Preview
PATRICIA A. SAVAGE, SBN 236235
SAVACFi & LAMB, PC
1550 Humboldt Road, .Suite 4
Chico, CA 95928 .
Telephone: (530) 592-3861
4 Fax: (530)592-3865
5 Attorneys Ibr PlainliiTs JAY ROBINSON
and HUCiC) PINEDA, individually and on
6 behalf of all others simiUit ly situated
7
LEWIS, BRISBOIS. BISGAARD & SMI TH, LLP
8 SHANE SINGH, SBN 202733
E-Mail: Shanc.Singh(rtjlewisbri,s;boi.s.com
9 2020 W. El Camino^Vve. #700
Siicramcnlo, California 95833
10 Teleiihone: 916.564.5400
-11 Facsimile: 916.564.5444
12 Atlorncys for Defcndanl Asonieo Environmcnlal
Restoration Industry. LLC
J3
Additional Counsel Listed on Following Page
14
15 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
" 16 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
17 .lAY ROBINSON and Case No. 34-2019-00262942
18 HUGO PINEDA- individually and on behalf of
all others similarly siluaicd, JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED
19 ORDER TO GRANT PLAINTIFFS
Plaintiffs, LEAVE TO F I L E SECOND AMENDED
20 COMPLAINT AND |PROPOSED] ORDER
21 Action filed: 8/16.^2019
22 ASOMF,0 FNVIRONMENTAL FAC nied: l,/24,/2020
RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC, a Trial: Has not been set
2.^ California Corporal ion and
PHILLIPS & JORDAN ENVIRONMENTAL
24 SERVICES, INC.. a Delaware Corporation and
DOES 1-10,
25
26 Defendants.
27
28
SMRII:4S50-4-l().'!-4(.7l.':
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
A Limilcd Liability Partnership
Including Professional Corporations
MORGAN P. FORSEY. Cal. Bar No. 241207
VICTORIA L. TALLMAN, Cal. Bar No. 273252
Four Embarcadero Center, 17''' Floor
4 San Francisco. California 94111-4109
Telephone: 415.434:9100
5 Facsimile: 415.434.3947
E-mails: mforsey@shcppardmullin.com
6 vlallman@sheppardmullin.com
7 Attomeys for Defendant PH ILLIPS & JORDAN, INC.,
8 erroneously sued as PHILLIPS & JORDAN ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, LLC
9
10
•11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SMr:-%7l,5
STIPULATION
Plaintiffs, Jay Robinson and Hugo Pineda (hereinafter referred to as "PLAINTIFFS") and
Defendants Asomeo Fjivironmcntal Restoration Industiy, LLC.', (hereinafter "AERI") and Phillips &
4 Jordan, Inc.. eiToneously sued as Phillips & Jordan Environmental Services, Inc. (hereinafter "Phillips &.
5 Jordan", and jointly with AERl refeiTed to as "DEFENDANTS"), (collectively referred to as "the
6 Parties") hereby enter into this Stipulation with reference to the following facts:
7 1. WHEREAS, on or about August 16, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against
8 DEFENDANTS on behalf of themselves individually and on behalf of other similarly situated aggrieved
9 employees as Private Attorneys General pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA");
10 2. WHEREAS, on or about October 24, 2019, counsel for Defendant AERl and Plaintiffs'
-11 counsel met and conferred r egarding AERI's intent to transfer venue to Placer County. Respective
12 counsel were unable to come to an agreement regarding the Motion to Transfer Venue.
13 3. WHEREAS, on or about November 6, 2019, Defendant AERL filed its Motion to
14 Transfer Venue.
15 4. WHEREAS, on or about November 25, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to the
16 Motion to Transfer Venue.
17 5. WH EREAS, on or about December 3, 2019, Defendant AERI, filed its Reply Brief
18 6. WHEREAS, on or about December 9, 2019, the Court issued a Tentative Ruling Denying
19 Defendant AERFs Motion to Transfer Venue.
20 7. WHEREAS, on December 19, 2019. counsel for Defendant Phillips & .lordan
21 commenced meet and confer communications with counsel for Plaintiffs regarding deficiencies in
22 Plaintiffs' original Complaint, including that Plaintiffs' Complaint failed to state any claims against
23 Defendant Phillips & Jordan, and expressed Defendant Phillips & .lordan's intent to demur to the
24 Complaint. Counsel for Defendant Phillips & Jordan sent additional meet and confer correspondence to
25 counsel for Plaintiffs on December 27, 2019, .lanuary 9, 2020, and January 23, 2020.
26 8. WHEREAS, on or about January 24, 2020. Plaintiffs filed their First Amended
27 Complaint alleging Class Allegations for damages,
28
SMI-')!.7!.5
IPROPOSEDI ORDER
Pursuant to the Parties' stipulation and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFORE, it is hereby
3 ORDERED that Plaintiffs arc granted leave to file their Second Amended Complaint.
4 IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6 DATE:
Honorable Judge ofthe Superior Court
7
8
9
10
-1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SMrUI:4S5()-44().?-OC.7!.5
PAI IUCIA A. S A V A G F , SBN 236235
K. RYAN LA.MH, SBN 2668.50
SAVAGI:: .)i LAMB, PC
LSSU l luniboldl Road, Suite A
Chico. CA 95928
•| clci)lK)ne: (530) 592-3861
l-a.\: (53(,)) .S92-3865
.Attomeys for Plaintiff,
.lAY ROBINSON and
HUGO PINEDA, individually and on
7
behalf of all others siniilarlv situated
8
o
S U P E R I O R C O U R T O F I Hi: STA I E O F C A L I F O R N I A
10
C O I j N I V 01<' SA CR A M I'. N IX)
1 I
12 .lAY ROBINSON and Case No. 34-2019-00262942
HUGO PINl'DA, individually and on beltalf of
1.5 all others similarly sitiuUed, C L A S S ACTION
-14
Plaintiffs, SECOND A M E N D E D COMPLAIN 1 FOR
i.S I)AMA(;ES
16 1. Violation ofthe Private Attorney
ASOM 1 iO EN VI RONMEN'i'Af. (jciici al Act
17 RI^STORA l lON INDUSTRY, I J X , a 2. Failure to Pay Overtime
California Coiporation and 3. I'ju'lurc to Pay Miiiiinuui Wages
18
PHILLIPS & .lORDAN INC, a North Carolina 4. hailurc to Provide .Meal Poi iods or
19 ('oi'()oralion and IMerniiiiii Pay
DOi:S I 10, ;S, I'ailnrc (o Provide Rest Periods or
20 Preiiiifim Pa>'
I )cl cntlants. 6. Failure to Pay i'iiial Wages
7. Failure (o !<'unti};h Accurate VVa<>e
Statements
8. Failure to Pay Reitnbut scnietit
23 Expenses
9. Violation of Labor Code Section 558
24 10. I'ailurc (o loralioii who operates
their business and provides services in California through their Regional Office located in Sacramento
County. TIereinafler, collectively, I'HILI .11\S & .iORDAN atid Af-Rl wilt be referred to as
"Defendanls.''
8, Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that, al ail times relevant,
Defendani PTIILI.IPS & JORDA.N was the "direct contractor," and at alt limes relevant, Defendani
,'M'RI was Ihe "subconlracior" and that both Defendants were contracted to perlbini restoration and
clean-up services in relation lo the "C^anip Fire" i)f November 8, 2018, and both Defendants trained,
directed and su|,iervised Plamtiflsand Plaintiff Class Members in their perfoimancc of duties in lelation
lo the restoration services for Ihe Camp Fire,
9, Plainliffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that PHllJJPS & JORDAN was
thcii' em])loyer because PHILLIPS & JORDAN provided them with identificalion badges displaying the
PHITJ ,IPS & JORDAN logo, because PiaiutilTs were provided training from PHn ,LIPS & JORTXAN,
becau.se Plainliffs were provided equipment and tiucks lo use with ilte PI IILLIPS & JORDAN name on
them, and because PTIII.LIPS & .IORI')AN had direct o\ersight and supci visioii of Plaintiff's atid
Plaiiili IT Class Mcmbcr.s" work perfoimancc,
10, Plainliffs are informed arid believe and thereon allege that .AI'JU was their emj)loyer
because Af-RFs name was on their pay .stubs, because .AERl provided Ptaintii'fs wilti training, and
because ,A1'RI had oversight and supervision o!~ Plaintiffs' and Plaintifi'C'hiss Menil)crs' work
l^erforniance,
1 1, Plaintiffs are intbiined and believe and thereon allege that Plaintiffs v^'cro undet the
direction, control and employment of both Def endani .AERl and Defendant PHILLIPS & .lORD.AN as
.1
srcONt) AMi';Ni:)i::i> i-bi^ ihi-ongh 10. inclusive, and therefbrc sues these Defendants by such fictitious names,
23 16. At all limes relevani, each and every Defendant was an agent andA)r employee of each
24 and every olliei Defendant, In doing the things alleged in the causes of action staled hcreiir each and
25 every Defendani was acting within the course and scope of this agency or employment, and was acting
26 with the consent, permission, and aulhort/alion of each lemairiing Dclendant,. All actions of each
27 Defendani as alleged hciein were ratified and approved by every oihei' l,)efe!uiam ov their officers or
28
SI;'(,'(JM;) AMi,-Ni)i,:i) C O M I ' L A I N I I'OR D A M A C I I - S
managing agents. Plaintiff will an)cnd tJiiS complaint to allege llic true names and capacities ofthe T,)OT;
Defendants when asceitained,
Hi. EXHAUSTION O F ADMINIS I RA f f V E U E M E D I E S
17, Plaintiffs have sought permission |)ui"suanl to Labor ("ode § 2698 cl setj. io ])ursue to tlie
5 claims set forth in this Complaint against Defendants as Private Attorney General ou behalf of
6 themselves and Plaintiff class members. Pursuant to (.lalilbrnia Labor Code § 2699,3, Plaiiilif"fs timely
7 filed their notice with the T.abor Worktbrce and T)eveloi,)menl Agency ("LWDA") via online submi.ssion
8 on approximately March 28, 2019, and served nolice of Defendants by Certiticd mail jirior to ftling this
. 9 action,
10 18, Plaintiffs have waited 65 days and have not received notice from the LWDA of its intent
"l 1 to pursue Plaintiffs' claims, PlaiutitTs have leceived authori/ation from the LWDA to pursue the claims
12 sel forth in this Coitiplainl against Defendants as Private ,Allorney Generals on behalf of them selves and
13 others similarly situated employees based on the T.VV'I)A'S failure to piovide nolice of its intent to
- M pursue these claims and ba.scd on Defendants' failure to cure.
15
16 IV. G E N E R A L A L L E G A TIONS
17 19, During all, or a portion of the Class Period, the PiaiutilTs and each Member of" the
18 Plaintiff ('lass was employed by Defendants, and each of them, in die State of California. During iheii
19 employmenl, Plainliffs and PlainlifJ-(!lass Mcmbt^rs were employei^s covered under one or more
20 regulations or Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Orders, including but not limited \o Waj'C
21 Oixlcr 16-2001.
V. C L A S S ACTION AL1>EGA I IONS
20, Plainliffs brings dtis action on l)chalf of Ihemseh cs and all oihci- similaiiy siinaicd
24 pcr.sons, as a cla,ss action piirsuanl to California Code ofC'ivil Procedure >^382, 'The PlaintilTClass is
25 composed of and defined as Ibllows:
26 IMaiiUjfTaassi
27 2 I, ,A1I persons Vvho at any tinic within f our (4) years prior lo the filing of this aciion through
28 the date of trial in this lawsuit, who were employed by die Def endants in an hourly position,
5
SI{(:C)ND AMLNDlil,') COMl'l ..AIN i'TDK i,^
22, Plaintif"f"reserves the right to establish additional subclasses as ajiproprialc,
''3. 'This aciion has been brought and may be maintained as a class action jiursiiani to C^ode of
C'ivil Piocedure §382 because there is a well-denned community of interest in ihe liligalion and the class
A is readily a.scerlainable:
5 (<'i) Ninncipy^^^^^^^^ the MenU)eis ofthe class are so numerous that joinder ofall Members
0 would be unfeasible ann and the extenl of" any injuries sustained by ihe Plainliffs
and Class Members and the appropriate type and/or measure of damages,
(9) f he appropriateness and nature of relief lo the PlaiiUiffs and Class
Members;
(10) The appropriate nature of class-wide cciuitaftle relief; and
(11) fhe exlcnt of liability of each Defendant, including DOf- Delendanls. to
Ihe PlainlifTs and each (^!lass Member.
7
SL-CONt) AMHNDt-l.) rOMi'l^AiN I' FOR i;)AMA(ii;S
2-1 PlaintifT ROBINSON and PINEDA are unaware of any difliculiics (hat are likely lo be
eiicotinlei ed in Ihc management of this action that v/oukl preclude its mainlcnaiice as a class action
VI. VIOLAHONS ALLEGED
I'I RS I CAl'SIC Ol' AC I ION
VIOI A HON Ol< IHE PRIVA I E A IIORNEVS GENERAL ACT
b (By PlaintilTs on behalf ofthe State oi' California and Aggrieved En»|iloyees against All
7 DcfendaiiTs)
8 25. The allegations set forth in this Complaint are hereby realleged and incorporalcd by
- 9 reference,
10 26 Defendants' violation of C^alifornia, wage and hour hnvs enable Plaintiffs to recover civil
II penalties as aggrieved employees and on behalf of all others similarly situated lo class members,
12 27 Plainliffs have alleged lo the I .W'DA that f)efendants have violated the fi,)llovving
13 provisions (,)f the California Labor C^ode in their ciealings with Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
14 current and former cmiiloyees:
15 • Violation of T,al.H)r f'odc §§ 1 194 and 5 10 (f"aituie to pay overtime and minimum wages);
16 • Violation of T,abor C'ode 226.7 (failure to provide meal periods or premium wages in lieu
17 ttiercof),
18 • Violation of Labor Code § 226.7 (failure lo provide rest breaks or [.Premium wages in lieu
19 thereof);
20 o Violation oi" Lain)!' ("ode 2.01 203 (faitiiie to pay final wages);
o Violatit>n ol" I ,abor (."ode 226 and 226,3 (failure to piovide accuialc wage statements);
o Violation of l.abor Code § 2802 (failure lo pay reimbursement for business expenses);
© Violation of Labor Code § 558 (violations of the iirovisiiMi of any Industrial Welf"arc
24 Commission Order),
25 • Violation of T.aboi' Code § I 1 74 (failure to keej-^ accurate time recoids);
26 « Violation of l ,aboi Code § 970 (tVauduleni inducement)
27
28
8
sj;(:oNi:) AMT:NI>I:J) ('(:)MIM!.AIN;'I' TOI^ DAMACILS
28, Plainliffs have cofuplicd with the procedural requirements specified in l.aboj' code §
2699. .As a result, PlaintiH's have exhau.sied all administrative procedures required of them undei l.-aboi
Code 2698, 2699, and 2699,3, and are justified as a mailer of" right in bringing forward this cause of
4 action,
5 29 Plaintif"fs seek civil penalties against Defbndant pursuant to Labor Code § 2(.->99(f)(2) lo
6 the extent there is no enumerated penally provision for the specific sections cited above
7 30, Plainliffs seek the.se civil penalties on behalf of themselves and all other fbrmer and
8 current aggrieved employees Irorn Defendants !,')ursuanl \o Labor Code i;§ 2699(a) and 2699.3,
. 9 3 I, Pursuant lo Labor (,;odc §2699(i), PL,A1 N'TIT'l'S should be awarded twcnly-flvc iiciceiit
JO (25%) ofall penalties due under (California law, interesl, atlorney.s' fees and costs, 'The I„VVDA should be
'l 1 awarded seventy-five percent (75%) ofthe penalties due and awarded.
12 Wherefore, PlainlifTs request relief as hcreinafier j-jrayed foiv
13 SECOND C ; A U S E O F AC H O N
14 V I O L A T I O N OF LABOR CODE §§ 1194 and 510
15 FAILURE TO PAY O V E R T I M F W A ( ; E S
16 (Plaintiffs against All Defendants)
J7 32, The allegations sel forth in this ("omplaint are hereby realleged and incorporated by
18 reference
19 .53, -Al all limes relevant to this action, Industrial Welfare Commission Order No, 16-2001,
20 and Labor Code § 5 10 applied lo I'laintiffs' and othci- similarly cniplov(;es' employment by Defendants,
21 and provided thai any work performed by an employee in excess of eight bout s in a work day or f'oriy
22 hours in a workweek be compensated at one-and-one-half times ihe employee's regular rale of pay,
23 34, Plaintif"t's and Plaintiff cla.s,s members routinely wcirked over eight liouis in a (.lay and over
24 forty hours in a workweek.
25 35, Defendants, and each of them, failed lo lawfully comi)ensate PlainiilTs and Plaintiff class
26 members for the lunirs worked in excess of eight hours in a day or fr)rty hours in a workweek.
27
28
si:u, ()Nn AMI:NI)I;I) COMPLAIN?r I-UR DAMACiLS
36, PlainliiTs and Plainliif class mcnibcrs are cniiiled to recover iheir uujiaid ovcriinic w;iges
2 and all penalties arising iherelVom, Additionally, I'laintiffs' are enlillcd lo alfoineys' fees, inieiest and
3 costs pursuant to T.abor (2ode 1194.
4 Whci cibre, Plainliffs request relief as hcreinafier j^rayed Ibr,
5 THIRD C A U S E O F ACTION
6 VIOLA riON O F TABOR (.:ODE I 194 and IWC Order No. 16-2001
7 F A I L U R E TO PAY MINIMUM W A G E S
8 (Plaintiffs agrtinsf All Defendants)
9 37, The allegations set forth in diis (..omplainl are hereby realleged and incorporalcd by
10 reference
"l 1 38, At all times relevani to ihis action, Industrial Welfare Commission Order No l()-200l
12 and Labor (2(Hle 1194 applied to Plaintiffs' and Plaintif"!"class members' employi^ienl by Def"endams
13 and required thai California employees to receive the minimum wage for all h(>urs worked al Ihc raic of
. 14 $1 1,00 an hour in December 2018, and $12,00 an hour beginning January L 2019.
15 39, Defendants, and each <^f them, failed to pay minimum wages to Plaintiffs and Plaintiff
16 class members f"or all hours worked during their employment with Defendants, Del"endants" acts were
17 intentional and in complete disregard for Plaintiffs' and I'laintiff class members' rights under (;aiil"()rnia
18 law,
19 40, /\s a direct and i.M'oximatc result of"the acts or omissions of Defendants, Plainhffs and
20 class members, have been deprived of minimum wages due in an amoiinf to bi,^ determined al uial. and
21 therefore Plaintiffs are entitled \o liquidated damages pursuant to Labor ("ode v;§ I 194 and I I9'S,2
J') Wherefore Plaintiffs requesi relief as hereinafter prayed for,
23 FOUR TH C A U S E OT A C TION
24 V I O L A l ION OT L A B O R C O D E S E C T I O N S 512, 226.7 AND I W C W A ( ; E O R D E U 16-2001
25 F A I L U R E TO P R O V I D E M E A L PERIODS OR PREMIUM PAY IN L I E U T H E R E O F
26 (Plaintiffs agsiinsl All DefcndaiUs)
27 4 1, 'The allegations .set forth in Ihis ('Complaint are hereby realleged and incorporated by
28 reference,
fO
SLa>Ni) AMLNDLD UOMRLAIN I' TOR DAMACILS
42, At all limes relevant. Wage Order 16-2001, and l .abor Code 512 am! 22(),7 were in
full force and effect requiring employers in California to provide employees with a meal period of not
less than thirty (30) minules before their fifth hour of work for a work period of"morc thati live hours. If
an cmplover fails lo provide an employee a meal period in accordance with the t.aboi Code or the
5 governing Wage Order, the employer shall pay tlie employee one (1) hour of jiay at the employee's
6 regular rale of" com|iensation for each work day lliat the meal period is not provided,
7 43. Defendants, and each of them, routinely failed to jMovide Plaintiffs and class members
8 will) a thirly-niimile meal period before their I rflh hour of work, Del cndanLs routinely ixH|iiired Plainliffs
9 and Plaintiff class members lo work ihiough Uicir lunch or required I'laintitfs ami Plaintiff class
10 members lo work without inking a lunch,
"i 1 44 l,)efendanis, and each of them, failed to pay Plaintil"fs and PlaintifT class members one
12 hour of premium pay f or HK'days that they were not provided an opportunity to lake a thirty-minute
13 meal break before their fifth hour.
14 Wherefore, Plaintiffs requesi relief as hereinafter prayed for,
FIF TH CAUSE OF AC TION
VIOLA HON OF LABOR CODE SECTION 226.7 AND IWC WAGE ORDEU 16-2001
T A I L L R E TO PROVIDE RES I PERIODS OR PREMIUM PAY IN LIEU THEREOF
18 (PlainfilTs against All Dcfcndanis)
19 45 The allegations sel forlh in Ihis Complaint are hereby re.illcged and incorporated by
20 reference
21 46, ,Al all times relevani. Induslrial Welfare ("ommission Order No !6-2001 and Labor Code
22 § 22(>,7 were in full force and eflbcr re(|uiring employers in (,':alifoi nia to provide employees with a ten-
23 minute rest period for every four hours worked, ov a major llactioii thereof, 11"an employer f"ails lo
24 provide an em|,)loyee a rest period in accordance with California lav,' or applicable Wage Order, ilic
25 em|)loyer shall pay the employee one (1) Iiour of pay the cm|i!oyee's regular rate of com pen,sal ion lbi-
26 each workday thai a rest period is not: provided,
27 47, Defendants, and each of ihem, rorttinely failed to provide Plaintil'fs am! Plaintiff class
28 members with a ten-minute rest period for every f"oui hours worked, Defeiidanis routinely required
I SLCONi:) AMLNI,)l;:i.) (;OMPl,,AlN I TOR IJAMACil-S
Plaintilfs and Plaintiff class members to work through their rest breaks or required IMainlilfs and
Plaintiff class membei s to work without taking a lesi break,
48. Defendants, and each of them, failed to pay Plaintiffs and Plaintiff class members one
hour of premium pay for the days that they were not provided a ten-minute rest period l"oi every f"oui
hours they worked,
6 Wherefore, Plainliffs requesi relief as hereinallei prayed for,
7 SIX TH C A U S E OT A C TION
8 VIOLA T ION O F L A B O R C O D E §§ 201. 202, AND 203
9 T A I L U R E TO I'AV FINAT, W A G E S
10 (Plaintiffs against All Derendanl.s)
'I I 49. The allegations set forth in diis C'omplaint are hereby realleged and inccMporaled by
12 reference
50 C'alifbinia Labor Code § 201 requires an employer who discharges an employee to pay s
14 compensation due and owing to that employee immedialely upon discharge.
5 51, California Labor (2odc § 202 requires an employer to pay all compensation due and
l() owing lo an employee vvho qtiits within 72 hours of that employee quilling, unless Ihc cmj)loyec
17 jjrovides at least 72 hours-noiice of quilting, in wdiich case all comi,iensation is due at the end ofthe
18 employee's final day of work.
19 52, California Labor ('ode § 203 provides that if an employer willfully fails to pay
20 compcnsalion i)romplly upon discharge, as required by § 201 or ^ 202, ihen the cmplover is li;iblc \'o\
wailing lime penalties in Ihe form on ctJiUinuc compensation of up to 30 work days,
7.2 53, Defendants, and each of them, willfully failed and refused to timely pay compcnsalion
and wages, including ovcriime conqxinsation thai issue and owing k) Plainliffs and Plaiinilf class
24 members upon their terminaiion of employment with Defendants, As a result. Defendants, and cacli of"
ihem, are liable to Plaintif~i"s and Plaintiff class members, for wailing time penalties, logeiher with
26 interest thereon and rea.sonable atlornev's fees and costs, under California Labor C(Hie § 203,
7 Wherefore. IMainiiffs request relief as hereinafter prayed for,
28
12
si;roNn AMIINOLH c:6\.tRLA!N'rj"OR DAMAGLS
SEVEN I'll CAUSE OF AC TION
VIOLA HON OT< LABOR (ODIC 226
FAIITJRE TO T UUNISII ACCUKA I E WACiE S TA TEMEN TS
(PlainlifTs against All Dofondants)
54 The allegations sel forth in this ('omplaint are hereby realleged and incorporated liy
6 reference
7 55. California I -abor (.'ode § 226(a) requires employers scmi-moiiihl>- or at the time of each
S payment of wages to furnish each employee widi a slalcmcnl itemizing, among other things, gross
9 wages earned, and all dcduciioiis. Cal. l,,abor Code § 226(b) provides lliat if"an employer knovvingly and
10 intentionally fails to provide a .statement itemizing, among other things, gross wages earned and accurate
deductions, then the employee is entitled to lecover the .greater ofall actual damages or flfi.y dollars
(S50) for the initial violation and one hundred dollars ($100) for each subsequeni violaiion. up to four
3 diousand dollars ($4000)
4 j 56, Defendanis and each of Ihem, knowingly and intentionally failed to furnish fo Plainliffs
and Plaintiff class member itemi^ed wage statements depicting their actual gross wages in pan due to
16 l)efendants' failure lo accurately record Plainliffs" and Plaintiff class members' overtime and
17 Del'eiuiants' f"ailuie lo record and pay |)remium wages for missed meal period,
18 57. l,)ef'endants, and each of them, are liable to Plainliffs and Plainliff class mcinl)ers for the
19 amounts provided by Cal. l.,abor Code 226(c)( 1) and for penalties and aliorneys"' fees.
Wherefore, Plaintiff's request relief as hercinaf'ter prayed for.
EK;n TH CALISE OF AC TION
VIOLA TION OT LABOB CODE 2802
23 FAILURE TO PAY UEIMBTIRSEMEN'T EXPENSES
24 . (Plaintiffs against All Defendants)
[
2.5! 58, The allegations set foith in Ihis (.'omplainl are hereby realleged and incorporated by
I
26 j reference
59, Al all times relevant lo this action, Labor Code § 2802 reciuires that an employer shall
28 I indemnif'y his or her empkiyce 'for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in
SI X'OK'L) AMI::NI)I';I) C O M P L A I N I I-(.)R DAMAOlt.S
direct con.sec|uencc ofthe discharge ol'his or her diiiies, or c>f"his or her obedience lo the directions of
the employer,''
60 .At all limes herein menlioned Defendants, and each of them, were the employers of
Plaintiffs and Plainliff class members. During fhe course of their employment with Defendants,
Plainlifls and Plaintifl class members were rcciuired lo use their personal cell phones for work purposes,
() they were re(|uiied to pay for their travel expenses, they were required to pi]y f'or their training, and
(•)
10
7
8
Plaintiffs and others similarly situated employees were required to pay for iheir tools to perform services
f"or the benefit ol"ihc Defendanis,
61, .As an actual and proximate result ofthe aforeinenlioned violation, Plainliffs and Plaintil'f
class members have been damaged in an amount according to proof", but in an amount in excess, ofthe
.1 1 jurisdiction of this Court, Plaintiff's and Plaintiff class members arc entitled lo die bosses ihey incurred
12 for the benefit (,if the Defendants during their employment with Defendants,
13 Wherefore, IMai miffs icciuest relief as hcreinafier prayed for,
14 NUN TH C A U S E 01 A C TION
15 VIOLA TION Ol- LABOR C O D E 558
' 16 C I V I L PENAL TIES F O R V I O L A TION O F C A L I F O R N I A L A B O R ( O D E W A G E AND HOUR
!7 PROVISIONS AND PROVISIONS O F INDUS TRIAL W E L T A U E COMMISSION
18 (Plaintiffs against All Defendants)
19 62, The allegations of Ihis {A)mplainl are hereby realleged and incorjioraietl by reference
20 03. Defendants, and each of Ihem, have violated varitnis provisions of ihe Lal^or Code and
21 IWC! Wage Order l()-20(,il as sel forlh above In doing so, Defendanis, and each oflliem arc .siibiecled to
22 civil pcnaliies as l"ollovvs: ( I ) For any initial violation, fifty dollars ($50) for each underpaid cmiiKiyce
23 for each pay f)eriod for which the em|.)loyee was underpaid in addition to an amount sut'llcicnt to recover
24 uiideri,>aid wages; (2) I'or each subsequent violation, one luimlretl dollars (Si00) f"or each underpaid
25 employee for each pay period ibr which the employee was underpaid in addition io an amount .sufficient
26 lo recover underpaid wages; (3) Wages recovered pursuant to this section shall be paid to the affected
27 empkiyce.
28 Wherefore Plainliffs request relief as hereinafter prayed for.
si'C'ONi) A.VII:KL)L:I,) C O M P L A I N T LOR DAMAOLI-S
I'ENHi CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLA TION OT UABOK ( O D E 247 AND 247.5
FAILURE TO POS T NO TICE OF SICK LEAN E AND FAIUUUE TO KEEP ACC URA TE
RECORDS OT PAH) SICK LICAVE
(Plaintiffs against All Defendants)
6 64 fhe allegations sel forth in this Complaint are hereby realleged and incoiporaled by
7 reference
8 65, Labor Code § 247 provides that an employer must display a poster in a conspicuous place
9 containing infbrmalion including: (1) .An employee is enlillcd to accrue, rc(|uest, ami use paid sick (l;tys:
10 (2) J'he ainount of sick days provided for by this article; (3) fhc terms of use of paid sick days; (4) f hai
•1 I retaliation or discrimination against an employee who requests paid sick days or uses [)aid sick days, or
12 both, is prohibited and diat an employee has the right under this article to file a complaint with the Labor
13 Commissioner against an employer w4>o retaliates or discriminates against the employee,
14 66, An employer who willfully violates the posting requirement of this section is sisbjccl to a
15 civil penally of not more than one hundred dollars ($100) [ler each offense
16 67, Defendants, and each of them, willfully failed the posting requirements of l.abor Code v:;
17 247, and therefore, are subjccled to civil penalties of $100 for each offense
18 68 Labor (."ode § 247,5 provides that an emi)loye,r shall kee|,5 l"or al least three years records
19 documenting the hours \vorked and paid sick days accrued and u.sed by an employee If an enipU,)yci
20 does not maintain adcc|uaie records pursuant to this seclion, il shall be presumed that the eni|)toyec is
entitled lo Ihe maximum lUiinber of hours accruable under this article, unless ilu; employer can show-
otherwise by clear and convincing evidence
69. Dcl'ciitlani,s, and cacli of them, have failed lo keep accurate records ol" all paiti sick days
24 accrued by l*laintiffs and Plainliff class members, ,As a result of Defendants conducL Plainld'fs ami
25 Plainliff class members have suffered harm in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of ihis
26 Court,
27 Wherefoi'c, Plainliffs request relief as in hereinafter prayed f"or.
28
Si :C0NI) AMtiNULI) COMPI.AIN T I 'OR DAMAGlvS
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACHON
VIOLA TION OT UABOK CODi; ^ 'J70
3 SOUK TTAHON OF EMPLOYEES BV MISREPRESEN TAHON
4 (PlaintilTs against All l)efendan(s)
s 70 The allegations set foith in this ("omplainl arc hereby realleged and ip.coriiorated by
6 reference
7 7I Calif"ornia Labor Code § 970 provides that no |)er.son, or agent or officer thereof, directly
8 or imiirecily, shall innuence, persuade, or engage any person lo change ll oni one place to anothei' in this
9 State or iVom any place (uitsidc to any place within Ihc State, of from any place within the State to
to outside, for the purpose of working in any branch of labor, througli or by means of knowingly fal.sc
-1 I reiMCscntations, wheltier spoken, written, or advertised in printed form, concerning either (a) 'The kind,
12 character, or existence of such, work; (b) The length of lime such work will last, or the compensation
13 Iherefbr, (c) J'he sanitary or housing condibons rchiting lo or surrounding the work; (d) 4'be existence or
14 nonexistence of any strike, lockouL or other labor dispute affecting it and pending between ihc proposed
15 employer and the persons then or last engaged in the performance ofthe labor for which the employee is
16 sought.
17 72 Defendants, and each of them, willfully made misrepresentations lo the Plaintiffs and
18 Plaintiff class members regarding the kind, character, and existence of work, the length of lime the work
19 v>'ill last, the compensations of ihe work, and the housing condili(^ns relating to employment, including
20 liul not limited to promises to provide and pay for certified training. Defbndants tbriher promised lo pay
to Plaintiffs and those similarly siriiatcd per diem pay lo cover food and lodging cosis for their
relocation. Plaintiffs and Plaintiff class members reasonable relied on Defendants* misrcprcseniations lo
23 Iheir del rim en I,
24 73, .As a direct ami proximate result of Defbndants' conduct. Plaintiffs atid r^ininlitf class
25 members have suffered hann in an amount in excess of the juri.sdictional minimum of this C.^ourt.
26 74, 'The above described actions were perpetrated and/or ratified by a managing ageni or
27 officer of l,)cfendanis. These acts were done with malice iVaud, oppression, and in reckless disregard ol'
28 Plaintiffs' rights and the rights of those similarly situated. Further, said actions were dcsiiicable in
16
SLCONI) AMjiNDLI) COMPI,AIN L LOR DAMACILS
character and warrant the iinp(>sili(,Mi of punitive damages in a sum sulficicni to punish and dcici
Defendants" future conduct,
Wherel"ore, f^laintiffs rec|uesl relief as hereinafter prayed for.
4 TWELFTH CAUSE Ol' AC TION
5 VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE 5? 17200, i t svq.
6 UNFAIR COMPETTTION AC T
7 (Plainliffs against All Defendants)
8 75 fhe allegations set forlh in this (,x)mplainl are hereby realleged and incorporalcd by
9 reference
10 76, Defendants' conduci, as alleged herein, has been and continues to be unfair, unlawful,
-I I and harmf"ul to Plainliff'"s and Plainliff class members. Defendants' activities,, as alleged herein, are
12 violations of California law and conslilute unlawful business ads and practices in violaiion of (."alifornia
13 Business and Professions Code ^§ 1 7200 et seq.
14 77. ,A violation of C^at, Bus. Prof code ij 17200 may be predicated on the violation of any
15 stale or f'ederal law-. In ihi.s case Defendants had a policy and practice of failing to pay Plaintil'fs and
" 16 Plaintil'f class members all overtime hours worked, for missed rest and meal periods, l"or reimbursement
17 pay, and their final wages, which violates several (California Labor ( lode Sections and Industrial
18 Commission Welfare Wage Order provisions,
19 78, PlainlifJ's and Plaintiff class members have been personally injured by Defendants
20 unlawful and unfair business practices inckuliiig but not limited to suffering financial loss l-*!aintiffs and
21 Plaimifl"class members are enlillcd to reslilution ofthe wages withheld and letaincd by l,')cl"eiKlaiits
22 during the defined period.
23 79. Further, Ihc Plaintiffs and PlaintifT class members request the viol;Uions ofthe
24 Defendants alleged herein be enjoined, and other equitable relief as this court deems proper,
25 Wherelbre, Plaintiffs requesi relief as liereinaller prayed for.
26
27
28
17
SliCONt) AMl:Nj)l4) (:C)Mf4.AlN DAMACILS
V. i>RAVT;R TOR REl.M'F
Wi II;RI,{I'OKl.:, Plai!nifl"(s) demand judgment against Derendanls ;.[n(l any olhei !,)eren(!aiils who
may iaier i)e abided a'-; follows:
AS 'IT) 'THE FTBS'T CAUSE OF ACJ'lON
80. Pcnaliies according to llic foiiowuig schedule: f'oi any initial viohniori,. one hundred
dollars (,tlOO) for each aggrieved employee pei pay period; I'oi any ,sub.sequenl vit)latit>i). two hundred
dollars ($20()) for each aggrieved employee per pay period; oi' otherwise enumerated for specific Labor
("otic sections;
8 I. K(:a:~:oiiaMc .Xuorncys' l-ees and costs, pursiianl lu !.,abor (^'.odc Sccliou 2699;
82. Wages as proved at nial;
83. f o r prejudgmcnl inierest on ai! ainounls claimed;
84, Injuiiclive and 13cciaraiory I\.elic4",
85, f-'or such other .'uid further relief •;!,-; this Court mav deein jus!, and j)ro|,H;-r;
AS 4'0 'THE R E M A I N I N G CAUSES (.)l' A C H O N
15 f'oi ;in (.)rder certifying ihis acii<;)n as a class
Preview
PATRICIA A. SAVAGE, SBN 236235 SAVACFi & LAMB, PC 1550 Humboldt Road, .Suite 4 Chico, CA 95928 . Telephone: (530) 592-3861 4 Fax: (530)592-3865 5 Attorneys Ibr PlainliiTs JAY ROBINSON and HUCiC) PINEDA, individually and on 6 behalf of all others simiUit ly situated 7 LEWIS, BRISBOIS. BISGAARD & SMI TH, LLP 8 SHANE SINGH, SBN 202733 E-Mail: Shanc.Singh(rtjlewisbri,s;boi.s.com 9 2020 W. El Camino^Vve. #700 Siicramcnlo, California 95833 10 Teleiihone: 916.564.5400 -11 Facsimile: 916.564.5444 12 Atlorncys for Defcndanl Asonieo Environmcnlal Restoration Industry. LLC J3 Additional Counsel Listed on Following Page 14 15 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA " 16 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 17 .lAY ROBINSON and Case No. 34-2019-00262942 18 HUGO PINEDA- individually and on behalf of all others similarly siluaicd, JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED 19 ORDER TO GRANT PLAINTIFFS Plaintiffs, LEAVE TO F I L E SECOND AMENDED 20 COMPLAINT AND |PROPOSED] ORDER 21 Action filed: 8/16.^2019 22 ASOMF,0 FNVIRONMENTAL FAC nied: l,/24,/2020 RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC, a Trial: Has not been set 2.^ California Corporal ion and PHILLIPS & JORDAN ENVIRONMENTAL 24 SERVICES, INC.. a Delaware Corporation and DOES 1-10, 25 26 Defendants. 27 28 SMRII:4S50-4-l().'!-4(.7l.': SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limilcd Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations MORGAN P. FORSEY. Cal. Bar No. 241207 VICTORIA L. TALLMAN, Cal. Bar No. 273252 Four Embarcadero Center, 17''' Floor 4 San Francisco. California 94111-4109 Telephone: 415.434:9100 5 Facsimile: 415.434.3947 E-mails: mforsey@shcppardmullin.com 6 vlallman@sheppardmullin.com 7 Attomeys for Defendant PH ILLIPS & JORDAN, INC., 8 erroneously sued as PHILLIPS & JORDAN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, LLC 9 10 •11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SMr:-%7l,5 STIPULATION Plaintiffs, Jay Robinson and Hugo Pineda (hereinafter referred to as "PLAINTIFFS") and Defendants Asomeo Fjivironmcntal Restoration Industiy, LLC.', (hereinafter "AERI") and Phillips & 4 Jordan, Inc.. eiToneously sued as Phillips & Jordan Environmental Services, Inc. (hereinafter "Phillips &. 5 Jordan", and jointly with AERl refeiTed to as "DEFENDANTS"), (collectively referred to as "the 6 Parties") hereby enter into this Stipulation with reference to the following facts: 7 1. WHEREAS, on or about August 16, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against 8 DEFENDANTS on behalf of themselves individually and on behalf of other similarly situated aggrieved 9 employees as Private Attorneys General pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"); 10 2. WHEREAS, on or about October 24, 2019, counsel for Defendant AERl and Plaintiffs' -11 counsel met and conferred r egarding AERI's intent to transfer venue to Placer County. Respective 12 counsel were unable to come to an agreement regarding the Motion to Transfer Venue. 13 3. WHEREAS, on or about November 6, 2019, Defendant AERL filed its Motion to 14 Transfer Venue. 15 4. WHEREAS, on or about November 25, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to the 16 Motion to Transfer Venue. 17 5. WH EREAS, on or about December 3, 2019, Defendant AERI, filed its Reply Brief 18 6. WHEREAS, on or about December 9, 2019, the Court issued a Tentative Ruling Denying 19 Defendant AERFs Motion to Transfer Venue. 20 7. WHEREAS, on December 19, 2019. counsel for Defendant Phillips & .lordan 21 commenced meet and confer communications with counsel for Plaintiffs regarding deficiencies in 22 Plaintiffs' original Complaint, including that Plaintiffs' Complaint failed to state any claims against 23 Defendant Phillips & Jordan, and expressed Defendant Phillips & .lordan's intent to demur to the 24 Complaint. Counsel for Defendant Phillips & Jordan sent additional meet and confer correspondence to 25 counsel for Plaintiffs on December 27, 2019, .lanuary 9, 2020, and January 23, 2020. 26 8. WHEREAS, on or about January 24, 2020. Plaintiffs filed their First Amended 27 Complaint alleging Class Allegations for damages, 28 SMI-')!.7!.5 IPROPOSEDI ORDER Pursuant to the Parties' stipulation and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFORE, it is hereby 3 ORDERED that Plaintiffs arc granted leave to file their Second Amended Complaint. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 DATE: Honorable Judge ofthe Superior Court 7 8 9 10 -1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SMrUI:4S5()-44().?-OC.7!.5 PAI IUCIA A. S A V A G F , SBN 236235 K. RYAN LA.MH, SBN 2668.50 SAVAGI:: .)i LAMB, PC LSSU l luniboldl Road, Suite A Chico. CA 95928 •| clci)lK)ne: (530) 592-3861 l-a.\: (53(,)) .S92-3865 .Attomeys for Plaintiff, .lAY ROBINSON and HUGO PINEDA, individually and on 7 behalf of all others siniilarlv situated 8 o S U P E R I O R C O U R T O F I Hi: STA I E O F C A L I F O R N I A 10 C O I j N I V 01<' SA CR A M I'. N IX) 1 I 12 .lAY ROBINSON and Case No. 34-2019-00262942 HUGO PINl'DA, individually and on beltalf of 1.5 all others similarly sitiuUed, C L A S S ACTION -14 Plaintiffs, SECOND A M E N D E D COMPLAIN 1 FOR i.S I)AMA(;ES 16 1. Violation ofthe Private Attorney ASOM 1 iO EN VI RONMEN'i'Af. (jciici al Act 17 RI^STORA l lON INDUSTRY, I J X , a 2. Failure to Pay Overtime California Coiporation and 3. I'ju'lurc to Pay Miiiiinuui Wages 18 PHILLIPS & .lORDAN INC, a North Carolina 4. hailurc to Provide .Meal Poi iods or 19 ('oi'()oralion and IMerniiiiii Pay DOi:S I 10, ;S, I'ailnrc (o Provide Rest Periods or 20 Preiiiifim Pa>' I )cl cntlants. 6. Failure to Pay i'iiial Wages 7. Failure (o !<'unti};h Accurate VVa<>e Statements 8. Failure to Pay Reitnbut scnietit 23 Expenses 9. Violation of Labor Code Section 558 24 10. I'ailurc (o loralioii who operates their business and provides services in California through their Regional Office located in Sacramento County. TIereinafler, collectively, I'HILI .11\S & .iORDAN atid Af-Rl wilt be referred to as "Defendanls.'' 8, Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that, al ail times relevant, Defendani PTIILI.IPS & JORDA.N was the "direct contractor," and at alt limes relevant, Defendani ,'M'RI was Ihe "subconlracior" and that both Defendants were contracted to perlbini restoration and clean-up services in relation lo the "C^anip Fire" i)f November 8, 2018, and both Defendants trained, directed and su|,iervised Plamtiflsand Plaintiff Class Members in their perfoimancc of duties in lelation lo the restoration services for Ihe Camp Fire, 9, Plainliffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that PHllJJPS & JORDAN was thcii' em])loyer because PHILLIPS & JORDAN provided them with identificalion badges displaying the PHITJ ,IPS & JORDAN logo, because PiaiutilTs were provided training from PHn ,LIPS & JORTXAN, becau.se Plainliffs were provided equipment and tiucks lo use with ilte PI IILLIPS & JORDAN name on them, and because PTIII.LIPS & .IORI')AN had direct o\ersight and supci visioii of Plaintiff's atid Plaiiili IT Class Mcmbcr.s" work perfoimancc, 10, Plainliffs are informed arid believe and thereon allege that .AI'JU was their emj)loyer because Af-RFs name was on their pay .stubs, because .AERl provided Ptaintii'fs wilti training, and because ,A1'RI had oversight and supervision o!~ Plaintiffs' and Plaintifi'C'hiss Menil)crs' work l^erforniance, 1 1, Plaintiffs are intbiined and believe and thereon allege that Plaintiffs v^'cro undet the direction, control and employment of both Def endani .AERl and Defendant PHILLIPS & .lORD.AN as .1 srcONt) AMi';Ni:)i::i> i-bi^ ihi-ongh 10. inclusive, and therefbrc sues these Defendants by such fictitious names, 23 16. At all limes relevani, each and every Defendant was an agent andA)r employee of each 24 and every olliei Defendant, In doing the things alleged in the causes of action staled hcreiir each and 25 every Defendani was acting within the course and scope of this agency or employment, and was acting 26 with the consent, permission, and aulhort/alion of each lemairiing Dclendant,. All actions of each 27 Defendani as alleged hciein were ratified and approved by every oihei' l,)efe!uiam ov their officers or 28 SI;'(,'(JM;) AMi,-Ni)i,:i) C O M I ' L A I N I I'OR D A M A C I I - S managing agents. Plaintiff will an)cnd tJiiS complaint to allege llic true names and capacities ofthe T,)OT; Defendants when asceitained, Hi. EXHAUSTION O F ADMINIS I RA f f V E U E M E D I E S 17, Plaintiffs have sought permission |)ui"suanl to Labor ("ode § 2698 cl setj. io ])ursue to tlie 5 claims set forth in this Complaint against Defendants as Private Attorney General ou behalf of 6 themselves and Plaintiff class members. Pursuant to (.lalilbrnia Labor Code § 2699,3, Plaiiilif"fs timely 7 filed their notice with the T.abor Worktbrce and T)eveloi,)menl Agency ("LWDA") via online submi.ssion 8 on approximately March 28, 2019, and served nolice of Defendants by Certiticd mail jirior to ftling this . 9 action, 10 18, Plaintiffs have waited 65 days and have not received notice from the LWDA of its intent "l 1 to pursue Plaintiffs' claims, PlaiutitTs have leceived authori/ation from the LWDA to pursue the claims 12 sel forth in this Coitiplainl against Defendants as Private ,Allorney Generals on behalf of them selves and 13 others similarly situated employees based on the T.VV'I)A'S failure to piovide nolice of its intent to - M pursue these claims and ba.scd on Defendants' failure to cure. 15 16 IV. G E N E R A L A L L E G A TIONS 17 19, During all, or a portion of the Class Period, the PiaiutilTs and each Member of" the 18 Plaintiff ('lass was employed by Defendants, and each of them, in die State of California. During iheii 19 employmenl, Plainliffs and PlainlifJ-(!lass Mcmbt^rs were employei^s covered under one or more 20 regulations or Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Orders, including but not limited \o Waj'C 21 Oixlcr 16-2001. V. C L A S S ACTION AL1>EGA I IONS 20, Plainliffs brings dtis action on l)chalf of Ihemseh cs and all oihci- similaiiy siinaicd 24 pcr.sons, as a cla,ss action piirsuanl to California Code ofC'ivil Procedure >^382, 'The PlaintilTClass is 25 composed of and defined as Ibllows: 26 IMaiiUjfTaassi 27 2 I, ,A1I persons Vvho at any tinic within f our (4) years prior lo the filing of this aciion through 28 the date of trial in this lawsuit, who were employed by die Def endants in an hourly position, 5 SI{(:C)ND AMLNDlil,') COMl'l ..AIN i'TDK i,^ 22, Plaintif"f"reserves the right to establish additional subclasses as ajiproprialc, ''3. 'This aciion has been brought and may be maintained as a class action jiursiiani to C^ode of C'ivil Piocedure §382 because there is a well-denned community of interest in ihe liligalion and the class A is readily a.scerlainable: 5 (<'i) Ninncipy^^^^^^^^ the MenU)eis ofthe class are so numerous that joinder ofall Members 0 would be unfeasible ann and the extenl of" any injuries sustained by ihe Plainliffs and Class Members and the appropriate type and/or measure of damages, (9) f he appropriateness and nature of relief lo the PlaiiUiffs and Class Members; (10) The appropriate nature of class-wide cciuitaftle relief; and (11) fhe exlcnt of liability of each Defendant, including DOf- Delendanls. to Ihe PlainlifTs and each (^!lass Member. 7 SL-CONt) AMHNDt-l.) rOMi'l^AiN I' FOR i;)AMA(ii;S 2-1 PlaintifT ROBINSON and PINEDA are unaware of any difliculiics (hat are likely lo be eiicotinlei ed in Ihc management of this action that v/oukl preclude its mainlcnaiice as a class action VI. VIOLAHONS ALLEGED I'I RS I CAl'SIC Ol' AC I ION VIOI A HON Ol< IHE PRIVA I E A IIORNEVS GENERAL ACT b (By PlaintilTs on behalf ofthe State oi' California and Aggrieved En»|iloyees against All 7 DcfendaiiTs) 8 25. The allegations set forth in this Complaint are hereby realleged and incorporalcd by - 9 reference, 10 26 Defendants' violation of C^alifornia, wage and hour hnvs enable Plaintiffs to recover civil II penalties as aggrieved employees and on behalf of all others similarly situated lo class members, 12 27 Plainliffs have alleged lo the I .W'DA that f)efendants have violated the fi,)llovving 13 provisions (,)f the California Labor C^ode in their ciealings with Plaintiffs and other similarly situated 14 current and former cmiiloyees: 15 • Violation of T,al.H)r f'odc §§ 1 194 and 5 10 (f"aituie to pay overtime and minimum wages); 16 • Violation of T,abor C'ode 226.7 (failure to provide meal periods or premium wages in lieu 17 ttiercof), 18 • Violation of Labor Code § 226.7 (failure lo provide rest breaks or [.Premium wages in lieu 19 thereof); 20 o Violation oi" Lain)!' ("ode 2.01 203 (faitiiie to pay final wages); o Violatit>n ol" I ,abor (."ode 226 and 226,3 (failure to piovide accuialc wage statements); o Violation of l.abor Code § 2802 (failure lo pay reimbursement for business expenses); © Violation of Labor Code § 558 (violations of the iirovisiiMi of any Industrial Welf"arc 24 Commission Order), 25 • Violation of T.aboi' Code § I 1 74 (failure to keej-^ accurate time recoids); 26 « Violation of l ,aboi Code § 970 (tVauduleni inducement) 27 28 8 sj;(:oNi:) AMT:NI>I:J) ('(:)MIM!.AIN;'I' TOI^ DAMACILS 28, Plainliffs have cofuplicd with the procedural requirements specified in l.aboj' code § 2699. .As a result, PlaintiH's have exhau.sied all administrative procedures required of them undei l.-aboi Code 2698, 2699, and 2699,3, and are justified as a mailer of" right in bringing forward this cause of 4 action, 5 29 Plaintif"fs seek civil penalties against Defbndant pursuant to Labor Code § 2(.->99(f)(2) lo 6 the extent there is no enumerated penally provision for the specific sections cited above 7 30, Plainliffs seek the.se civil penalties on behalf of themselves and all other fbrmer and 8 current aggrieved employees Irorn Defendants !,')ursuanl \o Labor Code i;§ 2699(a) and 2699.3, . 9 3 I, Pursuant lo Labor (,;odc §2699(i), PL,A1 N'TIT'l'S should be awarded twcnly-flvc iiciceiit JO (25%) ofall penalties due under (California law, interesl, atlorney.s' fees and costs, 'The I„VVDA should be 'l 1 awarded seventy-five percent (75%) ofthe penalties due and awarded. 12 Wherefore, PlainlifTs request relief as hcreinafier j-jrayed foiv 13 SECOND C ; A U S E O F AC H O N 14 V I O L A T I O N OF LABOR CODE §§ 1194 and 510 15 FAILURE TO PAY O V E R T I M F W A ( ; E S 16 (Plaintiffs against All Defendants) J7 32, The allegations sel forth in this ("omplaint are hereby realleged and incorporated by 18 reference 19 .53, -Al all limes relevant to this action, Industrial Welfare Commission Order No, 16-2001, 20 and Labor Code § 5 10 applied lo I'laintiffs' and othci- similarly cniplov(;es' employment by Defendants, 21 and provided thai any work performed by an employee in excess of eight bout s in a work day or f'oriy 22 hours in a workweek be compensated at one-and-one-half times ihe employee's regular rale of pay, 23 34, Plaintif"t's and Plaintiff cla.s,s members routinely wcirked over eight liouis in a (.lay and over 24 forty hours in a workweek. 25 35, Defendants, and each of them, failed lo lawfully comi)ensate PlainiilTs and Plaintiff class 26 members for the lunirs worked in excess of eight hours in a day or fr)rty hours in a workweek. 27 28 si:u, ()Nn AMI:NI)I;I) COMPLAIN?r I-UR DAMACiLS 36, PlainliiTs and Plainliif class mcnibcrs are cniiiled to recover iheir uujiaid ovcriinic w;iges 2 and all penalties arising iherelVom, Additionally, I'laintiffs' are enlillcd lo alfoineys' fees, inieiest and 3 costs pursuant to T.abor (2ode 1194. 4 Whci cibre, Plainliffs request relief as hcreinafier j^rayed Ibr, 5 THIRD C A U S E O F ACTION 6 VIOLA riON O F TABOR (.:ODE I 194 and IWC Order No. 16-2001 7 F A I L U R E TO PAY MINIMUM W A G E S 8 (Plaintiffs agrtinsf All Defendants) 9 37, The allegations set forth in diis (..omplainl are hereby realleged and incorporalcd by 10 reference "l 1 38, At all times relevani to ihis action, Industrial Welfare Commission Order No l()-200l 12 and Labor (2(Hle 1194 applied to Plaintiffs' and Plaintif"!"class members' employi^ienl by Def"endams 13 and required thai California employees to receive the minimum wage for all h(>urs worked al Ihc raic of . 14 $1 1,00 an hour in December 2018, and $12,00 an hour beginning January L 2019. 15 39, Defendants, and each <^f them, failed to pay minimum wages to Plaintiffs and Plaintiff 16 class members f"or all hours worked during their employment with Defendants, Del"endants" acts were 17 intentional and in complete disregard for Plaintiffs' and I'laintiff class members' rights under (;aiil"()rnia 18 law, 19 40, /\s a direct and i.M'oximatc result of"the acts or omissions of Defendants, Plainhffs and 20 class members, have been deprived of minimum wages due in an amoiinf to bi,^ determined al uial. and 21 therefore Plaintiffs are entitled \o liquidated damages pursuant to Labor ("ode v;§ I 194 and I I9'S,2 J') Wherefore Plaintiffs requesi relief as hereinafter prayed for, 23 FOUR TH C A U S E OT A C TION 24 V I O L A l ION OT L A B O R C O D E S E C T I O N S 512, 226.7 AND I W C W A ( ; E O R D E U 16-2001 25 F A I L U R E TO P R O V I D E M E A L PERIODS OR PREMIUM PAY IN L I E U T H E R E O F 26 (Plaintiffs agsiinsl All DefcndaiUs) 27 4 1, 'The allegations .set forth in Ihis ('Complaint are hereby realleged and incorporated by 28 reference, fO SLa>Ni) AMLNDLD UOMRLAIN I' TOR DAMACILS 42, At all limes relevant. Wage Order 16-2001, and l .abor Code 512 am! 22(),7 were in full force and effect requiring employers in California to provide employees with a meal period of not less than thirty (30) minules before their fifth hour of work for a work period of"morc thati live hours. If an cmplover fails lo provide an employee a meal period in accordance with the t.aboi Code or the 5 governing Wage Order, the employer shall pay tlie employee one (1) hour of jiay at the employee's 6 regular rale of" com|iensation for each work day lliat the meal period is not provided, 7 43. Defendants, and each of them, routinely failed to jMovide Plaintiffs and class members 8 will) a thirly-niimile meal period before their I rflh hour of work, Del cndanLs routinely ixH|iiired Plainliffs 9 and Plaintiff class members lo work ihiough Uicir lunch or required I'laintitfs ami Plaintiff class 10 members lo work without inking a lunch, "i 1 44 l,)efendanis, and each of them, failed to pay Plaintil"fs and PlaintifT class members one 12 hour of premium pay f or HK'days that they were not provided an opportunity to lake a thirty-minute 13 meal break before their fifth hour. 14 Wherefore, Plaintiffs requesi relief as hereinafter prayed for, FIF TH CAUSE OF AC TION VIOLA HON OF LABOR CODE SECTION 226.7 AND IWC WAGE ORDEU 16-2001 T A I L L R E TO PROVIDE RES I PERIODS OR PREMIUM PAY IN LIEU THEREOF 18 (PlainfilTs against All Dcfcndanis) 19 45 The allegations sel forlh in Ihis Complaint are hereby re.illcged and incorporated by 20 reference 21 46, ,Al all times relevani. Induslrial Welfare ("ommission Order No !6-2001 and Labor Code 22 § 22(>,7 were in full force and eflbcr re(|uiring employers in (,':alifoi nia to provide employees with a ten- 23 minute rest period for every four hours worked, ov a major llactioii thereof, 11"an employer f"ails lo 24 provide an em|,)loyee a rest period in accordance with California lav,' or applicable Wage Order, ilic 25 em|)loyer shall pay the employee one (1) Iiour of pay the cm|i!oyee's regular rate of com pen,sal ion lbi- 26 each workday thai a rest period is not: provided, 27 47, Defendants, and each of ihem, rorttinely failed to provide Plaintil'fs am! Plaintiff class 28 members with a ten-minute rest period for every f"oui hours worked, Defeiidanis routinely required I SLCONi:) AMLNI,)l;:i.) (;OMPl,,AlN I TOR IJAMACil-S Plaintilfs and Plaintiff class members to work through their rest breaks or required IMainlilfs and Plaintiff class membei s to work without taking a lesi break, 48. Defendants, and each of them, failed to pay Plaintiffs and Plaintiff class members one hour of premium pay for the days that they were not provided a ten-minute rest period l"oi every f"oui hours they worked, 6 Wherefore, Plainliffs requesi relief as hereinallei prayed for, 7 SIX TH C A U S E OT A C TION 8 VIOLA T ION O F L A B O R C O D E §§ 201. 202, AND 203 9 T A I L U R E TO I'AV FINAT, W A G E S 10 (Plaintiffs against All Derendanl.s) 'I I 49. The allegations set forth in diis C'omplaint are hereby realleged and inccMporaled by 12 reference 50 C'alifbinia Labor Code § 201 requires an employer who discharges an employee to pay s 14 compensation due and owing to that employee immedialely upon discharge. 5 51, California Labor (2odc § 202 requires an employer to pay all compensation due and l() owing lo an employee vvho qtiits within 72 hours of that employee quilling, unless Ihc cmj)loyec 17 jjrovides at least 72 hours-noiice of quilting, in wdiich case all comi,iensation is due at the end ofthe 18 employee's final day of work. 19 52, California Labor ('ode § 203 provides that if an employer willfully fails to pay 20 compcnsalion i)romplly upon discharge, as required by § 201 or ^ 202, ihen the cmplover is li;iblc \'o\ wailing lime penalties in Ihe form on ctJiUinuc compensation of up to 30 work days, 7.2 53, Defendants, and each of them, willfully failed and refused to timely pay compcnsalion and wages, including ovcriime conqxinsation thai issue and owing k) Plainliffs and Plaiinilf class 24 members upon their terminaiion of employment with Defendants, As a result. Defendants, and cacli of" ihem, are liable to Plaintif~i"s and Plaintiff class members, for wailing time penalties, logeiher with 26 interest thereon and rea.sonable atlornev's fees and costs, under California Labor C(Hie § 203, 7 Wherefore. IMainiiffs request relief as hereinafter prayed for, 28 12 si;roNn AMIINOLH c:6\.tRLA!N'rj"OR DAMAGLS SEVEN I'll CAUSE OF AC TION VIOLA HON OT< LABOR (ODIC 226 FAIITJRE TO T UUNISII ACCUKA I E WACiE S TA TEMEN TS (PlainlifTs against All Dofondants) 54 The allegations sel forth in this ('omplaint are hereby realleged and incorporated liy 6 reference 7 55. California I -abor (.'ode § 226(a) requires employers scmi-moiiihl>- or at the time of each S payment of wages to furnish each employee widi a slalcmcnl itemizing, among other things, gross 9 wages earned, and all dcduciioiis. Cal. l,,abor Code § 226(b) provides lliat if"an employer knovvingly and 10 intentionally fails to provide a .statement itemizing, among other things, gross wages earned and accurate deductions, then the employee is entitled to lecover the .greater ofall actual damages or flfi.y dollars (S50) for the initial violation and one hundred dollars ($100) for each subsequeni violaiion. up to four 3 diousand dollars ($4000) 4 j 56, Defendanis and each of Ihem, knowingly and intentionally failed to furnish fo Plainliffs and Plaintiff class member itemi^ed wage statements depicting their actual gross wages in pan due to 16 l)efendants' failure lo accurately record Plainliffs" and Plaintiff class members' overtime and 17 Del'eiuiants' f"ailuie lo record and pay |)remium wages for missed meal period, 18 57. l,)ef'endants, and each of them, are liable to Plainliffs and Plainliff class mcinl)ers for the 19 amounts provided by Cal. l.,abor Code 226(c)( 1) and for penalties and aliorneys"' fees. Wherefore, Plaintiff's request relief as hercinaf'ter prayed for. EK;n TH CALISE OF AC TION VIOLA TION OT LABOB CODE 2802 23 FAILURE TO PAY UEIMBTIRSEMEN'T EXPENSES 24 . (Plaintiffs against All Defendants) [ 2.5! 58, The allegations set foith in Ihis (.'omplainl are hereby realleged and incorporated by I 26 j reference 59, Al all times relevant lo this action, Labor Code § 2802 reciuires that an employer shall 28 I indemnif'y his or her empkiyce 'for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in SI X'OK'L) AMI::NI)I';I) C O M P L A I N I I-(.)R DAMAOlt.S direct con.sec|uencc ofthe discharge ol'his or her diiiies, or c>f"his or her obedience lo the directions of the employer,'' 60 .At all limes herein menlioned Defendants, and each of them, were the employers of Plaintiffs and Plainliff class members. During fhe course of their employment with Defendants, Plainlifls and Plaintifl class members were rcciuired lo use their personal cell phones for work purposes, () they were re(|uiied to pay for their travel expenses, they were required to pi]y f'or their training, and (•) 10 7 8 Plaintiffs and others similarly situated employees were required to pay for iheir tools to perform services f"or the benefit ol"ihc Defendanis, 61, .As an actual and proximate result ofthe aforeinenlioned violation, Plainliffs and Plaintil'f class members have been damaged in an amount according to proof", but in an amount in excess, ofthe .1 1 jurisdiction of this Court, Plaintiff's and Plaintiff class members arc entitled lo die bosses ihey incurred 12 for the benefit (,if the Defendants during their employment with Defendants, 13 Wherefore, IMai miffs icciuest relief as hcreinafier prayed for, 14 NUN TH C A U S E 01 A C TION 15 VIOLA TION Ol- LABOR C O D E 558 ' 16 C I V I L PENAL TIES F O R V I O L A TION O F C A L I F O R N I A L A B O R ( O D E W A G E AND HOUR !7 PROVISIONS AND PROVISIONS O F INDUS TRIAL W E L T A U E COMMISSION 18 (Plaintiffs against All Defendants) 19 62, The allegations of Ihis {A)mplainl are hereby realleged and incorjioraietl by reference 20 03. Defendants, and each of Ihem, have violated varitnis provisions of ihe Lal^or Code and 21 IWC! Wage Order l()-20(,il as sel forlh above In doing so, Defendanis, and each oflliem arc .siibiecled to 22 civil pcnaliies as l"ollovvs: ( I ) For any initial violation, fifty dollars ($50) for each underpaid cmiiKiyce 23 for each pay f)eriod for which the em|.)loyee was underpaid in addition to an amount sut'llcicnt to recover 24 uiideri,>aid wages; (2) I'or each subsequent violation, one luimlretl dollars (Si00) f"or each underpaid 25 employee for each pay period ibr which the employee was underpaid in addition io an amount .sufficient 26 lo recover underpaid wages; (3) Wages recovered pursuant to this section shall be paid to the affected 27 empkiyce. 28 Wherefore Plainliffs request relief as hereinafter prayed for. si'C'ONi) A.VII:KL)L:I,) C O M P L A I N T LOR DAMAOLI-S I'ENHi CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLA TION OT UABOK ( O D E 247 AND 247.5 FAILURE TO POS T NO TICE OF SICK LEAN E AND FAIUUUE TO KEEP ACC URA TE RECORDS OT PAH) SICK LICAVE (Plaintiffs against All Defendants) 6 64 fhe allegations sel forth in this Complaint are hereby realleged and incoiporaled by 7 reference 8 65, Labor Code § 247 provides that an employer must display a poster in a conspicuous place 9 containing infbrmalion including: (1) .An employee is enlillcd to accrue, rc(|uest, ami use paid sick (l;tys: 10 (2) J'he ainount of sick days provided for by this article; (3) fhc terms of use of paid sick days; (4) f hai •1 I retaliation or discrimination against an employee who requests paid sick days or uses [)aid sick days, or 12 both, is prohibited and diat an employee has the right under this article to file a complaint with the Labor 13 Commissioner against an employer w4>o retaliates or discriminates against the employee, 14 66, An employer who willfully violates the posting requirement of this section is sisbjccl to a 15 civil penally of not more than one hundred dollars ($100) [ler each offense 16 67, Defendants, and each of them, willfully failed the posting requirements of l.abor Code v:; 17 247, and therefore, are subjccled to civil penalties of $100 for each offense 18 68 Labor (."ode § 247,5 provides that an emi)loye,r shall kee|,5 l"or al least three years records 19 documenting the hours \vorked and paid sick days accrued and u.sed by an employee If an enipU,)yci 20 does not maintain adcc|uaie records pursuant to this seclion, il shall be presumed that the eni|)toyec is entitled lo Ihe maximum lUiinber of hours accruable under this article, unless ilu; employer can show- otherwise by clear and convincing evidence 69. Dcl'ciitlani,s, and cacli of them, have failed lo keep accurate records ol" all paiti sick days 24 accrued by l*laintiffs and Plainliff class members, ,As a result of Defendants conducL Plainld'fs ami 25 Plainliff class members have suffered harm in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of ihis 26 Court, 27 Wherefoi'c, Plainliffs request relief as in hereinafter prayed f"or. 28 Si :C0NI) AMtiNULI) COMPI.AIN T I 'OR DAMAGlvS ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACHON VIOLA TION OT UABOK CODi; ^ 'J70 3 SOUK TTAHON OF EMPLOYEES BV MISREPRESEN TAHON 4 (PlaintilTs against All l)efendan(s) s 70 The allegations set foith in this ("omplainl arc hereby realleged and ip.coriiorated by 6 reference 7 7I Calif"ornia Labor Code § 970 provides that no |)er.son, or agent or officer thereof, directly 8 or imiirecily, shall innuence, persuade, or engage any person lo change ll oni one place to anothei' in this 9 State or iVom any place (uitsidc to any place within Ihc State, of from any place within the State to to outside, for the purpose of working in any branch of labor, througli or by means of knowingly fal.sc -1 I reiMCscntations, wheltier spoken, written, or advertised in printed form, concerning either (a) 'The kind, 12 character, or existence of such, work; (b) The length of lime such work will last, or the compensation 13 Iherefbr, (c) J'he sanitary or housing condibons rchiting lo or surrounding the work; (d) 4'be existence or 14 nonexistence of any strike, lockouL or other labor dispute affecting it and pending between ihc proposed 15 employer and the persons then or last engaged in the performance ofthe labor for which the employee is 16 sought. 17 72 Defendants, and each of them, willfully made misrepresentations lo the Plaintiffs and 18 Plaintiff class members regarding the kind, character, and existence of work, the length of lime the work 19 v>'ill last, the compensations of ihe work, and the housing condili(^ns relating to employment, including 20 liul not limited to promises to provide and pay for certified training. Defbndants tbriher promised lo pay to Plaintiffs and those similarly siriiatcd per diem pay lo cover food and lodging cosis for their relocation. Plaintiffs and Plaintiff class members reasonable relied on Defendants* misrcprcseniations lo 23 Iheir del rim en I, 24 73, .As a direct ami proximate result of Defbndants' conduct. Plaintiffs atid r^ininlitf class 25 members have suffered hann in an amount in excess of the juri.sdictional minimum of this C.^ourt. 26 74, 'The above described actions were perpetrated and/or ratified by a managing ageni or 27 officer of l,)cfendanis. These acts were done with malice iVaud, oppression, and in reckless disregard ol' 28 Plaintiffs' rights and the rights of those similarly situated. Further, said actions were dcsiiicable in 16 SLCONI) AMjiNDLI) COMPI,AIN L LOR DAMACILS character and warrant the iinp(>sili(,Mi of punitive damages in a sum sulficicni to punish and dcici Defendants" future conduct, Wherel"ore, f^laintiffs rec|uesl relief as hereinafter prayed for. 4 TWELFTH CAUSE Ol' AC TION 5 VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE 5? 17200, i t svq. 6 UNFAIR COMPETTTION AC T 7 (Plainliffs against All Defendants) 8 75 fhe allegations set forlh in this (,x)mplainl are hereby realleged and incorporalcd by 9 reference 10 76, Defendants' conduci, as alleged herein, has been and continues to be unfair, unlawful, -I I and harmf"ul to Plainliff'"s and Plainliff class members. Defendants' activities,, as alleged herein, are 12 violations of California law and conslilute unlawful business ads and practices in violaiion of (."alifornia 13 Business and Professions Code ^§ 1 7200 et seq. 14 77. ,A violation of C^at, Bus. Prof code ij 17200 may be predicated on the violation of any 15 stale or f'ederal law-. In ihi.s case Defendants had a policy and practice of failing to pay Plaintil'fs and " 16 Plaintil'f class members all overtime hours worked, for missed rest and meal periods, l"or reimbursement 17 pay, and their final wages, which violates several (California Labor ( lode Sections and Industrial 18 Commission Welfare Wage Order provisions, 19 78, PlainlifJ's and Plaintiff class members have been personally injured by Defendants 20 unlawful and unfair business practices inckuliiig but not limited to suffering financial loss l-*!aintiffs and 21 Plaimifl"class members are enlillcd to reslilution ofthe wages withheld and letaincd by l,')cl"eiKlaiits 22 during the defined period. 23 79. Further, Ihc Plaintiffs and PlaintifT class members request the viol;Uions ofthe 24 Defendants alleged herein be enjoined, and other equitable relief as this court deems proper, 25 Wherelbre, Plaintiffs requesi relief as liereinaller prayed for. 26 27 28 17 SliCONt) AMl:Nj)l4) (:C)Mf4.AlN DAMACILS V. i>RAVT;R TOR REl.M'F Wi II;RI,{I'OKl.:, Plai!nifl"(s) demand judgment against Derendanls ;.[n(l any olhei !,)eren(!aiils who may iaier i)e abided a'-; follows: AS 'IT) 'THE FTBS'T CAUSE OF ACJ'lON 80. Pcnaliies according to llic foiiowuig schedule: f'oi any initial viohniori,. one hundred dollars (,tlOO) for each aggrieved employee pei pay period; I'oi any ,sub.sequenl vit)latit>i). two hundred dollars ($20()) for each aggrieved employee per pay period; oi' otherwise enumerated for specific Labor ("otic sections; 8 I. K(:a:~:oiiaMc .Xuorncys' l-ees and costs, pursiianl lu !.,abor (^'.odc Sccliou 2699; 82. Wages as proved at nial; 83. f o r prejudgmcnl inierest on ai! ainounls claimed; 84, Injuiiclive and 13cciaraiory I\.elic4", 85, f-'or such other .'uid further relief •;!,-; this Court mav deein jus!, and j)ro|,H;-r; AS 4'0 'THE R E M A I N I N G CAUSES (.)l' A C H O N 15 f'oi ;in (.)rder certifying ihis acii<;)n as a class