAINTIFF seeks to obtain all applicable relief for
18 DEFENDANT’s violations under PAGA and solely for the relief as permitted by PAGA – that
19 is, penalties and any other relief the Court deems proper pursuant to the PAGA. Nothing in this
20 complaint should be construed as attempting to obtain any relief that would not be available in
21 a PAGA-only action.
22
23 THE PARTIES
24 4. Defendant WeDriveU, Inc. is a California corporation that at all relevant times
25 mentioned herein conducted and continues to conduct substantial business in the state of
26 California.
27 5. DEFENDANT provides shuttle transportation services.
28 6. PLAINTIFF has been employed by DEFENDANT in California since April of
2
REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
1 2018 and has been at all times classified by DEFENDANT as a non-exempt employee, paid on
2 an hourly basis, and entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods and payment of
3 minimum and overtime wages due for all time worked.
4 7. PLAINTIFF, and such persons that may be added from time to time who satisfy
5 the requirements and exhaust the administrative procedures under the Private Attorney General
6 Act, brings this Representative Action on behalf of the State of California with respect to herself
7 and all individuals who are or previously were employed by DEFENDANT in California
8 and classified as non-exempt employees (“AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES”) during the time
9 period of February 11, 2021 until a date as determined by the Court (the "PAGA PERIOD").
10 8. PLAINTIFF, on behalf of herself and all AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES presently
11 or formerly employed by DEFENDANT during the PAGA PERIOD, brings this representative
12 action pursuant to Labor Code § 2699, et seq. seeking fixed civil penalties for DEFENDANT’s
13 violation of California Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204 et seq., 210, 221, 226(a), 226.7, 227.3,
14 510, 512, 558(a)(1)(2), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2802, California Code of Regulations, Title
15 8, Section 11040, Subdivision 5(A)-(B), and the applicable Wage Order(s). Based upon the
16 foregoing, PLAINTIFF and all AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES are aggrieved employees within
17 the meaning of Labor Code § 2699, et seq.
18 9. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, subsidiary,
19 partnership, associate or otherwise of defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are presently
20 unknown to PLAINTIFF who therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names pursuant
21 to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 474. PLAINTIFF will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege
22 the true names and capacities of Does 1 through 50, inclusive, when they are ascertained.
23 PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and based upon that information and belief alleges, that
24 the Defendants named in this Complaint, including DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are
25 responsible in some manner for one or more of the events and happenings that proximately
26 caused the injuries and damages hereinafter alleged.
27 10. The agents, servants and/or employees of the Defendants and each of them acting
28 on behalf of the Defendants acted within the course and scope of his, her or its authority as the
3
REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
1 agent, servant and/or employee of the Defendants, and personally participated in the conduct
2 alleged herein on behalf of the Defendants with respect to the conduct alleged herein.
3 Consequently, the acts of each Defendant are legally attributable to the other Defendants and
4 all Defendants are jointly and severally liable to PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED
5 EMPLOYEES, for the loss sustained as a proximate result of the conduct of the Defendants’
6 agents, servants and/or employees.
7 THE CONDUCT
8 11. Pursuant to the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, DEFENDANT was
9 required to pay PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES for all their time worked,
10 meaning the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer, including
11 all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work. DEFENDANT requires PLAINTIFF
12 and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES to work without paying them for all the time they are
13 under DEFENDANT’s control. PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES also
14 worked off the clock with respect to time spent undergoing mandatory drug testing or any other
15 testing and/or examination required as a condition of employment. Additionally, DEFENDANT,
16 as a matter of established company policy and procedure, administers a uniform practice of
17 rounding the actual time worked and recorded by PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED
18 EMPLOYEES, always to the benefit of DEFENDANT, so that during the course of their
19 employment, PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES are paid less than they would
20 have been paid had they been paid for actual recorded time rather than “rounded” time.
21 Additionally, DEFENDANT engages in the practice of requiring PLAINTIFF and the
22 AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES to perform work off the clock in that DEFENDANT, as a
23 condition of employment, required these employees to submit to mandatory temperature checks
24 and symptom questionnaires for COVID-19 screening prior to clocking into DEFENDANT’s
25 timekeeping system for the workday. As a result, PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED
26 EMPLOYEES forfeit minimum wage, overtime wage compensation, and off-duty meal breaks
27 by working without their time being correctly recorded and without compensation at the
28 applicable rates. DEFENDANT’s policy and practice not to pay PLAINTIFF and the
4
REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
1 AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES for all time worked, is evidenced by DEFENDANT’s business
2 records.
3 12. State law provides that employees must be paid overtime and meal and rest break
4 premiums at one-and-one-half times their “regular rate of pay.” PLAINTIFF and the
5 AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES are compensated at an hourly rate plus incentive pay that is tied
6 to specific elements of an employee’s performance.
7 13. The second component of PLAINTIFF’s and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES’
8 compensation is DEFENDANT’s non-discretionary incentive program that paid PLAINTIFF
9 and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES incentive wages based on their performance for
10 DEFENDANT. The non-discretionary incentive program provided all employees paid on an
11 hourly basis with incentive compensation when the employees met the various performance
12 goals set by DEFENDANT. However, when calculating the regular rate of pay in order to pay
13 overtime and meal and rest break premiums to PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED
14 EMPLOYEES, DEFENDANT failed to include the incentive compensation as part of the
15 employees’ “regular rate of pay” for purposes of calculating overtime pay and meal and rest
16 break premium pay. Management and supervisors described the incentive program to potential
17 and new employees as part of the compensation package. As a matter of law, the incentive
18 compensation received by PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES must be included
19 in the “regular rate of pay.” The failure to do so has resulted in a underpayment of overtime
20 compensation and meal and rest break premiums to PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED
21 EMPLOYEES by DEFENDANT.
22 14. As a result of their rigorous work schedules, PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED
23 EMPLOYEES are from time to time unable to take thirty (30) minute off duty meal breaks and
24 are not fully relieved of duty for their meal periods. PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED
25 EMPLOYEES are required from time to time to perform work as ordered by DEFENDANT for
26 more than five (5) hours during some shifts without receiving a meal break. Further,
27 DEFENDANT from time to time fails to provide PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED
28 EMPLOYEES with a second off-duty meal period for some workdays in which these employees
5
REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
1 are required by DEFENDANT to work ten (10) hours of work. DEFENDANT also engages in
2 the practice of rounding the meal period times to avoid paying penalties to PLAINTIFF and the
3 AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES. PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES therefore
4 forfeit meal breaks without additional compensation and in accordance with DEFENDANT’s
5 corporate policy and practice.
6 15. During the PAGA PERIOD, PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES
7 are also required from time to time to work in excess of four (4) hours without being provided
8 ten (10) minute rest periods. Further, these employees are denied their first rest periods of at
9 least ten (10) minutes for some shifts worked of at least two (2) to four (4) hours from time to
10 time, a first and second rest period of at least ten (10) minutes for some shifts worked of
11 between six (6) and eight (8) hours from time to time, and a first, second and third rest period
12 of at least ten (10) minutes for some shifts worked of ten (10) hours or more from time to time.
13 PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES are also not provided with one hour wages
14 in lieu thereof. Additionally, the applicable California Wage Order requires employers to
15 provide employees with off-duty rest periods, which the California Supreme Court defined as
16 time during which an employee is relieved from all work related duties and free from employer
17 control. In so doing, the Court held that the requirement under California law that employers
18 authorize and permit all employees to take rest period means that employers must relieve
19 employees of all duties and relinquish control over how employees spend their time which
20 includes control over the locations where employees may take their rest period. Employers
21 cannot impose controls that prohibit an employee from taking a brief walk - five minutes out,
22 five minutes back. Here, DEFENDANT’s policy restricts PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED
23 EMPLOYEES from unconstrained walks and is unlawful based on DEFENDANT’s rule which
24 states PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES cannot leave the work premises during
25 their rest period.
26 16. During the PAGA PERIOD, DEFENDANT fails to accurately record and pay
27 PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES for the actual amount of time these
28 employees work. Pursuant to the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, DEFENDANT
6
REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
1 is required to pay PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES for all time worked,
2 meaning the time during which an employee was subject to the control of an employer,
3 including all the time the employee was permitted or suffered to permit this work.
4 DEFENDANT requires these employees to work off the clock without paying them for all the
5 time they are under DEFENDANT’s control. As such, DEFENDANT knew or should have
6 known that PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES are under compensated for all
7 time worked. As a result, PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES forfeit time
8 worked by working without their time being accurately recorded and without compensation at
9 the applicable minimum wage and overtime wage rates. To the extent that the time worked off
10 the clock does not qualify for overtime premium payment, DEFENDANT fails to pay minimum
11 wages for the time worked off-the-clock in violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1197, and
12 1197.1.
13 17. From time to time, DEFENDANT also fails to provide PLAINTIFF and the
14 AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES with complete and accurate wage statements which failed to
15 show, among other things, the correct gross and net wages earned. Cal. Lab. Code § 226
16 provides that every employer shall furnish each of his or her employees with an accurate
17 itemized wage statement in writing showing, among other things, gross wages earned and all
18 applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding amount of time
19 worked at each hourly rate. Additionally, DEFENDANT violates Cal. Lab. Code 226(a)(8) by
20 failing to list the correct name of the legal entity that employs PLAINTIFF and the
21 AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES. Aside, from the violations listed above in this paragraph,
22 DEFENDANT fails to issue to PLAINTIFF an itemized wage statement that lists all the
23 requirements under California Labor Code 226 et seq. As a result, DEFENDANT from time to
24 time provides PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES with wage statements which
25 violated Cal. Lab. Code § 226.
26 18. Cal. Lab. Code § 204(d) provides, the requirements of this section shall be
27 deemed satisfied by the payment of wages for weekly, biweekly, or semimonthly payroll if the
28 wages are paid not more than seven calendar days following the close of the payroll period.
7
REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Cal. Lab. Code § 210 provides:
2 [I]n addition to, and entirely independent and apart from, any other penalty provided in
this article, every person who fails to pay the wages of each employee as provided in
3 Sections. . . .204. . .shall be subject to a civil penalty as follows: (1) For any initial
violation, one hundred dollars ($100) for each failure to pay each employee; (2) For each
4 subsequent violation, or any willful or intentional violation, two hundred dollars ($200)
for each failure to pay each employee, plus 25 percent of the amount unlawfully
5 withheld.
6 19. DEFENDANT from time to time fails to pay PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED
7 EMPLOYEES within seven (7) days of the close of the payroll period in accordance with Cal.
8 Lab. Code § 204(d).
9 20. DEFENDANT underpays sick pay wages to PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED
10 EMPLOYEES by failing to pay such wages at the regular rate of pay in violation of Cal. Lab.
11 Code Section 246. Specifically, PLAINTIFF and other non-exempt employees earn non-
12 discretionary remuneration, including but not limited to, incentives, shift differential pay, and
13 bonuses. Rather than pay sick pay at the regular rate of pay, DEFENDANT underpays sick pay
14 to PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES at their base rates of pay.
15 21. Cal. Lab. Code Section 246(l)(2) requires that paid sick time for nonexempt
16 employees be calculated by dividing the employee’s total wages, not including overtime
17 premium pay, by the employee’s total hours worked in the full pay periods of the prior 90 days
18 of employment.
19 22. DEFENDANT violated Cal. Lab. Code Section 246 by failing to pay sick pay at
20 the regular rate of pay. PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES routinely earned non-
21 discretionary incentive wages which increased their regular rate of pay. However, when sick pay
22 was paid, it was paid at the base rate of pay for PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED
23 EMPLOYEES, as opposed to the correct, higher regular rate of pay, as required under Cal. Lab.
24 Code Section 246.
25 23. As a pattern and practice, DEFENDANT regularly failed to pay PLAINTIFF and
26 the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES their correct wages and accordingly owe waiting time
27 penalties pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code Section 203. Further, PLAINTIFF is informed and believes
28 and based thereon alleges that such failure to pay sick pay at regular rate was willful, such that
8
REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
1 PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES whose employment has separated are
2 entitled to waiting time penalties pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code Sections 201-203.
3 24. Pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code Section 221, “It shall be unlawful for any employer
4 to collect or receive from an employee any part of wages theretofore paid by said employer to
5 said employee.” DEFENDANT fails to pay all compensation due to PLAINTIFF and the
6 AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES, makes unlawful deductions from compensation payable to
7 PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES, fails to disclose all aspects of the deductions
8 from compensation payable to PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES, and thereby
9 fails to pay these employees all wages due at each applicable pay period and upon termination.
10 25. DEFENDANT intentionally and knowingly fails to reimburse and indemnify
11 PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES for required business expenses incurred by
12 the PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES in direct consequence of discharging
13 their duties on behalf of DEFENDANT. Under California Labor Code Section 2802, employers
14 are required to indemnify employees for all expenses incurred in the course and scope of their
15 employment. Cal. Lab. Code § 2802 expressly states that "an employer shall indemnify his or
16 her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct
17 consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of
18 the employer, even though unlawful, unless the employee, at the time of obeying the directions,
19 believed them to be unlawful."
20 26. In the course of their employment PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED
21 EMPLOYEES as a business expense, are required by DEFENDANT to use their own personal
22 cellular phones as a result of and in furtherance of their job duties as employees for
23 DEFENDANT but are not reimbursed or indemnified by DEFENDANT for the cost associated
24 with the use of their personal cellular phones for DEFENDANT’s benefit. Specifically,
25 PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES are required by DEFENDANT to use their
26 personal cellular phones. As a result, in the course of their employment with DEFENDANT,
27 PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES incurred unreimbursed business expenses
28 which included, but were not limited to, costs related to the use of their personal cellular phones
9
REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
1 all on behalf of and for the benefit of DEFENDANT.
2 27. All of the conduct and violations alleged herein occurred during the PAGA
3 PERIOD. To the extent that any of the conduct and violations alleged herein did not affect
4 PLAINTIFF during the PAGA PERIOD, PLAINTIFF seeks penalties for those violations that
5 affected the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES pursuant to Carrington v. Starbucks Corp. 2018
6 AJDAR 12157 (Certified for Publication 12/19/18).
7
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8
28. This Court has jurisdiction over this Action pursuant to California Code of Civil
9
Procedure, Section 410.10.
10
29. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure,
11
Sections 395 and 395.5, because PLAINTIFF worked in this County for DEFENDANT and
12
DEFENDANT (i) currently maintains and at all relevant times maintained offices and facilities
13
in this County and/or conducts substantial business in this County, and (ii) committed the
14
wrongful conduct herein alleged in this County against PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED
15
EMPLOYEES.
16
17
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
18
For Violation of the Private Attorneys General Act
19
[Cal. Lab. Code §§ 2698, et seq.]
20
(By PLAINTIFF and Against All Defendants)
21
30. PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by this reference, as though fully set forth
22
herein, the prior paragraphs of this Complaint.
23
31. PAGA is a mechanism by which the State of California itself can enforce state
24
labor laws through the employee suing under the PAGA who do so as the proxy or agent of the
25
state's labor law enforcement agencies. An action to recover civil penalties under PAGA is
26
fundamentally a law enforcement action designed to protect the public and not to benefit private
27
parties. The purpose of the PAGA is not to recover damages or restitution, but to create a
28
10
REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
1 means of "deputizing" citizens as private attorneys general to enforce the Labor Code. In
2 enacting PAGA, the California Legislature specified that "it was ... in the public interest to
3 allow aggrieved employees, acting as private attorneys general to recover civil penalties for
4 Labor Code violations ..." Stats. 2003, ch. 906, § 1. Accordingly, PAGA claims cannot be
5 subject to arbitration.
6 32. PLAINTIFF, and such persons that may be added from time to time who satisfy
7 the requirements and exhaust the administrative procedures under the Private Attorney General
8 Act, brings this Representative Action on behalf of the State of California with respect to herself
9 and all individuals who are or previously were employed by DEFENDANT in California
10 and classified as non-exempt employees (“AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES”) during the time
11 period of February 11, 2021 until a date as determined by the Court (the "PAGA PERIOD").
12 33. On February 11, 2022, PLAINTIFF gave written notice by electronic mail to the
13 Labor and Workforce Development Agency (the "Agency") and by certified mail to the
14 employer of the specific provisions of this code alleged to have been violated as required by
15 Labor Code § 2699.3. The statutory waiting period for PLAINTIFF to add these allegations to
16 the Complaint has expired. As a result, pursuant to Section 2699.3, PLAINTIFF may now
17 commence a representative civil action under PAGA pursuant to Section 2699 as the proxy of
18 the State of California with respect to all AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES as herein defined.
19 34. The policies, acts and practices heretofore described were and are an unlawful
20 business act or practice because DEFENDANT (a) failed to provide PLAINTIFF and the
21 AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES accurate itemized wage statements, (b) failed to properly record
22 and provide legally required meal and rest periods, (c) failed to pay minimum wages, (d) failed
23 to pay overtime wages and sick pay wages, and (e) failed to reimburse employees for required
24 expenses, all in violation of the applicable Labor Code sections listed in Labor Code §§ 201,
25 202, 203, 204 et seq., 210, 221, 226(a), 226.7, 227.3, 510, 512, 558(a)(1)(2), 1194, 1197,
26 1197.1, 1198, 2802, California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 11040, Subdivision 5(A)-
27 (B), and the applicable Wage Order(s), and thereby gives rise to civil penalties as a result of
28
11
REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
1 such conduct.1 PLAINTIFF hereby seeks recovery of only civil penalties as prescribed by the
2 Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004 as the representative of the State of
3 California for the illegal conduct perpetrated on PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED
4 EMPLOYEES.
5 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
6 WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment against each Defendant, jointly and
7 severally, as follows:
8 1. On behalf of the State of California and with respect to all AGGRIEVED
9 EMPLOYEES:
10 A) Recovery of civil penalties as prescribed by the Labor Code Private
11 Attorneys General Act of 2004; and,
12 B) An award of attorneys’ fees and cost of suit, as allowable under the
13 law, including, but not limited to, pursuant to Labor Code §2699.
14
Dated: July 11, 2022 BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
15
16
By: /s/ Nicholas De Blouw
17
Norman B. Blumenthal
18 Kyle R. Nordrehaug
Nicholas J. De Blouw
19
Attorneys for Plaintiff
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
Plaintiff specifically excludes and/or does not allege any claims under California Labor
28 Code §558(a)(3).
12
REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
EXHIBIT 2
CM-015
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY
Christopher A. Braham (SBN 239367)
McDermott Will & Emery LLP
2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200, Los Angeles, CA 90067
TELEPHONE NO.: 310-277-4110 FAX NO. (Optional): 310-277-4730
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): cbraham@mwe.com
ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Defendant WeDriveU, Inc.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Mateo
STREET ADDRESS: 400 County Center
MAILING ADDRESS: Same
CITY AND ZIP CODE: Redwood City, 94063
BRANCH NAME: Central
CASE NUMBER:
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Precious Chatman 22-CIV-02197
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: WeDriveU, Inc. JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Hon. Robert D. Foiles
DEPT.:
NOTICE OF RELATED CASE 21
Identify, in chronological order according to date of filing, all cases related to the case referenced above.
1. a. Title: Chatman v. WeDriveU, Inc.
b. Case number: 22-CIV-02810
c. Court: same as above
other state or federal court (name and address):
d. Department: 23
e. Case type: limited civil unlimited civil probate family law other (specify):
f. Filing date: July 11, 2022
g. Has this case been designated or determined as "complex?" Yes No
h. Relationship of this case to the case referenced above (check all that apply):
involves the same parties and is based on the same or similar claims.
arises from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of
the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact.
involves claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property.
is likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges.
Additional explanation is attached in attachment 1h
i. Status of case:
pending
dismissed with without prejudice
disposed of by judgment
2. a. Title:
b. Case number:
c. Court: same as above
other state or federal court (name and address):
d. Department:
Page 1 of 3
Form Approved for Optional Use Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.300
Judicial Council of California NOTICE OF RELATED CASE www.courtinfo.ca.gov
CM-015 [Rev. July 1, 2007]
CM-015
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Precious Chatman CASE NUMBER:
22-CIV-02197
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: WeDriveU, Inc.
2. (continued)
e. Case type: limited civil unlimited civil probate family law other (specify):
f. Filing date:
g. Has this case been designated or determined as "complex?" Yes No
h. Relationship of this case to the case referenced above (check all that apply):
involves the same parties and is based on the same or similar claims.
arises from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of
the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact.
involves claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property.
is likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges.
Additional explanation is attached in attachment 2h
i. Status of case:
pending
dismissed with without prejudice
disposed of by judgment
3. a. Title:
b. Case number:
c. Court: same as above
other state or federal court (name and address):
d. Department:
e. Case type: limited civil unlimited civil probate family law other (specify):
f. Filing date:
g. Has this case been designated or determined as "complex?" Yes No
h. Relationship of this case to the case referenced above (check all that apply):
involves the same parties and is based on the same or similar claims.
arises from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of
the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact.
involves claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property.
is likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges.
Additional explanation is attached in attachment 3h
i. Status of case:
pending
dismissed with without prejudice
disposed of by judgment
4. Additional related cases are described in Attachment 4. Number of pages attached:
Date: 2/1/2023
Christopher A. Braham
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY) (SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY)
CM-015 [Rev. July 1, 2007] NOTICE OF RELATED CASE Page 2 of 3
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2
I, Cindy Liu declare:
3
I am a citizen of the United States and employed in Los Angeles County, California. I am
4
over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business address is
5
2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200, Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206. On February 1, 2023, I served
6
a copy of the within document(s): DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF RELATED CASE
7
☒ BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Based on a court order or an
8 agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused the
document(s) to be sent from e-mail address cliu@mwe.com to the persons at the e-mail
9 addresses listed below. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission,
any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
10
11 BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
12 BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
Norman B. Blumenthal
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES
13 Kyle R. Nordrehaug
Aparajit Bhowmik
14 Victoria B. Rivapalacio
Christine T. LeVu
15 Andrew Ronan
16 2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037
17 Telephone: (858)551-1223
Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
18 Emails:
AJ@bamlawca.com;
19
Norm@bamlawca.com;
20 kyle@bamlawca.com;
victoria@bamlawca.com;
21 christine@bamlawca.com; and
andrew@bamlawca.com
22
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is
23 true and correct.
24
Executed on February 1, 2023, at Los Angeles, California.
25
26 /s/ Cindy Liu
Cindy Liu
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
EXHIBIT 3
EXHIBIT 4
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 6
20TRCV00721 February 18, 2021
IRIS ASTUDILLO vs TORRANCE HEALTH ASSOCIATION, 2:17 PM
INC.
Judge: Honorable Elihu M. Berle CSR: None
Judicial Assistant: M. Mata ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: None Deputy Sheriff: None
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff(s): No Appearances
For Defendant(s): No Appearances
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Court Order re: Notice of Related Case
The Court finds that the following cases, 20STCV18424 and 20TRCV00721, are not related
within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a).
Counsel for defendant is to give notice.
Certificate of Mailing is attached.
Minute Order Page 1 of 1
Preview
1 BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP 2 Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687) 3 Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975) Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066) 4 Christine T. LeVu (State Bar #288271) Andrew Ronan (State Bar #312316) 5 Randy Hy (State Bar #290395) 2255 Calle Clara 6 La Jolla, CA 92037 7 Telephone: (858)551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff PRECIOUS CHATMAN 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 12 PRECIOUS CHATMAN, an individual, on Case No. 22-CIV-02197 behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons 13 similarly situated, CLASS ACTION 14 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE T. 15 LEVU IN SUPPORT PLAINTIFF’S vs. OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S 16 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES WEDRIVEU, INC., a California Corporation; 17 and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Date: May 12, 2023 Time: 2:00 p.m. 18 Defendants. Judge: Hon. Robert D. Foiles 19 Dept.: 21 20 Action Filed: June 2, 2022 Remanded: October 28, 2022 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE T. LEVU IN SUPPORT PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES 1 DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE T. LEVU 2 I, Christine T. LeVu, declare as follows: 3 1. I am one of attorneys of record for the Plaintiffs in the above entitled action, and have 4 personal knowledge of each of the facts set forth herein, and if called upon as a witness could testify 5 competently thereto, except as to the matters stated on information and belief, and as to such matters I 6 believe them to be true. 7 2. Plaintiff Precious Chatman filed this action on June 2, 2022, bringing claims on behalf of 8 herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated for violations of: (1) Unfair Competition in 9 Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.; (2) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages in Violation 10 of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1197 & 1197.1; (3) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in Violation of Cal. Lab. 11 Code §§ 510, et seq.; (4) Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 12 226.7 and 512 and the Applicable IWC Wage Order; (5) Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods in 13 Violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7 and 512 and the Applicable IWC Wage Order; (6) Failure to Provide 14 Accurate Itemized Wage Statements in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 226; (7) Failure to Reimburse 15 Employees for Required Expenses in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 2802; and (8) Failure to Pay Sick 16 Pay Wages in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201-204, 233, 246. 17 3. On August 24, 2022 Defendant WeDriveU, Inc. (“Defendant”) removed the case to the 18 United States District Court for the Northern District of California, however the case was remanded to 19 this Court on October 28, 2022. 20 4. On July 11, 2022, Plaintiff Precious Chatman filed a Representative Action Complaint, 21 as a proxy on behalf of the State of California and as an “Aggrieved Employee,” acting as a private 22 attorney general under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004, § 2699, et seq. (“PAGA”), 23 seeking fixed civil penalties for Defendant’s violations of California Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 24 210, 226(a), 226.7, 510, 512, 558(a)(1)(2), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802. The PAGA action is 25 pending in San Diego County Superior Court, Case No. 37-2021-00011774-CU-OE-CTL. A true and 26 correct copy of Plaintiff Chatman’s filed PAGA-only Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.) 27 5. On February 1, 2023, Defendant filed a Notice of Related Case in this matter on the basis 28 2 DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE T. LEVU IN SUPPORT PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES 1 that the Class action (i) “involves the same parties and is based on the same or similar claims, (ii) arises 2 from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of 3 the same or substantially identical questions of fact or law, and (iii) is likely for other reasons to require 4 substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges” as the PAGA-only action. A 5 true and correct copy of Defendant’s Notice of Related Case is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 6 6. On April 20, 2023, Defendant filed its Motion to Consolidate Cases in this matter, which 7 is the subject of the instant Opposition. 8 7. A true and correct copy of the February 1, 2021 Minute Order in Shylaine Roberts v. 9 Solantic Corporation (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 20NWCV00603) deeming the PAGA and 10 Class matters not related is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 11 8. A true and correct copy of the February 18, 2021 Minute Order in Iris Astudillo v. 12 Torrance Health Association, Inc. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 20TRCV00721) deeming the 13 PAGA and Class matters not related is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. 14 15 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is 16 true and correct. Executed this 28th day in April of 2023, at San Diego, California 17 18 19 By: ______________________ Christine T. LeVu 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE T. LEVU IN SUPPORT PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES EXHIBIT 1 1 BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687) 2 Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975) Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066) 3 Nicholas J. De Blouw (State Bar #280922) 2255 Calle Clara 7/11/2022 4 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858)551-1223 5 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 Website: www.bamlawca.com 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 9 10 22-CIV-02810 PRECIOUS CHATMAN, on behalf of the Case No. ____________________ 11 State of California, as a private attorney general, REPRESENTATIVE ACTION 12 COMPLAINT FOR: 13 1. Civil Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code Plaintiff, § 2699, et seq. for violations of Labor 14 Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204 et seq., 210, vs. 221, 226(a), 226.7, 227.3, 510, 512, 15 558(a)(1)(2), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, WEDRIVEU, INC., a California Corporation; 2802, California Code of Regulations, 16 and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Title 8, Section 11040, Subdivision 5(A)- (B), and the applicable Wage Order(s). 17 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 1 Plaintiff Precious Chatman (“PLAINTIFF”), on behalf of the people of the State of 2 California and as an “aggrieved employee” acting as a private attorney general under the Labor 3 Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004, § 2699, et seq. (“PAGA”) only, alleges on 4 information and belief, except for her own acts and knowledge which are based on personal 5 knowledge, the following: 6 INTRODUCTION 7 1. PLAINTIFF brings this action against Defendant WeDriveU, Inc. (referred to as 8 “DEFENDANT”) seeking only to recover PAGA civil penalties for herself, and on behalf of 9 all current and former aggrieved employees that worked for DEFENDANT. PLAINTIFF does 10 not seek to recover anything other than penalties as permitted by California Labor Code 11 § 2699. To the extent that statutory violations are mentioned for wage violations, PLAINTIFF 12 does not seek underlying general and/or special damages for those violations, but simply the 13 civil penalties permitted by California Labor Code § 2699. 14 2. California has enacted the PAGA to permit an individual to bring an action on 15 behalf of herself and on behalf of others for PAGA penalties only, which is the precise and sole 16 nature of this action. 17 3. Accordingly, PLAINTIFF seeks to obtain all applicable relief for 18 DEFENDANT’s violations under PAGA and solely for the relief as permitted by PAGA – that 19 is, penalties and any other relief the Court deems proper pursuant to the PAGA. Nothing in this 20 complaint should be construed as attempting to obtain any relief that would not be available in 21 a PAGA-only action. 22 23 THE PARTIES 24 4. Defendant WeDriveU, Inc. is a California corporation that at all relevant times 25 mentioned herein conducted and continues to conduct substantial business in the state of 26 California. 27 5. DEFENDANT provides shuttle transportation services. 28 6. PLAINTIFF has been employed by DEFENDANT in California since April of 2 REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 1 2018 and has been at all times classified by DEFENDANT as a non-exempt employee, paid on 2 an hourly basis, and entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods and payment of 3 minimum and overtime wages due for all time worked. 4 7. PLAINTIFF, and such persons that may be added from time to time who satisfy 5 the requirements and exhaust the administrative procedures under the Private Attorney General 6 Act, brings this Representative Action on behalf of the State of California with respect to herself 7 and all individuals who are or previously were employed by DEFENDANT in California 8 and classified as non-exempt employees (“AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES”) during the time 9 period of February 11, 2021 until a date as determined by the Court (the "PAGA PERIOD"). 10 8. PLAINTIFF, on behalf of herself and all AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES presently 11 or formerly employed by DEFENDANT during the PAGA PERIOD, brings this representative 12 action pursuant to Labor Code § 2699, et seq. seeking fixed civil penalties for DEFENDANT’s 13 violation of California Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204 et seq., 210, 221, 226(a), 226.7, 227.3, 14 510, 512, 558(a)(1)(2), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2802, California Code of Regulations, Title 15 8, Section 11040, Subdivision 5(A)-(B), and the applicable Wage Order(s). Based upon the 16 foregoing, PLAINTIFF and all AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES are aggrieved employees within 17 the meaning of Labor Code § 2699, et seq. 18 9. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, subsidiary, 19 partnership, associate or otherwise of defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are presently 20 unknown to PLAINTIFF who therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names pursuant 21 to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 474. PLAINTIFF will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege 22 the true names and capacities of Does 1 through 50, inclusive, when they are ascertained. 23 PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and based upon that information and belief alleges, that 24 the Defendants named in this Complaint, including DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are 25 responsible in some manner for one or more of the events and happenings that proximately 26 caused the injuries and damages hereinafter alleged. 27 10. The agents, servants and/or employees of the Defendants and each of them acting 28 on behalf of the Defendants acted within the course and scope of his, her or its authority as the 3 REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 1 agent, servant and/or employee of the Defendants, and personally participated in the conduct 2 alleged herein on behalf of the Defendants with respect to the conduct alleged herein. 3 Consequently, the acts of each Defendant are legally attributable to the other Defendants and 4 all Defendants are jointly and severally liable to PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED 5 EMPLOYEES, for the loss sustained as a proximate result of the conduct of the Defendants’ 6 agents, servants and/or employees. 7 THE CONDUCT 8 11. Pursuant to the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, DEFENDANT was 9 required to pay PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES for all their time worked, 10 meaning the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer, including 11 all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work. DEFENDANT requires PLAINTIFF 12 and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES to work without paying them for all the time they are 13 under DEFENDANT’s control. PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES also 14 worked off the clock with respect to time spent undergoing mandatory drug testing or any other 15 testing and/or examination required as a condition of employment. Additionally, DEFENDANT, 16 as a matter of established company policy and procedure, administers a uniform practice of 17 rounding the actual time worked and recorded by PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED 18 EMPLOYEES, always to the benefit of DEFENDANT, so that during the course of their 19 employment, PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES are paid less than they would 20 have been paid had they been paid for actual recorded time rather than “rounded” time. 21 Additionally, DEFENDANT engages in the practice of requiring PLAINTIFF and the 22 AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES to perform work off the clock in that DEFENDANT, as a 23 condition of employment, required these employees to submit to mandatory temperature checks 24 and symptom questionnaires for COVID-19 screening prior to clocking into DEFENDANT’s 25 timekeeping system for the workday. As a result, PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED 26 EMPLOYEES forfeit minimum wage, overtime wage compensation, and off-duty meal breaks 27 by working without their time being correctly recorded and without compensation at the 28 applicable rates. DEFENDANT’s policy and practice not to pay PLAINTIFF and the 4 REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 1 AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES for all time worked, is evidenced by DEFENDANT’s business 2 records. 3 12. State law provides that employees must be paid overtime and meal and rest break 4 premiums at one-and-one-half times their “regular rate of pay.” PLAINTIFF and the 5 AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES are compensated at an hourly rate plus incentive pay that is tied 6 to specific elements of an employee’s performance. 7 13. The second component of PLAINTIFF’s and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES’ 8 compensation is DEFENDANT’s non-discretionary incentive program that paid PLAINTIFF 9 and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES incentive wages based on their performance for 10 DEFENDANT. The non-discretionary incentive program provided all employees paid on an 11 hourly basis with incentive compensation when the employees met the various performance 12 goals set by DEFENDANT. However, when calculating the regular rate of pay in order to pay 13 overtime and meal and rest break premiums to PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED 14 EMPLOYEES, DEFENDANT failed to include the incentive compensation as part of the 15 employees’ “regular rate of pay” for purposes of calculating overtime pay and meal and rest 16 break premium pay. Management and supervisors described the incentive program to potential 17 and new employees as part of the compensation package. As a matter of law, the incentive 18 compensation received by PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES must be included 19 in the “regular rate of pay.” The failure to do so has resulted in a underpayment of overtime 20 compensation and meal and rest break premiums to PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED 21 EMPLOYEES by DEFENDANT. 22 14. As a result of their rigorous work schedules, PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED 23 EMPLOYEES are from time to time unable to take thirty (30) minute off duty meal breaks and 24 are not fully relieved of duty for their meal periods. PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED 25 EMPLOYEES are required from time to time to perform work as ordered by DEFENDANT for 26 more than five (5) hours during some shifts without receiving a meal break. Further, 27 DEFENDANT from time to time fails to provide PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED 28 EMPLOYEES with a second off-duty meal period for some workdays in which these employees 5 REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 1 are required by DEFENDANT to work ten (10) hours of work. DEFENDANT also engages in 2 the practice of rounding the meal period times to avoid paying penalties to PLAINTIFF and the 3 AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES. PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES therefore 4 forfeit meal breaks without additional compensation and in accordance with DEFENDANT’s 5 corporate policy and practice. 6 15. During the PAGA PERIOD, PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES 7 are also required from time to time to work in excess of four (4) hours without being provided 8 ten (10) minute rest periods. Further, these employees are denied their first rest periods of at 9 least ten (10) minutes for some shifts worked of at least two (2) to four (4) hours from time to 10 time, a first and second rest period of at least ten (10) minutes for some shifts worked of 11 between six (6) and eight (8) hours from time to time, and a first, second and third rest period 12 of at least ten (10) minutes for some shifts worked of ten (10) hours or more from time to time. 13 PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES are also not provided with one hour wages 14 in lieu thereof. Additionally, the applicable California Wage Order requires employers to 15 provide employees with off-duty rest periods, which the California Supreme Court defined as 16 time during which an employee is relieved from all work related duties and free from employer 17 control. In so doing, the Court held that the requirement under California law that employers 18 authorize and permit all employees to take rest period means that employers must relieve 19 employees of all duties and relinquish control over how employees spend their time which 20 includes control over the locations where employees may take their rest period. Employers 21 cannot impose controls that prohibit an employee from taking a brief walk - five minutes out, 22 five minutes back. Here, DEFENDANT’s policy restricts PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED 23 EMPLOYEES from unconstrained walks and is unlawful based on DEFENDANT’s rule which 24 states PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES cannot leave the work premises during 25 their rest period. 26 16. During the PAGA PERIOD, DEFENDANT fails to accurately record and pay 27 PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES for the actual amount of time these 28 employees work. Pursuant to the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, DEFENDANT 6 REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 1 is required to pay PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES for all time worked, 2 meaning the time during which an employee was subject to the control of an employer, 3 including all the time the employee was permitted or suffered to permit this work. 4 DEFENDANT requires these employees to work off the clock without paying them for all the 5 time they are under DEFENDANT’s control. As such, DEFENDANT knew or should have 6 known that PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES are under compensated for all 7 time worked. As a result, PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES forfeit time 8 worked by working without their time being accurately recorded and without compensation at 9 the applicable minimum wage and overtime wage rates. To the extent that the time worked off 10 the clock does not qualify for overtime premium payment, DEFENDANT fails to pay minimum 11 wages for the time worked off-the-clock in violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1197, and 12 1197.1. 13 17. From time to time, DEFENDANT also fails to provide PLAINTIFF and the 14 AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES with complete and accurate wage statements which failed to 15 show, among other things, the correct gross and net wages earned. Cal. Lab. Code § 226 16 provides that every employer shall furnish each of his or her employees with an accurate 17 itemized wage statement in writing showing, among other things, gross wages earned and all 18 applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding amount of time 19 worked at each hourly rate. Additionally, DEFENDANT violates Cal. Lab. Code 226(a)(8) by 20 failing to list the correct name of the legal entity that employs PLAINTIFF and the 21 AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES. Aside, from the violations listed above in this paragraph, 22 DEFENDANT fails to issue to PLAINTIFF an itemized wage statement that lists all the 23 requirements under California Labor Code 226 et seq. As a result, DEFENDANT from time to 24 time provides PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES with wage statements which 25 violated Cal. Lab. Code § 226. 26 18. Cal. Lab. Code § 204(d) provides, the requirements of this section shall be 27 deemed satisfied by the payment of wages for weekly, biweekly, or semimonthly payroll if the 28 wages are paid not more than seven calendar days following the close of the payroll period. 7 REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 1 Cal. Lab. Code § 210 provides: 2 [I]n addition to, and entirely independent and apart from, any other penalty provided in this article, every person who fails to pay the wages of each employee as provided in 3 Sections. . . .204. . .shall be subject to a civil penalty as follows: (1) For any initial violation, one hundred dollars ($100) for each failure to pay each employee; (2) For each 4 subsequent violation, or any willful or intentional violation, two hundred dollars ($200) for each failure to pay each employee, plus 25 percent of the amount unlawfully 5 withheld. 6 19. DEFENDANT from time to time fails to pay PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED 7 EMPLOYEES within seven (7) days of the close of the payroll period in accordance with Cal. 8 Lab. Code § 204(d). 9 20. DEFENDANT underpays sick pay wages to PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED 10 EMPLOYEES by failing to pay such wages at the regular rate of pay in violation of Cal. Lab. 11 Code Section 246. Specifically, PLAINTIFF and other non-exempt employees earn non- 12 discretionary remuneration, including but not limited to, incentives, shift differential pay, and 13 bonuses. Rather than pay sick pay at the regular rate of pay, DEFENDANT underpays sick pay 14 to PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES at their base rates of pay. 15 21. Cal. Lab. Code Section 246(l)(2) requires that paid sick time for nonexempt 16 employees be calculated by dividing the employee’s total wages, not including overtime 17 premium pay, by the employee’s total hours worked in the full pay periods of the prior 90 days 18 of employment. 19 22. DEFENDANT violated Cal. Lab. Code Section 246 by failing to pay sick pay at 20 the regular rate of pay. PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES routinely earned non- 21 discretionary incentive wages which increased their regular rate of pay. However, when sick pay 22 was paid, it was paid at the base rate of pay for PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED 23 EMPLOYEES, as opposed to the correct, higher regular rate of pay, as required under Cal. Lab. 24 Code Section 246. 25 23. As a pattern and practice, DEFENDANT regularly failed to pay PLAINTIFF and 26 the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES their correct wages and accordingly owe waiting time 27 penalties pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code Section 203. Further, PLAINTIFF is informed and believes 28 and based thereon alleges that such failure to pay sick pay at regular rate was willful, such that 8 REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 1 PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES whose employment has separated are 2 entitled to waiting time penalties pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code Sections 201-203. 3 24. Pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code Section 221, “It shall be unlawful for any employer 4 to collect or receive from an employee any part of wages theretofore paid by said employer to 5 said employee.” DEFENDANT fails to pay all compensation due to PLAINTIFF and the 6 AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES, makes unlawful deductions from compensation payable to 7 PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES, fails to disclose all aspects of the deductions 8 from compensation payable to PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES, and thereby 9 fails to pay these employees all wages due at each applicable pay period and upon termination. 10 25. DEFENDANT intentionally and knowingly fails to reimburse and indemnify 11 PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES for required business expenses incurred by 12 the PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES in direct consequence of discharging 13 their duties on behalf of DEFENDANT. Under California Labor Code Section 2802, employers 14 are required to indemnify employees for all expenses incurred in the course and scope of their 15 employment. Cal. Lab. Code § 2802 expressly states that "an employer shall indemnify his or 16 her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct 17 consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of 18 the employer, even though unlawful, unless the employee, at the time of obeying the directions, 19 believed them to be unlawful." 20 26. In the course of their employment PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED 21 EMPLOYEES as a business expense, are required by DEFENDANT to use their own personal 22 cellular phones as a result of and in furtherance of their job duties as employees for 23 DEFENDANT but are not reimbursed or indemnified by DEFENDANT for the cost associated 24 with the use of their personal cellular phones for DEFENDANT’s benefit. Specifically, 25 PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES are required by DEFENDANT to use their 26 personal cellular phones. As a result, in the course of their employment with DEFENDANT, 27 PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES incurred unreimbursed business expenses 28 which included, but were not limited to, costs related to the use of their personal cellular phones 9 REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 1 all on behalf of and for the benefit of DEFENDANT. 2 27. All of the conduct and violations alleged herein occurred during the PAGA 3 PERIOD. To the extent that any of the conduct and violations alleged herein did not affect 4 PLAINTIFF during the PAGA PERIOD, PLAINTIFF seeks penalties for those violations that 5 affected the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES pursuant to Carrington v. Starbucks Corp. 2018 6 AJDAR 12157 (Certified for Publication 12/19/18). 7 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8 28. This Court has jurisdiction over this Action pursuant to California Code of Civil 9 Procedure, Section 410.10. 10 29. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, 11 Sections 395 and 395.5, because PLAINTIFF worked in this County for DEFENDANT and 12 DEFENDANT (i) currently maintains and at all relevant times maintained offices and facilities 13 in this County and/or conducts substantial business in this County, and (ii) committed the 14 wrongful conduct herein alleged in this County against PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED 15 EMPLOYEES. 16 17 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 18 For Violation of the Private Attorneys General Act 19 [Cal. Lab. Code §§ 2698, et seq.] 20 (By PLAINTIFF and Against All Defendants) 21 30. PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by this reference, as though fully set forth 22 herein, the prior paragraphs of this Complaint. 23 31. PAGA is a mechanism by which the State of California itself can enforce state 24 labor laws through the employee suing under the PAGA who do so as the proxy or agent of the 25 state's labor law enforcement agencies. An action to recover civil penalties under PAGA is 26 fundamentally a law enforcement action designed to protect the public and not to benefit private 27 parties. The purpose of the PAGA is not to recover damages or restitution, but to create a 28 10 REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 1 means of "deputizing" citizens as private attorneys general to enforce the Labor Code. In 2 enacting PAGA, the California Legislature specified that "it was ... in the public interest to 3 allow aggrieved employees, acting as private attorneys general to recover civil penalties for 4 Labor Code violations ..." Stats. 2003, ch. 906, § 1. Accordingly, PAGA claims cannot be 5 subject to arbitration. 6 32. PLAINTIFF, and such persons that may be added from time to time who satisfy 7 the requirements and exhaust the administrative procedures under the Private Attorney General 8 Act, brings this Representative Action on behalf of the State of California with respect to herself 9 and all individuals who are or previously were employed by DEFENDANT in California 10 and classified as non-exempt employees (“AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES”) during the time 11 period of February 11, 2021 until a date as determined by the Court (the "PAGA PERIOD"). 12 33. On February 11, 2022, PLAINTIFF gave written notice by electronic mail to the 13 Labor and Workforce Development Agency (the "Agency") and by certified mail to the 14 employer of the specific provisions of this code alleged to have been violated as required by 15 Labor Code § 2699.3. The statutory waiting period for PLAINTIFF to add these allegations to 16 the Complaint has expired. As a result, pursuant to Section 2699.3, PLAINTIFF may now 17 commence a representative civil action under PAGA pursuant to Section 2699 as the proxy of 18 the State of California with respect to all AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES as herein defined. 19 34. The policies, acts and practices heretofore described were and are an unlawful 20 business act or practice because DEFENDANT (a) failed to provide PLAINTIFF and the 21 AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES accurate itemized wage statements, (b) failed to properly record 22 and provide legally required meal and rest periods, (c) failed to pay minimum wages, (d) failed 23 to pay overtime wages and sick pay wages, and (e) failed to reimburse employees for required 24 expenses, all in violation of the applicable Labor Code sections listed in Labor Code §§ 201, 25 202, 203, 204 et seq., 210, 221, 226(a), 226.7, 227.3, 510, 512, 558(a)(1)(2), 1194, 1197, 26 1197.1, 1198, 2802, California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 11040, Subdivision 5(A)- 27 (B), and the applicable Wage Order(s), and thereby gives rise to civil penalties as a result of 28 11 REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 1 such conduct.1 PLAINTIFF hereby seeks recovery of only civil penalties as prescribed by the 2 Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004 as the representative of the State of 3 California for the illegal conduct perpetrated on PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED 4 EMPLOYEES. 5 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 6 WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment against each Defendant, jointly and 7 severally, as follows: 8 1. On behalf of the State of California and with respect to all AGGRIEVED 9 EMPLOYEES: 10 A) Recovery of civil penalties as prescribed by the Labor Code Private 11 Attorneys General Act of 2004; and, 12 B) An award of attorneys’ fees and cost of suit, as allowable under the 13 law, including, but not limited to, pursuant to Labor Code §2699. 14 Dated: July 11, 2022 BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP 15 16 By: /s/ Nicholas De Blouw 17 Norman B. Blumenthal 18 Kyle R. Nordrehaug Nicholas J. De Blouw 19 Attorneys for Plaintiff 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Plaintiff specifically excludes and/or does not allege any claims under California Labor 28 Code §558(a)(3). 12 REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT EXHIBIT 2 CM-015 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY Christopher A. Braham (SBN 239367) McDermott Will & Emery LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200, Los Angeles, CA 90067 TELEPHONE NO.: 310-277-4110 FAX NO. (Optional): 310-277-4730 E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): cbraham@mwe.com ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Defendant WeDriveU, Inc. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Mateo STREET ADDRESS: 400 County Center MAILING ADDRESS: Same CITY AND ZIP CODE: Redwood City, 94063 BRANCH NAME: Central CASE NUMBER: PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Precious Chatman 22-CIV-02197 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: WeDriveU, Inc. JUDICIAL OFFICER: Hon. Robert D. Foiles DEPT.: NOTICE OF RELATED CASE 21 Identify, in chronological order according to date of filing, all cases related to the case referenced above. 1. a. Title: Chatman v. WeDriveU, Inc. b. Case number: 22-CIV-02810 c. Court: same as above other state or federal court (name and address): d. Department: 23 e. Case type: limited civil unlimited civil probate family law other (specify): f. Filing date: July 11, 2022 g. Has this case been designated or determined as "complex?" Yes No h. Relationship of this case to the case referenced above (check all that apply): involves the same parties and is based on the same or similar claims. arises from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact. involves claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property. is likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. Additional explanation is attached in attachment 1h i. Status of case: pending dismissed with without prejudice disposed of by judgment 2. a. Title: b. Case number: c. Court: same as above other state or federal court (name and address): d. Department: Page 1 of 3 Form Approved for Optional Use Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.300 Judicial Council of California NOTICE OF RELATED CASE www.courtinfo.ca.gov CM-015 [Rev. July 1, 2007] CM-015 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Precious Chatman CASE NUMBER: 22-CIV-02197 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: WeDriveU, Inc. 2. (continued) e. Case type: limited civil unlimited civil probate family law other (specify): f. Filing date: g. Has this case been designated or determined as "complex?" Yes No h. Relationship of this case to the case referenced above (check all that apply): involves the same parties and is based on the same or similar claims. arises from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact. involves claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property. is likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. Additional explanation is attached in attachment 2h i. Status of case: pending dismissed with without prejudice disposed of by judgment 3. a. Title: b. Case number: c. Court: same as above other state or federal court (name and address): d. Department: e. Case type: limited civil unlimited civil probate family law other (specify): f. Filing date: g. Has this case been designated or determined as "complex?" Yes No h. Relationship of this case to the case referenced above (check all that apply): involves the same parties and is based on the same or similar claims. arises from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact. involves claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property. is likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. Additional explanation is attached in attachment 3h i. Status of case: pending dismissed with without prejudice disposed of by judgment 4. Additional related cases are described in Attachment 4. Number of pages attached: Date: 2/1/2023 Christopher A. Braham (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY) (SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY) CM-015 [Rev. July 1, 2007] NOTICE OF RELATED CASE Page 2 of 3 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I, Cindy Liu declare: 3 I am a citizen of the United States and employed in Los Angeles County, California. I am 4 over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business address is 5 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200, Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206. On February 1, 2023, I served 6 a copy of the within document(s): DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF RELATED CASE 7 ☒ BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Based on a court order or an 8 agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused the document(s) to be sent from e-mail address cliu@mwe.com to the persons at the e-mail 9 addresses listed below. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 10 11 BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 12 BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP Norman B. Blumenthal ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES 13 Kyle R. Nordrehaug Aparajit Bhowmik 14 Victoria B. Rivapalacio Christine T. LeVu 15 Andrew Ronan 16 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 17 Telephone: (858)551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 18 Emails: AJ@bamlawca.com; 19 Norm@bamlawca.com; 20 kyle@bamlawca.com; victoria@bamlawca.com; 21 christine@bamlawca.com; and andrew@bamlawca.com 22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is 23 true and correct. 24 Executed on February 1, 2023, at Los Angeles, California. 25 26 /s/ Cindy Liu Cindy Liu 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE EXHIBIT 3 EXHIBIT 4 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 6 20TRCV00721 February 18, 2021 IRIS ASTUDILLO vs TORRANCE HEALTH ASSOCIATION, 2:17 PM INC. Judge: Honorable Elihu M. Berle CSR: None Judicial Assistant: M. Mata ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: None Deputy Sheriff: None APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff(s): No Appearances For Defendant(s): No Appearances NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Court Order re: Notice of Related Case The Court finds that the following cases, 20STCV18424 and 20TRCV00721, are not related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). Counsel for defendant is to give notice. Certificate of Mailing is attached. Minute Order Page 1 of 1