Preview
1 HATHAWAY, PERRETT, WEBSTER,
POWERS, CHRISMAN i& GUTIERREZ, APC
2 Alejandro P. Gutierrez: SBN 107688
3 agutierrez@hathawaylawfinTi.com
5450 Telegraph Road, Suite 200
4 Ventura, CA 93003
Tel: (805) 644-7111; Fax: (805) 644-8296
5
Attomeys for Plaintiff, JOHN BOUDREAU,
6 individually, and on behalf of the Proposed Class
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF T H E STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
10 FOR T H E COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO (UNLIMITED-COMPLEX)
11 JOHN BOUDREAU, an individual, on behalf CASE NO.: 34-2018-00247272
12 of himself and all others similarly situated, Assigned to: Dept. 14
Plaintiffs, CLASS-ACTION FIRST AMENDED
13 COMPLAINT FOR:
14 vs.
1. Failure to Pay Minimum Wages in
15 PRIMERITUS FINANCIAL SERVICES, Violation of Labor Code §§ 1194 and
INC., a Delaware corporation; CHRIS 226.2;
16 McGINNESS, an individual; and DOES 1 2. Failure to Timely Pay Wages in Violation
through 10, inclusive,
of Labor Code §§ 201, 202 and 203;
17
Defendants 3. Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest
18 Periods in Violation of Labor Code
§ 226.7;
19 4. Failure to Provide Meal Periods and Pay
Meal Premiums in Violation of Labor
20
Code § 226.7;
21 5. Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized
Wage Statements in Violation of Labor
22 Code §§ 226 and 226.2; and
23 6. Violation of The Unfair Competition Law
Business & Professions Code §17200, et
24 seq.
1. For Civil Penalties Under the Private
25 Attomey Generals Act of 2004 (Labor
26 Code § 2699 et seq.)
27
28
FIRST AiMENDED COMPLAINT - COMPLEX
Plaintiff John Boudreau ("Boudreau" or "Plaintiff), by and through his attomeys, brings this
2 action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated non-exempt employees who are or were
3 employed in Califomia by Defendant PRIMERITUS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., a Delaware
4 : corporation ("Primeritus" or "Defendant"); CHRIS McGINNESS, an individual; and DOES 1 through
5 ' 10, inclusive (collectively, "Defendants") within the four-year period prior to the filing of this action.
6 Plaintiff hereby alleges, on information and belief, except for information based on personal
7 I knowledge, which allegations are likely to have evidentiary support after further investigation and
8 discovery, as follows:
9 NATURE OF ACTION
10 1. This California-based class action is brought on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class of
11 I Primeritus Investigators because of Defendants' systematic rnistreatment of its employees in violation
12 i of Califomia's wage and hour laws. Primeritus Financial Services, Inc., one of the largest repossession
13 ' management and skip trace services nationwide, profits off the backs of its non-exempt workforce by
14 ; routinely failing to pay minimum wages and inandated rest and meal break cornpensation.
15 2. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that Defendants, jointly and
16 severally, have acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the
17 rights of all Investigators employed by Defendants in Califomia by failing to (1) pay minimum wages
18 in violation of Labor Code §§ 226.2 and 1194; (2) timely pay all wages and penalties owed post-
19 employee termination or resignation pursuant to Labor Code §§ 201, 202 and 203; (3) authorize and
20 pennit rest periods in violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7 and IWC Wage Order 4-2001; (4) provide
21 meal periods in violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 and IWC Wage Order 4-2001; (5) provide
22 accurate wage statements in violation of Labor Code §226; and by (6) violating of the Unfair
23 Competition Law ("UCL") pursuant to Business & Professions Code §17200, et seq., with
24 Defendants' actions subject to civil penalties under the Private Attomey Generals Act of 2004 (Labor
25 Code § 2699 et seq.).
26
27 ///
28 ///
FIRST AIMENDED COMPLAINT- COMPLEX
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2 3. This class action is within the court's jurisdiction under Califomia Labor Code §§ 201,
3 202, 203, 226, 226.2, 226.7, 510, 512, and 1194, IWC Wage Order 4-2001 and the Califomia Unfair
4 Competition law (the "UCL"), Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.
4. Plaintiffis a citizen of Califomia because his domicile is in Califomia.
5
5. Defendant Chris McGinness is a citizen of Califomia because his domicile is in
6
Califomia.
7
6. On infonnation and belief, Defendant Primeritus is a Delaware corporation with its
8
headquarters located in Nashville, Tennessee. Primeritus Financial Services, Inc. maintains an office
9 in El Dorado Hills, Califomia where it employs over 50 employees. Primeritus Financial Services,
10 Inc.'s in-state activities are substantial, continuous and systematic and gave rise to the liabilities sued
11 upon herein. This court has jurisdiction over Defendants because they conduct substantial business
12 in Califomia and have intentionally availed themselves of the laws and markets of Califomia through
13 the operation of their business in Califomia. Defendant Primeritus' contacts with the state are of such
a character that the maintenance of an action does not offend traditional, notions of fair play and
14
substantial justice. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).
15
7. The classes of persons whom Plaintiff seeks to represent are non-exempt employees
16
who were and/or are employed by Defendant Primeritus in California and, based on information and
17
belief, more than ninety percent of the proposed class members are citizens of Califomia. The principal
18 injuries resulting from the alleged conduct of Defendants were and are incurring in Califomia.
19 Plaintiffs are unaware of another class action with the same factual allegations against Defendants on
20 behalf of the same or other similarly-situated persons having been filed during the 4-year period
21 preceding the filing of this Complaint.
22 8. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§395 and 395.5
23 because a significant portion of the conduct that gives rise to Defendants' liability, as alleged herein,
24 occurred in Sacramento County. Plaintiff was at all times a resident of Sacramento County,
25 California, and was a victim of Defendants' wrongfiil acts and practices complained of herein.
Additionally, Defendants' conduct substantial business in Sacramento County.
26
9. Plaintiff is over eighteen years of age and at all relevant times is and was a resident of
27
Sacramento County, California. Mr. Boudreau, an Investigator providing skip tracing services for
28
Defendants in the repossession process, has been a dedicated non-exempt employee of Primeritus (and
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- COMPLEX
1 its predecessor entities) in its El Dorado Hills, California facilities since January 2010. Mr. Boudreau
2 has at all relevant times been paid an hourly base rate of $8.00, plus compensation on a "piece rate"
3 or "per task" basis for work performed during a pay period.
10. During the Class Period, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Class at the
4
minimum wage for all hours worked, including nonproductive work such as meetings, training and
5
administrative tasks.
6
11. During the Class Period, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class all wages due
7
and owing upon tennination or resignation.
8 12. During the Class Periodj Defendants knowingly and intentionally failed to compensate
9 Plaintiff and the Class for waiting time penalties of up to 30 days of pay for Plaintiff and the Class
10 Members at their regular rate of pay.
11 13. During the Class Period, Defendants failed to provide and/or effectively precluded
12 Plaintiff Boudreau and other similarly situated Class Members from taking and/or receiving daily
13 duty-free paid rest breaks.
14 14. Despite having denied Plaintiff Boudreau lawfully required paid rest periods,
15 Defendants failed to compensate Mr. Boudreau and other similarly situated employees for all premium
16 wages for the non-compliant rest periods as set forth in the Labor Code.
17 15. Defendants knowingly and intentionally failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Class
18 one additional hour of pay at the employees' regular rate of compensation for each work day that a
19 compliant meal period was not provided.
20 16. Defendants knowingly and intentionally failed to provide Plaintiff Boudreau with
21 accurate, itemized wage statements, as required by Labor Code §§ 226 and 226.2. Among other
22 violations. Defendants are aware that the records provided to Mr. Boudreau failed to reflect rest break
23 periods that were not paid in compliance with Califomia Labor Code § 226.2 and the premium wages
24 owed for such, and the records provided to Mr. Boudreau failed to reflect the correct premium wages
25 owed for non-compliant meal breaks. Because Defendants failed to accurately report Plaintiff
26 Boudreau's rest and meal period premium wages, they violated Labor Code § 226 by failing to
27 accurately report gross and net wages eamed and total hours worked by Mr. Boudreau. Because of
28 the inaccurate wage statements, Mr. Boudreau has been banned because his wages owed were not
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- COMPLEX
1 properly calculated and he was not made aware of what his tme wages were and how they were
2 calculated.
3 17. Because of Defendants' wage and hour violations. Plaintiff Boudreau has suffered
4 \ damages, and he therefore brings this class action to enforce compliance of the Labor Code and
5 : recover wages, restitution, civil penalties, and attomeys' fees and costs.
6 18. Plaintiff Boudreau was, and is, a victim of Defendants'policies and/or practices
7 ' complained of herein, lost money and/or property, and has been deprived of the rights guaranteed to
8 i him by Cahfomia Labor Code §§ 201,202,203,226,226.2,226.7,512, 516, 558, and 1194; Califomia
9 t Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., and Wage Order 4-2001, which sets employment
10 standards for professional, technical, clerical, mechanical and similar occupations.
11 Defendants
12 I 19. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that, at all times pertinent hereto,
13 ; Defendant Primeritus Financial Services, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located
14 I in Nashville, Tennessee. Primeritus Financial Services, Inc. operates an office in El Dorado Hills,
15 Califomia. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff and members of the putative class were employees
16 ! of Primeritus Financial Services, Inc. working as Investigators in the repossession process.
17 20. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that, at all times pertinent hereto,
18 i Defendant Chris McGinness was the Vice President and General Manager of Operations at the
19 i Primeritus location in El Dorado Hills, Califomia where Plaintiff and those similarly situated were
20 : employed. Plaintiffisftirtherinfonned, believes and thereon alleges that, at all times pertinent hereto,
21 ; Chris McGinness was a citizen of the fomm state of Califomia.
22 21. Plaintiff is infonned, believes and thereon alleges that, at all times pertinent
23 hereto. Defendants Primeritus, Chris McGinness, and Does 1 through 10, were the owner(s),
24 : director(s), officer(s), or managing agent(s) acting on behalf of employer, Primeritus, and who, in said
25 respective capacities and positions, are liable for the claims alleged herein pursuant to Labor Code §
26 ' 558.1 in that they were and are an "other person" acting on behalf of Primeritus, who violated, or
27 caused to be violated, certain Labor Code sections stated herein.
28 22. Based on infonnation and belief. Defendants had the authority to, directly or indirectly,
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- COMPLEX
1 or through an agent or other person, employ or exercise control over Plaintiffs and the Classes' wages,
2 hours, and working conditions.
3 23. Based on infonnation and belief. Defendants had knowledge of the wage-and-hour
4 violations alleged herein and each Defendant had the power to prevent the violations from occurring.
5 Having knowledge of the wage-and-hour violations set forth in this Complaint, Defendants could have
6 but failed to prevent the violations from occurring.
7 24. At all relevant times. Defendants did, and still do, transact and conduct business in the
8 State of Califomia, including, but not limited to, the County of Sacramento and with the jurisdiction
9 of this Court.
10 25. At all times mentioned in the causes of action alleged herein, each Defendant was an
11 agent and/or employee of each other Defendant, In doing the things alleged in the causes of action
12 stated herein, each Defendant was acting within the course and scope of this agency or employment
13 ahd was acting with the consent, permission, and authorization of each of the remaining Defendants.
14 All actions of each defendant, as alleged in the causes of action stated herein, were ratified and
15 approved by every other defendant or its officers or managing agents.
16 26. Plaintiff does not know the tme names and capacities of Defendants DOES 1 through
17 10, inclusive, and therefore sues them by these fictifious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint
18 to include their names and capacities once they are known. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on
19 that basis alleges, that each of the Defendants designated as a DOE is legally responsible in some
20 manner for the occurrences alleged in this Complaint, and unlawfully caused the injuries and damages
21 to Plaintiff and the Class as alleged in this Complaint.
22 PRIMERITUS' UNLAWFUL CONDUCT
23 Background
24 27. Primeritus is a national provider of repossession management and skip tracing services.
25 Primeritus operates a facility in El Dorado Hills, Califomia, and employs in excess of 50 members of
26 the Class at its Califomia facility.
27 28. The non-exempt houriy employee positions that constitute the Class include
28 Investigators who perfonn skip searches in the repossession process. As described in more
.6 _
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAiNT- COMPLEX
1 , particularity in paragraphs 50 through 52 below, the Class includes all hourly Califomia Employees,
2 meaning all non-exempt current and fonner employees of Primeritus who were employed as
3 ^ Investigators by Primeritus in Califomia during the Class Period.
4 Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
5 ^ 29. Wage Order No. 4-2001, commonly known as Wage Order No. 4, provides that "Every
6' employer shall pay to each employee, on the established payday for the period, not less than the
7 ; i applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in the payroll period, whether the remuneration is
8 ' - measured by time, piece, commission, or otherwise." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040, subd. (4)(B).
9i "Hours worked" is defined in subdivision 2(K) of the wage order as "the time during which an
10 P employee is subject to the control of an employer, and includes all the time the employee is suffered
11 or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so." (Cal.Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040, subd. (2)(K).
12 i Thus, the obligation to pay minimum wages attaches to each and every separate hour worked during
13 ; I the payroll period.
14 M 30. Further, Labor Code §226.2 applies to employees, such as Plaintiff and members of
15 the Class herein, who are compensated on a piece-rate basis for any work performed during a pay
16 : : period. Section 226.2 requires that piece-rate employees shall be compensated for rest periods and.
17 other nonproductive time separately from any piece-rate compensation.
18 ' 31. Pursuant to Labor Code § 226.2, piece-rate employees shall be compensated for rest
19 ' periods at a regular hourly rate that is no less than the higher of (i) an average hourly rate detennined
20 : by dividing the total compensation for the workweek, exclusive of compensation for rest and recovery
21 periods and any premium compensation for overtime, by the total hours worked during the workweek,
22 exclusive of rest and recovery periods; (ii) the minimum wage.
23 32. Defendants required Plaintiff and the Class to routinely work non-productive time,
24 including requiring Plaintiff and the Class to attend training and meetings. During the Class Period,
25 Defendants failed to separately pay Plaintiff and the Class Members compensation for nonproductive
26 time separate from piece-rate compensation at rates at or in excess of the applicable minimum wage,
27 in violation of Califomia Labor Code §§226.2 and 1194.
28
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- COMPLEX
Failure to Tiiiicly Pay Wages
2 33. Labor Code §201 provides, in relevant part, " I f an employer discharges an employee,
3 the wages eamed and unpaid at the time of discharge are due and payable, immediately." Lab. Code §
4 201(a). Defendants did not pay immediately all wages eamed and unpaid upon employee tennination.
5 Defendants have refiised and continue to refiise to pay said wages.
6 34. Labor Code §202 provides, in relevant part, " I f an employee not having a written
7 • confract for a definite period quits his or her employment, his or her wages shall become due and
8 ; payable not later than 72 hours thereafter, unless the employee has given 72 hours previous notice of
9 1 his or her intention to quit, in which case the employee has given 72 hours previous notice of his or
10 i: her intention to quit, in which case the employee is entitled to his or her wages at the time of quitting."
11 ; Lab. Code 202(a). Defendants did not pay immediately all wages eamed and unpaid to Plaintiff and
i•
12
I! the Class Members upon resignation by the employees. Defendants have refiased and continue to
13
j refiise to pay said wages.
14
35. Pursuant to Labor Code §203, Defendants have willfiilly failed to pay without
15
i abatement or reduction, in accordance with Labor Code § 202 all wages of Plaintiff and the Class as
16
herein alleged. Plaintiff and the Class Members seek wages and waiting-time penalties pursuant to
17
Labor Code § 203. These penalties consist of up to 30 days of pay for Plaintiff and the Class Members
18
i at their regular rate of pay. Defendants have refiised and continue to refiise to pay said penalties.
19
; Rest Break Violations.
20
36. Labor Code § 226.7 provides that employers cannot require employees to work during
21
!| breaks mandated by an order ofthe Industrial Welfare Commission. The IWC, in tum, has mandated
22
i; in Section 12(A) ofthe Wage Orders, including Wage Order 4-2001, that every employer shall
23
. authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods at the rate of ten minutes per four hours worked
24
: in the middle of each work period.
25
37. During the Class Period, Defendants failed to authorize and permit Plaintiff and
26
members of the Class with compliant rest periods as mandated by IWC Wage Order 4-2001.
27
38. Further, during the Class Period, Defendants failed to pay rest breaks in compliance
28
with Labor Code § 226.2.
8
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- COMPLEX
1 39. Both Labor Code Section 226.7 and IWC Wage Order 4-2001 require that i f an
2 employer fails to provide an employee a rest period in accordance with a state law or order of the
3 IWC, the employer shall pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee's regular rate
4 of compensation for each workday that the rest period is not provided. Section 226.7's "regular rate"
5 of compensation is not limited to Plaintiffs and the Class Members' base rate of compensation, but
6 includes other forms of qualifying compensation, such as their piece-rate pay. Alvarado v. Dart
7 Container Corp. of Cal, (2018) 4 Cal.5"' 542, 554, 562.
8 40. During the Class Period, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class Members
9 the additional hour of pay at their regular rate of pay as required under Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512.
10 Meal Break Premium Violations
11 41. Section 512 of the Labor Code requires that an employer may not employ an employee
12 for a work period of more than five hours per day without providing the employee with a meal period
13 of not less than 30 minutes and for a work period of more than 10 hours with a second rneal period of
14 not less than 30 minutes.
15 42. Section 226.7 of the Labor Code mandates that i f an employer fails to provide an
16 employee with a compliant meal period, it shall pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the
17 employee's regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal period is not provided.
18 43. Section 226.7's "regular rate" of compensation is not limited to Plaintiffs and the
19 Class Members' base rate of compensation, but includes other fonns of qualifying compensation, such
20 as their piece-rate pay. Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. of CaL, (2018) 4 Cal.Sth 542, 554, 562.
21 44. During the Class Period, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Class for
22: premiums wages owed for non-compliant meal breaks as set forth in Labor Code § 226.7. Specifically,
23 ;i Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class one additional hour of pay at the employees' "regular
24 : rate" of compensation for each workday a compliant meal break was not provided.
25-; '///
26 : ///
27 ;
28 i
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- COMPLEX
1 Wage Statighicnt Violations
2 45. Defendants knowingly and intentionally failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class with
3 accurate, itemized wage statements, as required by Labor Code §§ 226 and 226.2. Because
4 Defendants failed to accurately report Plaintiffs and the Class's correct compensation for non-
5 i productive time and rest and meal period premium wages, they violated Labor Code § 226, by failing
6 : to accurately report gross and net wages earned and total hours worked by Plaintiffs and the Class.
7 :; Because of the inaccurate wage statements. Plaintiffs and the Class have been harmed because their
8 wages owed were not properly calculated and they were never made aware of what their tmci wages
9 i were and how they were calculated.
10 46. Common evidence exists to prove Defendants' Labor Code violations; for example^
11 the Class' wage statements and time detail records (showing daily clock in and clock out times).
12 47. Because of Defendants' wage and hour violations. Plaintiffs and the Class have
13 i suffered damages, and therefore bring this class action to enforce compliance ofthe Labor Code and
14 I applicable IWC Wage Order, and to recover wages, restitution, civil penalties, and attomeys' fees and
15 ^ costs.
16 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
17 48. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each allegation in the preceding
18 I and subsequent paragraphs.
19 49. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons
20 as a class action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §382.
21 50. As used herein, the following terms have the meanings set forth below:
22 i. "Califomia Employees" means all Non-Exempt current and former
23 employees of Primeritus who were employed by Primeritus in Califomia during the Class
24 Period who held the position of Investigator.
25 ii. "Non-Exempt" means employees that are not exempt from Califomia
26 wage and hour laws pursuant to Labor Code §515(a); 8 Cal, C. Regs. §11010, et seq.
27 iii. "Class Period" means the period within the four years prior to the
28 filing of this Complaint up through the date of final disposition of this action.
10
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- COMPLEX
1 iv. The "Class" means all "California Employees."
2 51. Excluded from the Class are custodial employees. Defendants, their officers and
3 directors, families and legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns and any entity in which
4 Defendants have a controlling interest, and any Judge assigned to this case and their immediate
5 families.
6 52. The "Class" is comprised of the following Sub-Classes:
7 (a) Unpaid Minimum Wages Sub-Class: Those members of the
8 Class who eamed wages and/or compensation associated with their
9 employment with Defendants;;
10 (b) Failure to Timely Pay Wages Sub-Class: Those members of the
11 Class who resigned or were terminated from employment and were
12 not timely paid wages upon resignation/termination;
13 (c) Rest Period Sub-Class: Those members of the Class who,
14 associated with their employment with Defendants, worked at least
15 4 hours a day or major fraction thereof and/or those members of the
16 putative Class who worked in excess of 6 hours a day;
17 (d) Meal Period Sub-Class: Those members of the Class who,
18 associated with their employment with Defendants, worked a period
19 of more than five hours and did not voluntarily waive their right to
20 meal periods; and
21 (e) Wage-Statement Sub-Class: Those members of the Class to
22 whom Defendants provided a wage statement at any time during the
23 period of one year prior to the filing of the action, up to and
24 including the present.
25 53. Plaintiff reserves the right pursuant to state law, to amend or modify the respective
26 definitions of the Class and/or Sub-Classes to provide greater specificity and/or further division into
27 subclasses or limitation to particular issues.
28
11
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- COMPLEX
1 54. Plaintiff is infonned, believes, and thereon alleges that the number of members of the
2 Class is in excess of fifty (50). Consequently, the Class is so numerous that joinder of all members
3 ; individually would be impractical.
4 55. Plainfiff is a member of the Non-Exempt employees comprising the Class and was
5 employed with Defendants at the Primeritus Califomia facility during the Class Period.
6 56. Plaintiff has no conflicts of interest with is fellow members of the Class and have been
7 able, and will continue to be able, to fairly and adequately protect the interests of all members of the
8 putative Class.
9 57. Plainfiff is infonned, believes and thereon alleges that Defendants' unlawful
10 employment policies and practices raise quesfions of fact common to the members of the Class,
11 including, whether Defendants:
12
13 (a) Failed to pay Plainfiff and members of the Class all of their eamed
14 wages and compensafion, including applicable minimum wages;
15 (b) Failed to timely pay Plaintiff and members of the Class wages upon
16 resignation or termination;
17 (c) Failed to pay Plaintiff and members of the Class waiting-fime
18 penahies pursuant to Labor Code §203, which consist of up to 30 days of
19 pay for Plainfiff and the Class Members at their regular rate of pay;
20 (d) Failed to provide Plaintiff and members of the Class compliant rest
21 breaks pursuant to the applicable laws;
22 (e) Failed to pay Plaintiff and members of the Class one hour of pay at
23 their regular rate of compensation for each non-compliant rest period;
24 (f) Failed to separately compensate Plaintiff and members of the Class
25 for rest periods and other nonproductive time at a regular hourly rate that
26 is no less than the higher of: (i) An average hourly rate detennined by
27 dividing the total compensation for the workweek, exclusive of
28 compensation for rest and recover periods and any premium
1:2
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- COMPLEX
1 compensation for overtime, by the total hours worked during the
2 workweek, exclusive of rest and recovery periods; and (ii) The applicable
3 minimum wage;
4 (g) Failed to provide Plaintiff and members of the Class compliant meal
5 periods in accordance with the applicable laws;
6;! (h) Failed to pay Plaintiff and members ofthe Class one hour of pay at
7• their regular rate of compensation for each meal break which is not
8 provided; and
9 (i) Failed to fumish to Plainfiff and members of the Class accurate,
10 ; itemized wage statements compliant with Labor Code §§ 226 and 226.2.
11 ; I 58. Plainfiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that Defendants' unlawfiil
12 - employment policies and practices raise numerous quesfions of law common to the members of the
13 , Glass, including, without limitation.
14 (a) Defendants' legal obligation to pay all meinbers of the Class for rest
15 and recovery periods and other non-productive time separate from any piece-
16 rate compensation pursuant to Labor Code §226.2;
17 ^ (b) Defendants' legal obligation to pay all members of the Class waiting
18 : time penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 203;
19 I (c) Defendants' legal obligafion to provide all meinbers of the Class with
20 timely final wage payments upon employee resignation or termination
21 pursuant to Labor Code §§201 and 202;
22 i (d) Defendants' legal obligation to provide members of the Class with
23 ' compliant paid rest periods pursuant to Labor Code § 226.7 and IWC Wage
24 ; Order 4-2001;
25 ; (e) Defendants'legal obligation to compensate members of the Class one
26 additional hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each
27 workday that a compliant rest break is not provided pursuant to Labor Code §
28 226.7;
• „ • „ L3
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- COMPLEX
1 (f) Defendants' legal obligation to provide compliant meal periods under
2 Labor Code § 512 and IWC Wage Order 4-2001;
3 (g) Defendants' legal obligation to compensate members of the Class one
4 addifional hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensafion for each
5 workday that a compliant meal break is not provided pursuant to Labor Code §
6 226.7;
7 (h) Whether Defendants' wage statements were compliant with Labor Code
8 §§ 226 and 226.2 as to Plainfiff and members of the Class;
9 (i) What remedies, including restitution, compensatory damages, statutory
10 and civil penalties, additional wages and disgorgement of revenue, are
11 available under Califomia law to members of the Class who were not paid all
12 eamed wages, compensafion and benefits; were not fimely paid all eamed
13 minimum, regular and overtime wages, compensafion and benefits; were not
14 timely paid waiting time penalties; and were not properly compensated for
15 meal and rest periods.
16 (j) The Class members' entitlement to be compensated for rest and
17 recovery periods and other nonproductive time at a regular hourly rate that is
18 no less than the higlier of: (i) An average hourly rate determined by dividing
19 the total compensation for the workweek, exclusive of compensation for rest
20 and recovery periods and any premium compensation for overtime, by the total
21 hours worked during the workweek, exclusive of rest and recovery periods; (ii)
22 The applicable minimum wage;
23 (k) The Class members' entitlement to one hour of pay at the members'
24 regular rate of compensation for each meal period that Defendants did not
25 permit the Class members to take; and
26 (1) The requirements for a wage statement to be compliant with Labor Code
27 §§ 226.2 and 226.
28
14
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- COMPLEX
1 59. Plaintiffis informed, believes and thereon alleges that his claims are typical of the
2 : claims of the members of the Class because they encompass the same unlawfiil policies and practices
3 ' : of Defendants; they arise out of the same alleged course of conduct by Defendants; are based upon
4 the same legal theories as the claims of the Class; and the legal issues raised under the Califomia state
5 ; laws as a result of Defendants' conduct apply equally to Plainfiffs and members of the Class
6 60. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that all members of the Class are
7 : similarly situated in that, throughout their employment, they were subject to Defendants' violations-
8 ! of Califomia labor law, including that Defendants maintained unifonn policies and practices whereby
9 Defendants regularly and systemafically:
10^1 (a) Failed to pay Plaintiff and members of the Class minimum wages and '
11 I ! compensation;
12 : : (b) Failed to timely pay wages due to Plainfiff and Class members upon
13; employee resignation or termination;
14 (c) Failed to pay waiting-time penalties to Plaintiff and Class members ;
15:; pursuant to Labor Code §203, which consist ofup to 30 days of pay for Plainfiff
16^' and the Class Members at their regular rate of pay; s
17 : (d) Failed to authorize and permit Plainfiff and Class Members to take
; 'I
18 compliant rest periods;
19 ; (e) Failed to pay Plaintiff and members of the Class one hour of pay at their
20 regular rate of compensation for each workday a rest period was not provided;
21 ^ (f) Failed to provide Plaintiff and members of the Class compliant meal
22 : ! periods;
23 (g) Failed to pay Plaintiff and members of the Class one hour of pay at their
24 regular rate of compensation for each workday that a meal period was not
25 V provided; and
26 \ (h) Failed to fumish to Plaintiff and members of the Class Labor Code §§226
27 I ' and 226.2 compliant wage statements.
28
.15.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- COMPLEX
1 Such uniform policies and practices have affected each member of the Class, including
2 Plaintiff, in a similar fashion.
3 61. Plaintiff is infonned, believes and thereon alleges that the prosecution of separate
4 actions by or against individual members of the Class would create a risk of substantial prejudice
5 because separate actions could result in the imposition of incompatible standards of conduct on the
6 party opposing class certification through inconsistent judgments or varying adjudications.
7 62. The quesfions of law and fact common to the members of the Class predominate over
8 any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available
9 methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy in that members of the Class have
10 litfle or no interest in individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions. The putative Class
11 member's individual claims are of a magnitude which make pursuit thereof, on an individual basis,
12 economically unfeasible and dissuade prosecution of such meritorious claims as the economic benefit
13 is far outweighed by the justified concem for retaliatory conduct on the part of Defendants and/or
14 concem for impaired fiiture job prospects as a result of the perceived stigma associated with having
15 advanced lifigafion against one's previous employer.
16 63. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that it is desirable to concentrate the
17 litigation ofthe claims in this court because all or substantially all of multiple employment activities
18 for which Plaintiffs and the Class members' claims arise took place within the venue of the above-
19 entitied court and Defendants otherwise conduct business in this jurisdiction.
20 64. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that this action is manageable as a
21 class action because, compared with any other method, such as consolidation of individual actions, a
22 class action is fairer and more efficient, avoids the potential for inconsistent findings of fact and/or
23 application of law, and would not present the parties, the members of the putative class, or the Court
24 with significant procedural or administrative difficulties in management thereof as a class action.
25 Furthermore, a class action would maximize judicial efficiency and minimize the inconvenience to
26 both party and non-party witnesses who would otherwise have to testify in a multitude of proceedings.
27
28
16
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- COMPLEX
1 65. Plaintiff has retained the legal services of Alejandro P. Gutienez of Hathaway, Perrett,
2 Webster, Powers, Chrisman & Gutierrez, APC; who is competent and experienced in complex wage-
3 and-hour class action litigation.
4 I 66. Counsel has litigated numerous class actions on behalf of employees asserting wage-
5 J and-hour claims under Califomia andfederallaw. Plaintiff s counsel intends to commit the necessary
6 ; resources to prosecute this action vigorously for the benefit of all Class members.
7 r 67. Plaintiff reserves the right under Califomia Rules of Court, Rule 3.765(b), to amend or
8 I, modify the Class description with greater specificity or fiirther division into subclasses or limitation
9 i to particular issues.
10 i; 68. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly-situated
11 ; pursuant to Califomia Code of Civil Procedure § 382 because there is a well-defined community of
12 1 interest in the litigation and the proposed Class is easily ascertainable.
13 Numerosity
14 69. The potential members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all the members is
15 ; impracticable. While the precise number of members of the Class has not been determined. Plaintiffs
16 are infonned and believe Defendants have employed 50 employees in Califomia during the Class
17 : : Period.
18 70. Based on information and belief. Defendants' employment records evidence the
19 nuinber and location of the Class.
20 Commonality and Predominance.
21 71. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class that predominate over any
22 i questions affecting only individual class members. These common questions of law and fact include,
23 without limitation:
24 1 (a) Whether Defendants violated California Labor Code §§ 226.2 and 1194 by
25 failing to properly pay Plaintiff and members of the Class minimum wages;
26 ; (b) Whether Defendants violated California Labor Code § 201 by failing to
27 properly pay Plaintiff and/or members of the Class following their termination;
28
17
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- COMPLEX
1 (c) Whether Defendants violated Califomia Labor Code § 202 by failing to
2: properly pay Plaintiff and members of the Class following their resignation;
3 (d) Whether Defendants violated Califomia Labor Code § 203 by failing to
4 I pay waiting-time penalties to Plaintiff and Class members, which consist of up
5 to 30 days of pay for Plaintiff and the Class Members at their regular rate of
6 pay.
7I (e) Whether Defendants violated Califomia Labor Code § 226.2, by failing to
8 :I separately compensate Plaintiff and members ofthe Class for rest, recovery and
9 ; non-productive time;
10 ; • (f) Whether Defendants violated Califomia Labor Code § 226.7 and IWC
11: Wage Order 4-2001 by failing to provide compliant rest periods to Plainfiff and
12;; members of the Class;
13 ; ! (g) Whether Defendants violated Califomia Labor Code § 226.7 and IWC
14 . Wage Order 4-2001 by failing to pay one hour of pay at the employee's regular
15 rate of compensation for each workday that a compliant rest period was not
16 I provided to Plaintiff and members of the Class;
17 ' ; (h) Whether Defendants violated Califomia Labor Code § 512 and Wage
18 ; j Order 4-2001 by failing to provide compliant meal periods to Plaintiff and
19: members of the Class.
20 [ \ (i) Whether Defendants violated Califomia Labor Code § 226.7 and Wage
21 i , Order 4-2001 by failing to compensate Plaintiff and members of the Class one
22 additional hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of cornpensation for each
23 r workday that a meal period was not provided;
24 ; (j) Whether Defendants failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements
25 to the Class in violation of Labor Code § 226 and §226.2;
26 ; (k) Whether Defendants violated the UCL; and
27 (1) Whether Plaintiff and the Class have been harmed and the proper measure
28 of relief
^„ „ 1.8
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- COMPLEX
1 Tvpicalitv
2 72. The claims of Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Class. Plaintiff and all members
3 of the Class sustained injuries and damages arising out of and caused by Defendants' common course
4 ; of conduct in violation of laws, regulations that have the force and effect of law, and statutes as
5 i alleged.
6 '•• Adequacy of Representation.
7 73. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class.
8 I; Counsel who represents Plaintiff is competent and experienced in litigating large employment class
9 ji actions.
10 ;; Superiority of Class-Action;
11 f; 74. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient adjudicafion
(i , _ ,
12 il of this controversy. Individual joinder of the Class is not practicable, and questions of law and fact
IF
13 j; common to the Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class.
14 ; Each member of the Class has been damaged and is entitied to recovery because pf Defendants'
15 j: uniform unlawful policy and/or practices described herein. There are no individualized factual or
16 legal issues for the court to resolve that would prevent this case from proceeding as a class acfion.
17 ;! Class action treatrnent will allow those similarly situated persons to lifigate their claims in the manner
18 :; that is most efficient and economical for the parties and the judicial system. Plaintiffs are unaware of
19 i; any difficulties that are likely to be encountered in the management of this action that woiild preclude
20 ;i its maintenance as a class action.
21 i FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
22 Failure to Pay Minimum Wages In Violation of
23 California Labor Code §§226.2 and 1194
24 (Against all Defendants on Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)
25 75. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs as though folly set forth herein.
26 76. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and members of the Minimum-Wage Sub-Class were
27 employees of Defendants covered by Labor Code §§ 226.2, 1194, and 1194.2 and IWC Wage Order
28 4-2001.
„ i9__
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- COMPLEX
1 77. As set forth above, during the Class Period, Plaintiff and the Minimum Wage Sub-
2 Class Members were paid on a base rate and piece-rate basis, but Defendants did not separately
3 compensate the Investigators for their time spent on nonproductive work at a regular hourly rate that
4 is no less than the applicable minimum wage.
5 78. Accordingly, during the Class Period, Plaintiff and Minimum Wage Sub-Class
6 Members did not receive the requisite compensation under Labor Code §§ 226.2 and 1194 for their
7 time spent engaging in nonproductive tasks such as attending mandatory meetings, fraining and
8 administrative tasks.
9 79. In failing to separately pay Plaintiff and Minimum Wage Sub-Class Members at no
10 less than the minimum wage for their time spent on nonproductive tasks, particularly after Bluford v.
11 Safeway Stores, Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4"' 864, Gonzales v. Downtown LA Motors, LP
Preview
1 HATHAWAY, PERRETT, WEBSTER, POWERS, CHRISMAN i& GUTIERREZ, APC 2 Alejandro P. Gutierrez: SBN 107688 3 agutierrez@hathawaylawfinTi.com 5450 Telegraph Road, Suite 200 4 Ventura, CA 93003 Tel: (805) 644-7111; Fax: (805) 644-8296 5 Attomeys for Plaintiff, JOHN BOUDREAU, 6 individually, and on behalf of the Proposed Class 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF T H E STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 FOR T H E COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO (UNLIMITED-COMPLEX) 11 JOHN BOUDREAU, an individual, on behalf CASE NO.: 34-2018-00247272 12 of himself and all others similarly situated, Assigned to: Dept. 14 Plaintiffs, CLASS-ACTION FIRST AMENDED 13 COMPLAINT FOR: 14 vs. 1. Failure to Pay Minimum Wages in 15 PRIMERITUS FINANCIAL SERVICES, Violation of Labor Code §§ 1194 and INC., a Delaware corporation; CHRIS 226.2; 16 McGINNESS, an individual; and DOES 1 2. Failure to Timely Pay Wages in Violation through 10, inclusive, of Labor Code §§ 201, 202 and 203; 17 Defendants 3. Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest 18 Periods in Violation of Labor Code § 226.7; 19 4. Failure to Provide Meal Periods and Pay Meal Premiums in Violation of Labor 20 Code § 226.7; 21 5. Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements in Violation of Labor 22 Code §§ 226 and 226.2; and 23 6. Violation of The Unfair Competition Law Business & Professions Code §17200, et 24 seq. 1. For Civil Penalties Under the Private 25 Attomey Generals Act of 2004 (Labor 26 Code § 2699 et seq.) 27 28 FIRST AiMENDED COMPLAINT - COMPLEX Plaintiff John Boudreau ("Boudreau" or "Plaintiff), by and through his attomeys, brings this 2 action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated non-exempt employees who are or were 3 employed in Califomia by Defendant PRIMERITUS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., a Delaware 4 : corporation ("Primeritus" or "Defendant"); CHRIS McGINNESS, an individual; and DOES 1 through 5 ' 10, inclusive (collectively, "Defendants") within the four-year period prior to the filing of this action. 6 Plaintiff hereby alleges, on information and belief, except for information based on personal 7 I knowledge, which allegations are likely to have evidentiary support after further investigation and 8 discovery, as follows: 9 NATURE OF ACTION 10 1. This California-based class action is brought on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class of 11 I Primeritus Investigators because of Defendants' systematic rnistreatment of its employees in violation 12 i of Califomia's wage and hour laws. Primeritus Financial Services, Inc., one of the largest repossession 13 ' management and skip trace services nationwide, profits off the backs of its non-exempt workforce by 14 ; routinely failing to pay minimum wages and inandated rest and meal break cornpensation. 15 2. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that Defendants, jointly and 16 severally, have acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the 17 rights of all Investigators employed by Defendants in Califomia by failing to (1) pay minimum wages 18 in violation of Labor Code §§ 226.2 and 1194; (2) timely pay all wages and penalties owed post- 19 employee termination or resignation pursuant to Labor Code §§ 201, 202 and 203; (3) authorize and 20 pennit rest periods in violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7 and IWC Wage Order 4-2001; (4) provide 21 meal periods in violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 and IWC Wage Order 4-2001; (5) provide 22 accurate wage statements in violation of Labor Code §226; and by (6) violating of the Unfair 23 Competition Law ("UCL") pursuant to Business & Professions Code §17200, et seq., with 24 Defendants' actions subject to civil penalties under the Private Attomey Generals Act of 2004 (Labor 25 Code § 2699 et seq.). 26 27 /// 28 /// FIRST AIMENDED COMPLAINT- COMPLEX JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2 3. This class action is within the court's jurisdiction under Califomia Labor Code §§ 201, 3 202, 203, 226, 226.2, 226.7, 510, 512, and 1194, IWC Wage Order 4-2001 and the Califomia Unfair 4 Competition law (the "UCL"), Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq. 4. Plaintiffis a citizen of Califomia because his domicile is in Califomia. 5 5. Defendant Chris McGinness is a citizen of Califomia because his domicile is in 6 Califomia. 7 6. On infonnation and belief, Defendant Primeritus is a Delaware corporation with its 8 headquarters located in Nashville, Tennessee. Primeritus Financial Services, Inc. maintains an office 9 in El Dorado Hills, Califomia where it employs over 50 employees. Primeritus Financial Services, 10 Inc.'s in-state activities are substantial, continuous and systematic and gave rise to the liabilities sued 11 upon herein. This court has jurisdiction over Defendants because they conduct substantial business 12 in Califomia and have intentionally availed themselves of the laws and markets of Califomia through 13 the operation of their business in Califomia. Defendant Primeritus' contacts with the state are of such a character that the maintenance of an action does not offend traditional, notions of fair play and 14 substantial justice. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). 15 7. The classes of persons whom Plaintiff seeks to represent are non-exempt employees 16 who were and/or are employed by Defendant Primeritus in California and, based on information and 17 belief, more than ninety percent of the proposed class members are citizens of Califomia. The principal 18 injuries resulting from the alleged conduct of Defendants were and are incurring in Califomia. 19 Plaintiffs are unaware of another class action with the same factual allegations against Defendants on 20 behalf of the same or other similarly-situated persons having been filed during the 4-year period 21 preceding the filing of this Complaint. 22 8. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§395 and 395.5 23 because a significant portion of the conduct that gives rise to Defendants' liability, as alleged herein, 24 occurred in Sacramento County. Plaintiff was at all times a resident of Sacramento County, 25 California, and was a victim of Defendants' wrongfiil acts and practices complained of herein. Additionally, Defendants' conduct substantial business in Sacramento County. 26 9. Plaintiff is over eighteen years of age and at all relevant times is and was a resident of 27 Sacramento County, California. Mr. Boudreau, an Investigator providing skip tracing services for 28 Defendants in the repossession process, has been a dedicated non-exempt employee of Primeritus (and FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- COMPLEX 1 its predecessor entities) in its El Dorado Hills, California facilities since January 2010. Mr. Boudreau 2 has at all relevant times been paid an hourly base rate of $8.00, plus compensation on a "piece rate" 3 or "per task" basis for work performed during a pay period. 10. During the Class Period, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Class at the 4 minimum wage for all hours worked, including nonproductive work such as meetings, training and 5 administrative tasks. 6 11. During the Class Period, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class all wages due 7 and owing upon tennination or resignation. 8 12. During the Class Periodj Defendants knowingly and intentionally failed to compensate 9 Plaintiff and the Class for waiting time penalties of up to 30 days of pay for Plaintiff and the Class 10 Members at their regular rate of pay. 11 13. During the Class Period, Defendants failed to provide and/or effectively precluded 12 Plaintiff Boudreau and other similarly situated Class Members from taking and/or receiving daily 13 duty-free paid rest breaks. 14 14. Despite having denied Plaintiff Boudreau lawfully required paid rest periods, 15 Defendants failed to compensate Mr. Boudreau and other similarly situated employees for all premium 16 wages for the non-compliant rest periods as set forth in the Labor Code. 17 15. Defendants knowingly and intentionally failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Class 18 one additional hour of pay at the employees' regular rate of compensation for each work day that a 19 compliant meal period was not provided. 20 16. Defendants knowingly and intentionally failed to provide Plaintiff Boudreau with 21 accurate, itemized wage statements, as required by Labor Code §§ 226 and 226.2. Among other 22 violations. Defendants are aware that the records provided to Mr. Boudreau failed to reflect rest break 23 periods that were not paid in compliance with Califomia Labor Code § 226.2 and the premium wages 24 owed for such, and the records provided to Mr. Boudreau failed to reflect the correct premium wages 25 owed for non-compliant meal breaks. Because Defendants failed to accurately report Plaintiff 26 Boudreau's rest and meal period premium wages, they violated Labor Code § 226 by failing to 27 accurately report gross and net wages eamed and total hours worked by Mr. Boudreau. Because of 28 the inaccurate wage statements, Mr. Boudreau has been banned because his wages owed were not FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- COMPLEX 1 properly calculated and he was not made aware of what his tme wages were and how they were 2 calculated. 3 17. Because of Defendants' wage and hour violations. Plaintiff Boudreau has suffered 4 \ damages, and he therefore brings this class action to enforce compliance of the Labor Code and 5 : recover wages, restitution, civil penalties, and attomeys' fees and costs. 6 18. Plaintiff Boudreau was, and is, a victim of Defendants'policies and/or practices 7 ' complained of herein, lost money and/or property, and has been deprived of the rights guaranteed to 8 i him by Cahfomia Labor Code §§ 201,202,203,226,226.2,226.7,512, 516, 558, and 1194; Califomia 9 t Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., and Wage Order 4-2001, which sets employment 10 standards for professional, technical, clerical, mechanical and similar occupations. 11 Defendants 12 I 19. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that, at all times pertinent hereto, 13 ; Defendant Primeritus Financial Services, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located 14 I in Nashville, Tennessee. Primeritus Financial Services, Inc. operates an office in El Dorado Hills, 15 Califomia. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff and members of the putative class were employees 16 ! of Primeritus Financial Services, Inc. working as Investigators in the repossession process. 17 20. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that, at all times pertinent hereto, 18 i Defendant Chris McGinness was the Vice President and General Manager of Operations at the 19 i Primeritus location in El Dorado Hills, Califomia where Plaintiff and those similarly situated were 20 : employed. Plaintiffisftirtherinfonned, believes and thereon alleges that, at all times pertinent hereto, 21 ; Chris McGinness was a citizen of the fomm state of Califomia. 22 21. Plaintiff is infonned, believes and thereon alleges that, at all times pertinent 23 hereto. Defendants Primeritus, Chris McGinness, and Does 1 through 10, were the owner(s), 24 : director(s), officer(s), or managing agent(s) acting on behalf of employer, Primeritus, and who, in said 25 respective capacities and positions, are liable for the claims alleged herein pursuant to Labor Code § 26 ' 558.1 in that they were and are an "other person" acting on behalf of Primeritus, who violated, or 27 caused to be violated, certain Labor Code sections stated herein. 28 22. Based on infonnation and belief. Defendants had the authority to, directly or indirectly, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- COMPLEX 1 or through an agent or other person, employ or exercise control over Plaintiffs and the Classes' wages, 2 hours, and working conditions. 3 23. Based on infonnation and belief. Defendants had knowledge of the wage-and-hour 4 violations alleged herein and each Defendant had the power to prevent the violations from occurring. 5 Having knowledge of the wage-and-hour violations set forth in this Complaint, Defendants could have 6 but failed to prevent the violations from occurring. 7 24. At all relevant times. Defendants did, and still do, transact and conduct business in the 8 State of Califomia, including, but not limited to, the County of Sacramento and with the jurisdiction 9 of this Court. 10 25. At all times mentioned in the causes of action alleged herein, each Defendant was an 11 agent and/or employee of each other Defendant, In doing the things alleged in the causes of action 12 stated herein, each Defendant was acting within the course and scope of this agency or employment 13 ahd was acting with the consent, permission, and authorization of each of the remaining Defendants. 14 All actions of each defendant, as alleged in the causes of action stated herein, were ratified and 15 approved by every other defendant or its officers or managing agents. 16 26. Plaintiff does not know the tme names and capacities of Defendants DOES 1 through 17 10, inclusive, and therefore sues them by these fictifious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint 18 to include their names and capacities once they are known. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on 19 that basis alleges, that each of the Defendants designated as a DOE is legally responsible in some 20 manner for the occurrences alleged in this Complaint, and unlawfully caused the injuries and damages 21 to Plaintiff and the Class as alleged in this Complaint. 22 PRIMERITUS' UNLAWFUL CONDUCT 23 Background 24 27. Primeritus is a national provider of repossession management and skip tracing services. 25 Primeritus operates a facility in El Dorado Hills, Califomia, and employs in excess of 50 members of 26 the Class at its Califomia facility. 27 28. The non-exempt houriy employee positions that constitute the Class include 28 Investigators who perfonn skip searches in the repossession process. As described in more .6 _ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAiNT- COMPLEX 1 , particularity in paragraphs 50 through 52 below, the Class includes all hourly Califomia Employees, 2 meaning all non-exempt current and fonner employees of Primeritus who were employed as 3 ^ Investigators by Primeritus in Califomia during the Class Period. 4 Failure to Pay Minimum Wages 5 ^ 29. Wage Order No. 4-2001, commonly known as Wage Order No. 4, provides that "Every 6' employer shall pay to each employee, on the established payday for the period, not less than the 7 ; i applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in the payroll period, whether the remuneration is 8 ' - measured by time, piece, commission, or otherwise." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040, subd. (4)(B). 9i "Hours worked" is defined in subdivision 2(K) of the wage order as "the time during which an 10 P employee is subject to the control of an employer, and includes all the time the employee is suffered 11 or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so." (Cal.Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040, subd. (2)(K). 12 i Thus, the obligation to pay minimum wages attaches to each and every separate hour worked during 13 ; I the payroll period. 14 M 30. Further, Labor Code §226.2 applies to employees, such as Plaintiff and members of 15 the Class herein, who are compensated on a piece-rate basis for any work performed during a pay 16 : : period. Section 226.2 requires that piece-rate employees shall be compensated for rest periods and. 17 other nonproductive time separately from any piece-rate compensation. 18 ' 31. Pursuant to Labor Code § 226.2, piece-rate employees shall be compensated for rest 19 ' periods at a regular hourly rate that is no less than the higher of (i) an average hourly rate detennined 20 : by dividing the total compensation for the workweek, exclusive of compensation for rest and recovery 21 periods and any premium compensation for overtime, by the total hours worked during the workweek, 22 exclusive of rest and recovery periods; (ii) the minimum wage. 23 32. Defendants required Plaintiff and the Class to routinely work non-productive time, 24 including requiring Plaintiff and the Class to attend training and meetings. During the Class Period, 25 Defendants failed to separately pay Plaintiff and the Class Members compensation for nonproductive 26 time separate from piece-rate compensation at rates at or in excess of the applicable minimum wage, 27 in violation of Califomia Labor Code §§226.2 and 1194. 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- COMPLEX Failure to Tiiiicly Pay Wages 2 33. Labor Code §201 provides, in relevant part, " I f an employer discharges an employee, 3 the wages eamed and unpaid at the time of discharge are due and payable, immediately." Lab. Code § 4 201(a). Defendants did not pay immediately all wages eamed and unpaid upon employee tennination. 5 Defendants have refiised and continue to refiise to pay said wages. 6 34. Labor Code §202 provides, in relevant part, " I f an employee not having a written 7 • confract for a definite period quits his or her employment, his or her wages shall become due and 8 ; payable not later than 72 hours thereafter, unless the employee has given 72 hours previous notice of 9 1 his or her intention to quit, in which case the employee has given 72 hours previous notice of his or 10 i: her intention to quit, in which case the employee is entitled to his or her wages at the time of quitting." 11 ; Lab. Code 202(a). Defendants did not pay immediately all wages eamed and unpaid to Plaintiff and i• 12 I! the Class Members upon resignation by the employees. Defendants have refiased and continue to 13 j refiise to pay said wages. 14 35. Pursuant to Labor Code §203, Defendants have willfiilly failed to pay without 15 i abatement or reduction, in accordance with Labor Code § 202 all wages of Plaintiff and the Class as 16 herein alleged. Plaintiff and the Class Members seek wages and waiting-time penalties pursuant to 17 Labor Code § 203. These penalties consist of up to 30 days of pay for Plaintiff and the Class Members 18 i at their regular rate of pay. Defendants have refiised and continue to refiise to pay said penalties. 19 ; Rest Break Violations. 20 36. Labor Code § 226.7 provides that employers cannot require employees to work during 21 !| breaks mandated by an order ofthe Industrial Welfare Commission. The IWC, in tum, has mandated 22 i; in Section 12(A) ofthe Wage Orders, including Wage Order 4-2001, that every employer shall 23 . authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods at the rate of ten minutes per four hours worked 24 : in the middle of each work period. 25 37. During the Class Period, Defendants failed to authorize and permit Plaintiff and 26 members of the Class with compliant rest periods as mandated by IWC Wage Order 4-2001. 27 38. Further, during the Class Period, Defendants failed to pay rest breaks in compliance 28 with Labor Code § 226.2. 8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- COMPLEX 1 39. Both Labor Code Section 226.7 and IWC Wage Order 4-2001 require that i f an 2 employer fails to provide an employee a rest period in accordance with a state law or order of the 3 IWC, the employer shall pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee's regular rate 4 of compensation for each workday that the rest period is not provided. Section 226.7's "regular rate" 5 of compensation is not limited to Plaintiffs and the Class Members' base rate of compensation, but 6 includes other forms of qualifying compensation, such as their piece-rate pay. Alvarado v. Dart 7 Container Corp. of Cal, (2018) 4 Cal.5"' 542, 554, 562. 8 40. During the Class Period, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class Members 9 the additional hour of pay at their regular rate of pay as required under Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512. 10 Meal Break Premium Violations 11 41. Section 512 of the Labor Code requires that an employer may not employ an employee 12 for a work period of more than five hours per day without providing the employee with a meal period 13 of not less than 30 minutes and for a work period of more than 10 hours with a second rneal period of 14 not less than 30 minutes. 15 42. Section 226.7 of the Labor Code mandates that i f an employer fails to provide an 16 employee with a compliant meal period, it shall pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the 17 employee's regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal period is not provided. 18 43. Section 226.7's "regular rate" of compensation is not limited to Plaintiffs and the 19 Class Members' base rate of compensation, but includes other fonns of qualifying compensation, such 20 as their piece-rate pay. Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. of CaL, (2018) 4 Cal.Sth 542, 554, 562. 21 44. During the Class Period, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Class for 22: premiums wages owed for non-compliant meal breaks as set forth in Labor Code § 226.7. Specifically, 23 ;i Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class one additional hour of pay at the employees' "regular 24 : rate" of compensation for each workday a compliant meal break was not provided. 25-; '/// 26 : /// 27 ; 28 i FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- COMPLEX 1 Wage Statighicnt Violations 2 45. Defendants knowingly and intentionally failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class with 3 accurate, itemized wage statements, as required by Labor Code §§ 226 and 226.2. Because 4 Defendants failed to accurately report Plaintiffs and the Class's correct compensation for non- 5 i productive time and rest and meal period premium wages, they violated Labor Code § 226, by failing 6 : to accurately report gross and net wages earned and total hours worked by Plaintiffs and the Class. 7 :; Because of the inaccurate wage statements. Plaintiffs and the Class have been harmed because their 8 wages owed were not properly calculated and they were never made aware of what their tmci wages 9 i were and how they were calculated. 10 46. Common evidence exists to prove Defendants' Labor Code violations; for example^ 11 the Class' wage statements and time detail records (showing daily clock in and clock out times). 12 47. Because of Defendants' wage and hour violations. Plaintiffs and the Class have 13 i suffered damages, and therefore bring this class action to enforce compliance ofthe Labor Code and 14 I applicable IWC Wage Order, and to recover wages, restitution, civil penalties, and attomeys' fees and 15 ^ costs. 16 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 17 48. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each allegation in the preceding 18 I and subsequent paragraphs. 19 49. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons 20 as a class action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §382. 21 50. As used herein, the following terms have the meanings set forth below: 22 i. "Califomia Employees" means all Non-Exempt current and former 23 employees of Primeritus who were employed by Primeritus in Califomia during the Class 24 Period who held the position of Investigator. 25 ii. "Non-Exempt" means employees that are not exempt from Califomia 26 wage and hour laws pursuant to Labor Code §515(a); 8 Cal, C. Regs. §11010, et seq. 27 iii. "Class Period" means the period within the four years prior to the 28 filing of this Complaint up through the date of final disposition of this action. 10 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- COMPLEX 1 iv. The "Class" means all "California Employees." 2 51. Excluded from the Class are custodial employees. Defendants, their officers and 3 directors, families and legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns and any entity in which 4 Defendants have a controlling interest, and any Judge assigned to this case and their immediate 5 families. 6 52. The "Class" is comprised of the following Sub-Classes: 7 (a) Unpaid Minimum Wages Sub-Class: Those members of the 8 Class who eamed wages and/or compensation associated with their 9 employment with Defendants;; 10 (b) Failure to Timely Pay Wages Sub-Class: Those members of the 11 Class who resigned or were terminated from employment and were 12 not timely paid wages upon resignation/termination; 13 (c) Rest Period Sub-Class: Those members of the Class who, 14 associated with their employment with Defendants, worked at least 15 4 hours a day or major fraction thereof and/or those members of the 16 putative Class who worked in excess of 6 hours a day; 17 (d) Meal Period Sub-Class: Those members of the Class who, 18 associated with their employment with Defendants, worked a period 19 of more than five hours and did not voluntarily waive their right to 20 meal periods; and 21 (e) Wage-Statement Sub-Class: Those members of the Class to 22 whom Defendants provided a wage statement at any time during the 23 period of one year prior to the filing of the action, up to and 24 including the present. 25 53. Plaintiff reserves the right pursuant to state law, to amend or modify the respective 26 definitions of the Class and/or Sub-Classes to provide greater specificity and/or further division into 27 subclasses or limitation to particular issues. 28 11 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- COMPLEX 1 54. Plaintiff is infonned, believes, and thereon alleges that the number of members of the 2 Class is in excess of fifty (50). Consequently, the Class is so numerous that joinder of all members 3 ; individually would be impractical. 4 55. Plainfiff is a member of the Non-Exempt employees comprising the Class and was 5 employed with Defendants at the Primeritus Califomia facility during the Class Period. 6 56. Plaintiff has no conflicts of interest with is fellow members of the Class and have been 7 able, and will continue to be able, to fairly and adequately protect the interests of all members of the 8 putative Class. 9 57. Plainfiff is infonned, believes and thereon alleges that Defendants' unlawful 10 employment policies and practices raise quesfions of fact common to the members of the Class, 11 including, whether Defendants: 12 13 (a) Failed to pay Plainfiff and members of the Class all of their eamed 14 wages and compensafion, including applicable minimum wages; 15 (b) Failed to timely pay Plaintiff and members of the Class wages upon 16 resignation or termination; 17 (c) Failed to pay Plaintiff and members of the Class waiting-fime 18 penahies pursuant to Labor Code §203, which consist of up to 30 days of 19 pay for Plainfiff and the Class Members at their regular rate of pay; 20 (d) Failed to provide Plaintiff and members of the Class compliant rest 21 breaks pursuant to the applicable laws; 22 (e) Failed to pay Plaintiff and members of the Class one hour of pay at 23 their regular rate of compensation for each non-compliant rest period; 24 (f) Failed to separately compensate Plaintiff and members of the Class 25 for rest periods and other nonproductive time at a regular hourly rate that 26 is no less than the higher of: (i) An average hourly rate detennined by 27 dividing the total compensation for the workweek, exclusive of 28 compensation for rest and recover periods and any premium 1:2 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- COMPLEX 1 compensation for overtime, by the total hours worked during the 2 workweek, exclusive of rest and recovery periods; and (ii) The applicable 3 minimum wage; 4 (g) Failed to provide Plaintiff and members of the Class compliant meal 5 periods in accordance with the applicable laws; 6;! (h) Failed to pay Plaintiff and members ofthe Class one hour of pay at 7• their regular rate of compensation for each meal break which is not 8 provided; and 9 (i) Failed to fumish to Plainfiff and members of the Class accurate, 10 ; itemized wage statements compliant with Labor Code §§ 226 and 226.2. 11 ; I 58. Plainfiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that Defendants' unlawfiil 12 - employment policies and practices raise numerous quesfions of law common to the members of the 13 , Glass, including, without limitation. 14 (a) Defendants' legal obligation to pay all meinbers of the Class for rest 15 and recovery periods and other non-productive time separate from any piece- 16 rate compensation pursuant to Labor Code §226.2; 17 ^ (b) Defendants' legal obligation to pay all members of the Class waiting 18 : time penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 203; 19 I (c) Defendants' legal obligafion to provide all meinbers of the Class with 20 timely final wage payments upon employee resignation or termination 21 pursuant to Labor Code §§201 and 202; 22 i (d) Defendants' legal obligation to provide members of the Class with 23 ' compliant paid rest periods pursuant to Labor Code § 226.7 and IWC Wage 24 ; Order 4-2001; 25 ; (e) Defendants'legal obligation to compensate members of the Class one 26 additional hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each 27 workday that a compliant rest break is not provided pursuant to Labor Code § 28 226.7; • „ • „ L3 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- COMPLEX 1 (f) Defendants' legal obligation to provide compliant meal periods under 2 Labor Code § 512 and IWC Wage Order 4-2001; 3 (g) Defendants' legal obligation to compensate members of the Class one 4 addifional hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensafion for each 5 workday that a compliant meal break is not provided pursuant to Labor Code § 6 226.7; 7 (h) Whether Defendants' wage statements were compliant with Labor Code 8 §§ 226 and 226.2 as to Plainfiff and members of the Class; 9 (i) What remedies, including restitution, compensatory damages, statutory 10 and civil penalties, additional wages and disgorgement of revenue, are 11 available under Califomia law to members of the Class who were not paid all 12 eamed wages, compensafion and benefits; were not fimely paid all eamed 13 minimum, regular and overtime wages, compensafion and benefits; were not 14 timely paid waiting time penalties; and were not properly compensated for 15 meal and rest periods. 16 (j) The Class members' entitlement to be compensated for rest and 17 recovery periods and other nonproductive time at a regular hourly rate that is 18 no less than the higlier of: (i) An average hourly rate determined by dividing 19 the total compensation for the workweek, exclusive of compensation for rest 20 and recovery periods and any premium compensation for overtime, by the total 21 hours worked during the workweek, exclusive of rest and recovery periods; (ii) 22 The applicable minimum wage; 23 (k) The Class members' entitlement to one hour of pay at the members' 24 regular rate of compensation for each meal period that Defendants did not 25 permit the Class members to take; and 26 (1) The requirements for a wage statement to be compliant with Labor Code 27 §§ 226.2 and 226. 28 14 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- COMPLEX 1 59. Plaintiffis informed, believes and thereon alleges that his claims are typical of the 2 : claims of the members of the Class because they encompass the same unlawfiil policies and practices 3 ' : of Defendants; they arise out of the same alleged course of conduct by Defendants; are based upon 4 the same legal theories as the claims of the Class; and the legal issues raised under the Califomia state 5 ; laws as a result of Defendants' conduct apply equally to Plainfiffs and members of the Class 6 60. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that all members of the Class are 7 : similarly situated in that, throughout their employment, they were subject to Defendants' violations- 8 ! of Califomia labor law, including that Defendants maintained unifonn policies and practices whereby 9 Defendants regularly and systemafically: 10^1 (a) Failed to pay Plaintiff and members of the Class minimum wages and ' 11 I ! compensation; 12 : : (b) Failed to timely pay wages due to Plainfiff and Class members upon 13; employee resignation or termination; 14 (c) Failed to pay waiting-time penalties to Plaintiff and Class members ; 15:; pursuant to Labor Code §203, which consist ofup to 30 days of pay for Plainfiff 16^' and the Class Members at their regular rate of pay; s 17 : (d) Failed to authorize and permit Plainfiff and Class Members to take ; 'I 18 compliant rest periods; 19 ; (e) Failed to pay Plaintiff and members of the Class one hour of pay at their 20 regular rate of compensation for each workday a rest period was not provided; 21 ^ (f) Failed to provide Plaintiff and members of the Class compliant meal 22 : ! periods; 23 (g) Failed to pay Plaintiff and members of the Class one hour of pay at their 24 regular rate of compensation for each workday that a meal period was not 25 V provided; and 26 \ (h) Failed to fumish to Plaintiff and members of the Class Labor Code §§226 27 I ' and 226.2 compliant wage statements. 28 .15. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- COMPLEX 1 Such uniform policies and practices have affected each member of the Class, including 2 Plaintiff, in a similar fashion. 3 61. Plaintiff is infonned, believes and thereon alleges that the prosecution of separate 4 actions by or against individual members of the Class would create a risk of substantial prejudice 5 because separate actions could result in the imposition of incompatible standards of conduct on the 6 party opposing class certification through inconsistent judgments or varying adjudications. 7 62. The quesfions of law and fact common to the members of the Class predominate over 8 any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available 9 methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy in that members of the Class have 10 litfle or no interest in individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions. The putative Class 11 member's individual claims are of a magnitude which make pursuit thereof, on an individual basis, 12 economically unfeasible and dissuade prosecution of such meritorious claims as the economic benefit 13 is far outweighed by the justified concem for retaliatory conduct on the part of Defendants and/or 14 concem for impaired fiiture job prospects as a result of the perceived stigma associated with having 15 advanced lifigafion against one's previous employer. 16 63. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that it is desirable to concentrate the 17 litigation ofthe claims in this court because all or substantially all of multiple employment activities 18 for which Plaintiffs and the Class members' claims arise took place within the venue of the above- 19 entitied court and Defendants otherwise conduct business in this jurisdiction. 20 64. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that this action is manageable as a 21 class action because, compared with any other method, such as consolidation of individual actions, a 22 class action is fairer and more efficient, avoids the potential for inconsistent findings of fact and/or 23 application of law, and would not present the parties, the members of the putative class, or the Court 24 with significant procedural or administrative difficulties in management thereof as a class action. 25 Furthermore, a class action would maximize judicial efficiency and minimize the inconvenience to 26 both party and non-party witnesses who would otherwise have to testify in a multitude of proceedings. 27 28 16 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- COMPLEX 1 65. Plaintiff has retained the legal services of Alejandro P. Gutienez of Hathaway, Perrett, 2 Webster, Powers, Chrisman & Gutierrez, APC; who is competent and experienced in complex wage- 3 and-hour class action litigation. 4 I 66. Counsel has litigated numerous class actions on behalf of employees asserting wage- 5 J and-hour claims under Califomia andfederallaw. Plaintiff s counsel intends to commit the necessary 6 ; resources to prosecute this action vigorously for the benefit of all Class members. 7 r 67. Plaintiff reserves the right under Califomia Rules of Court, Rule 3.765(b), to amend or 8 I, modify the Class description with greater specificity or fiirther division into subclasses or limitation 9 i to particular issues. 10 i; 68. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly-situated 11 ; pursuant to Califomia Code of Civil Procedure § 382 because there is a well-defined community of 12 1 interest in the litigation and the proposed Class is easily ascertainable. 13 Numerosity 14 69. The potential members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all the members is 15 ; impracticable. While the precise number of members of the Class has not been determined. Plaintiffs 16 are infonned and believe Defendants have employed 50 employees in Califomia during the Class 17 : : Period. 18 70. Based on information and belief. Defendants' employment records evidence the 19 nuinber and location of the Class. 20 Commonality and Predominance. 21 71. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class that predominate over any 22 i questions affecting only individual class members. These common questions of law and fact include, 23 without limitation: 24 1 (a) Whether Defendants violated California Labor Code §§ 226.2 and 1194 by 25 failing to properly pay Plaintiff and members of the Class minimum wages; 26 ; (b) Whether Defendants violated California Labor Code § 201 by failing to 27 properly pay Plaintiff and/or members of the Class following their termination; 28 17 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- COMPLEX 1 (c) Whether Defendants violated Califomia Labor Code § 202 by failing to 2: properly pay Plaintiff and members of the Class following their resignation; 3 (d) Whether Defendants violated Califomia Labor Code § 203 by failing to 4 I pay waiting-time penalties to Plaintiff and Class members, which consist of up 5 to 30 days of pay for Plaintiff and the Class Members at their regular rate of 6 pay. 7I (e) Whether Defendants violated Califomia Labor Code § 226.2, by failing to 8 :I separately compensate Plaintiff and members ofthe Class for rest, recovery and 9 ; non-productive time; 10 ; • (f) Whether Defendants violated Califomia Labor Code § 226.7 and IWC 11: Wage Order 4-2001 by failing to provide compliant rest periods to Plainfiff and 12;; members of the Class; 13 ; ! (g) Whether Defendants violated Califomia Labor Code § 226.7 and IWC 14 . Wage Order 4-2001 by failing to pay one hour of pay at the employee's regular 15 rate of compensation for each workday that a compliant rest period was not 16 I provided to Plaintiff and members of the Class; 17 ' ; (h) Whether Defendants violated Califomia Labor Code § 512 and Wage 18 ; j Order 4-2001 by failing to provide compliant meal periods to Plaintiff and 19: members of the Class. 20 [ \ (i) Whether Defendants violated Califomia Labor Code § 226.7 and Wage 21 i , Order 4-2001 by failing to compensate Plaintiff and members of the Class one 22 additional hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of cornpensation for each 23 r workday that a meal period was not provided; 24 ; (j) Whether Defendants failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements 25 to the Class in violation of Labor Code § 226 and §226.2; 26 ; (k) Whether Defendants violated the UCL; and 27 (1) Whether Plaintiff and the Class have been harmed and the proper measure 28 of relief ^„ „ 1.8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- COMPLEX 1 Tvpicalitv 2 72. The claims of Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Class. Plaintiff and all members 3 of the Class sustained injuries and damages arising out of and caused by Defendants' common course 4 ; of conduct in violation of laws, regulations that have the force and effect of law, and statutes as 5 i alleged. 6 '•• Adequacy of Representation. 7 73. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class. 8 I; Counsel who represents Plaintiff is competent and experienced in litigating large employment class 9 ji actions. 10 ;; Superiority of Class-Action; 11 f; 74. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient adjudicafion (i , _ , 12 il of this controversy. Individual joinder of the Class is not practicable, and questions of law and fact IF 13 j; common to the Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class. 14 ; Each member of the Class has been damaged and is entitied to recovery because pf Defendants' 15 j: uniform unlawful policy and/or practices described herein. There are no individualized factual or 16 legal issues for the court to resolve that would prevent this case from proceeding as a class acfion. 17 ;! Class action treatrnent will allow those similarly situated persons to lifigate their claims in the manner 18 :; that is most efficient and economical for the parties and the judicial system. Plaintiffs are unaware of 19 i; any difficulties that are likely to be encountered in the management of this action that woiild preclude 20 ;i its maintenance as a class action. 21 i FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 22 Failure to Pay Minimum Wages In Violation of 23 California Labor Code §§226.2 and 1194 24 (Against all Defendants on Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class) 25 75. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs as though folly set forth herein. 26 76. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and members of the Minimum-Wage Sub-Class were 27 employees of Defendants covered by Labor Code §§ 226.2, 1194, and 1194.2 and IWC Wage Order 28 4-2001. „ i9__ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- COMPLEX 1 77. As set forth above, during the Class Period, Plaintiff and the Minimum Wage Sub- 2 Class Members were paid on a base rate and piece-rate basis, but Defendants did not separately 3 compensate the Investigators for their time spent on nonproductive work at a regular hourly rate that 4 is no less than the applicable minimum wage. 5 78. Accordingly, during the Class Period, Plaintiff and Minimum Wage Sub-Class 6 Members did not receive the requisite compensation under Labor Code §§ 226.2 and 1194 for their 7 time spent engaging in nonproductive tasks such as attending mandatory meetings, fraining and 8 administrative tasks. 9 79. In failing to separately pay Plaintiff and Minimum Wage Sub-Class Members at no 10 less than the minimum wage for their time spent on nonproductive tasks, particularly after Bluford v. 11 Safeway Stores, Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4"' 864, Gonzales v. Downtown LA Motors, LP