Preview
.
W 1
. . CD}
£0]
M”; ‘ b
1 Jonathan M. Genish (State Bar N0. 25903 1)
Q
2
jgenish@blackstonepc.com
Miriam Schimmel (State Bar No. 185089) F ' LE D
g
F
. sups RIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA
msch1mmel@blackstonepc.com COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
3 SA“ BERNARD'NO D'STH'CT
Joana Fang (State Bar No. 309623) 'l'l
4 jfang@blackstonepc.com
JUN O l 2023
>
BLACKSTONE LAW, APC X
5 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745
m
6
Beverly Hills, California 90211
Telephone: (3 10) 622—4278
BY:
i
9’9"? "'anue a.
~
Deputy
U
7
Attorneys for Plaintiff
8 JUAN MANUEL MUNOZ
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA
10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
11
JUAN MANUE L MUN O Z, ind iVi dua ll y, and on C ase No. A
12 behalf of Aggrieved Employees pursuant t0 the
CIV b8 2 3 1 2 3 z 2
California Private Attorneys General Act, COMPLAINT FOR ENFORCEMENT
13
ACTION UNDER THE PRIVATE
1 4
Plaintiffs, ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT,
CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §§ 2698 ET
15 vs. SEQ.
16 MGA ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,
17
Defendants.
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR ENFORCEMENT ACTION UNDER THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT
COMES NOW, Plaintiff JUAN M'ANUEL MUNOZ (“Plaintiff”), individually, and 0n behalf
of other Aggrieved Employees pursuant to the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act,
and alleges as follow:
INTRODUCTION
1. This is an enforcement action under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act of2004, California Labor Code sections 2698, et seq. (“PAGA”) to recover civil penalties
on behalf 0f Plaintiff, the State 0f California, and all individuals Who worked for Defendants in the
State of California as hourly-paid and/or non-exempt employees at any time during the period from
March 22, 2022 to final judgment (“Aggrieved Employees”).
10 2. Plaintiff alleges that throughout the time period involved in this case, Defendants hired
11 Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees but failed to properly pay them all wages owed for all time worked
12 (including minimum wages, straight time wages, and overtime wages), failed to provide them With all
13 meal periods and rest periods and associated premium wages t0 which they were entitled, failed to
14 timely pay them all wages during their employment, failed to timely pay them all wages due upon
15 termination oftheir employment, failed to provide them with accurate itemized wage statements, failed
16 to maintain accurate payroll records, and failed to reimburse them for necessary business expenses.
17 3. As a result, Defendants violated California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203, 204,
18 226(a), 226.7, 510, 512(a), 1174(d), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2800, and 2802, and the applicable
19 Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Orders. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover
20 all available remedies under PAGA, including, but not limited to, civil penalties and attorney’s fees
21 and costs.
22 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
23 4. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the California Constitution,
24 Article VI, section 10. The statutes under Which this action is brought do not specify any other basis
25 for jurisdiction.
26 5. This Court has jurisdiction over all Defendants because, upon information and belief,
27 Defendants are either citizens of California, have sufficient minimum contacts in California, or
28 otherwise intentionally avail themselves of the California market so as to render the exercise of
l
COMPLAINT FOR ENFORCEMENT ACTION UNDER THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT
Preview
. W 1 . . CD} £0] M”; ‘ b 1 Jonathan M. Genish (State Bar N0. 25903 1) Q 2 jgenish@blackstonepc.com Miriam Schimmel (State Bar No. 185089) F ' LE D g F . sups RIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA msch1mmel@blackstonepc.com COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 3 SA“ BERNARD'NO D'STH'CT Joana Fang (State Bar No. 309623) 'l'l 4 jfang@blackstonepc.com JUN O l 2023 > BLACKSTONE LAW, APC X 5 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745 m 6 Beverly Hills, California 90211 Telephone: (3 10) 622—4278 BY: i 9’9"? "'anue a. ~ Deputy U 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff 8 JUAN MANUEL MUNOZ 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 11 JUAN MANUE L MUN O Z, ind iVi dua ll y, and on C ase No. A 12 behalf of Aggrieved Employees pursuant t0 the CIV b8 2 3 1 2 3 z 2 California Private Attorneys General Act, COMPLAINT FOR ENFORCEMENT 13 ACTION UNDER THE PRIVATE 1 4 Plaintiffs, ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT, CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §§ 2698 ET 15 vs. SEQ. 16 MGA ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 1 8 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT FOR ENFORCEMENT ACTION UNDER THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT COMES NOW, Plaintiff JUAN M'ANUEL MUNOZ (“Plaintiff”), individually, and 0n behalf of other Aggrieved Employees pursuant to the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, and alleges as follow: INTRODUCTION 1. This is an enforcement action under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of2004, California Labor Code sections 2698, et seq. (“PAGA”) to recover civil penalties on behalf 0f Plaintiff, the State 0f California, and all individuals Who worked for Defendants in the State of California as hourly-paid and/or non-exempt employees at any time during the period from March 22, 2022 to final judgment (“Aggrieved Employees”). 10 2. Plaintiff alleges that throughout the time period involved in this case, Defendants hired 11 Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees but failed to properly pay them all wages owed for all time worked 12 (including minimum wages, straight time wages, and overtime wages), failed to provide them With all 13 meal periods and rest periods and associated premium wages t0 which they were entitled, failed to 14 timely pay them all wages during their employment, failed to timely pay them all wages due upon 15 termination oftheir employment, failed to provide them with accurate itemized wage statements, failed 16 to maintain accurate payroll records, and failed to reimburse them for necessary business expenses. 17 3. As a result, Defendants violated California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 18 226(a), 226.7, 510, 512(a), 1174(d), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2800, and 2802, and the applicable 19 Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Orders. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover 20 all available remedies under PAGA, including, but not limited to, civil penalties and attorney’s fees 21 and costs. 22 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 23 4. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the California Constitution, 24 Article VI, section 10. The statutes under Which this action is brought do not specify any other basis 25 for jurisdiction. 26 5. This Court has jurisdiction over all Defendants because, upon information and belief, 27 Defendants are either citizens of California, have sufficient minimum contacts in California, or 28 otherwise intentionally avail themselves of the California market so as to render the exercise of l COMPLAINT FOR ENFORCEMENT ACTION UNDER THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT