Motion for Case Management in Shaughnessy, Sara vs Joy Signal Technology LLC et al| Trellis.Law

On November 21, 2023 a Conference was filed involving a dispute between Shaughnessy, Sara, and Joy Signal Technology Llc, Meritec, Ohio Associated Enterprises, Llc, for (15) Unlimited Other Employment in the District Court of Butte County.

Preview
1 BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687)
2 Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975)
Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066)
3 Nicholas J. De Blouw (State Bar #280922)
Christine T. LeVu (State Bar #288271)
4 2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037 11/21/2023
5 Telephone: (858)551-1223
Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
6 Website: www.bamlawca.com
7
Attorneys for Plaintiff
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE
10
SARA SHAUGHNESSY, an individual, on behalf Case No.23CV03242
____________________
11 of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR:
12
1. UNFAIR COMPETITION IN VIOLATION OF
13 CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200, et seq.;
Plaintiff, 2. FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES IN
14 VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 1194, 1197
vs. & 1197.1;
15 3. FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES IN
JOY SIGNAL TECHNOLOGY LLC, a Limited VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE § 510;
16 Liability Company; MERITEC, a Corporation; 4. FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED MEAL
OHIO ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES, LLC, a PERIODS IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE
17 Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through §§ 226.7 & 512 AND THE APPLICABLE IWC
50, inclusive, WAGE ORDER;
18 5. FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED REST
PERIODS IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE
19 §§ 226.7 & 512 AND THE APPLICABLE IWC
Defendants. WAGE ORDER;
20 6. FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE
ITEMIZED STATEMENTS IN VIOLATION OF
21 CAL. LAB. CODE § 226;
7. FAILURE TO REIMBURSE EMPLOYEES
22 FOR REQUIRED EXPENSES IN VIOLATION OF
CAL. LAB. CODE § 2802;
23 8. FAILURE TO PROVIDE WAGES WHEN DUE
IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 201,
24 202 AND 203; and,
9. FAILURE TO PAY SICK PAY WAGES IN
25 VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB CODE §§201-203,
233, 246.
26
DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
27
28
1
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Sara Shaughnessy (“PLAINTIFF”), an individual, on behalf of herself and all other
2 similarly situated current and former employees alleges on information and belief, except for
3 her own acts and knowledge which are based on personal knowledge, the following.
4
5 THE PARTIES
6 1. Joy Signal Technology LLC is a limited liability company that at all relevant times
7 mentioned herein conducted and continues to conduct substantial business in California.
8 2. Meritec is a corporation that at all relevant times mentioned herein conducted and
9 continues to conduct substantial business in California.
10 3. Ohio Associated Enterprises, LLC is a limited liability company that at all relevant
11 times mentioned herein conducted and continues to conduct substantial business in California.
12 4. Joy Signal Technology LLC, Meritec, and Ohio Associated Enterprises, LLC were
13 the joint employers of PLAINTIFF as evidenced by paycheck and by the company PLAINTIFF
14 performed work for respectively, and are therefore jointly responsible as employers for the
15 conduct alleged herein, and are therefore collectively referred to herein as (“DEFENDANT”).
16 5. DEFENDANT provides custom cable assemblies to OEMs in a variety of markets
17 in the electronics industry.
18 6. PLAINTIFF was employed by DEFENDANT in California from October of 2021
19 to August 11, 2023 and was at all times classified by DEFENDANT as a non-exempt employee,
20 paid on an hourly basis, and entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods and payment
21 of minimum and overtime wages due for all time worked.
22 7. PLAINTIFF brings this Class Action on behalf of herself and a California class,
23 defined as all individuals who are or previously were employed by Joy Signal Technology LLC
24 and/or Meritec and/or and Ohio Associated Enterprises, LLC in California, including any
25 employees staffed with Joy Signal Technology LLC and/or Meritec and/or and Ohio Associated
26 Enterprises, LLC by a third party, and classified as non-exempt employees (the “CALIFORNIA
27 CLASS”) at any time during the period beginning four (4) years prior to the filing of this
28 Complaint and ending on the date as determined by the Court (the “CALIFORNIA CLASS
2
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 PERIOD”). The amount in controversy for the aggregate claim of CALIFORNIA CLASS
2 Members is under five million dollars ($5,000,000.00).
3 8. PLAINTIFF brings this Class Action on behalf of herself and a CALIFORNIA
4 CLASS in order to fully compensate the CALIFORNIA CLASS for their losses incurred
5 during the CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD caused by DEFENDANT’s policy and practice
6 which failed to lawfully compensate these employees. DEFENDANT’s policy and practice
7 alleged herein was an unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practice whereby
8 DEFENDANT retained and continues to retain wages due PLAINTIFF and the other
9 members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS. PLAINTIFF and the other members of the
10 CALIFORNIA CLASS seek an injunction enjoining such conduct by DEFENDANT in the
11 future, relief for the named PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA
12 CLASS who have been economically injured by DEFENDANT’s past and current unlawful
13 conduct, and all other appropriate legal and equitable relief.
14 9. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, subsidiary,
15 partnership, associate or otherwise of defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are
16 presently unknown to PLAINTIFF who therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious
17 names pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 474. PLAINTIFF will seek leave to amend this
18 Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of Does 1 through 50, inclusive, when
19 they are ascertained. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and based upon that information
20 and belief alleges, that the Defendants named in this Complaint, including DOES 1 through
21 50, inclusive, are responsible in some manner for one or more of the events and happenings
22 that proximately caused the injuries and damages hereinafter alleged.
23 10. The agents, servants and/or employees of the Defendants and each of them
24 acting on behalf of the Defendants acted within the course and scope of his, her or its
25 authority as the agent, servant and/or employee of the Defendants, and personally
26 participated in the conduct alleged herein on behalf of the Defendants with respect to the
27 conduct alleged herein. Consequently, the acts of each Defendant are legally attributable to
28 the other Defendants and all Defendants are jointly and severally liable to PLAINTIFF and
3
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS, for the loss sustained as a proximate result
2 of the conduct of the Defendants’ agents, servants and/or employees.
3
4 THE CONDUCT
5 11. Pursuant to the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, DEFENDANT
6 was required to pay PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for all their time
7 worked, meaning the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an
8 employer, including all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work.
9 DEFENDANT requires PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members to work without
10 paying them for all the time they are under DEFENDANT’s control. Among other things,
11 DEFENDANT requires PLAINTIFF to work while clocked out during what is supposed to
12 be PLAINTIFF’s off-duty meal break. PLAINTIFF was from time to time interrupted by
13 work assignments while clocked out for what should have been PLAINTIFF’s off-duty meal
14 break. DEFENDANT, as a matter of established company policy and procedure, administers
15 a uniform practice of rounding the actual time worked and recorded by PLAINTIFF and
16 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members, always to the benefit of DEFENDANT, so that during the
17 course of their employment, PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members are paid less
18 than they would have been paid had they been paid for actual recorded time rather than
19 “rounded” time. Additionally, DEFENDANT engages in the practice of requiring
20 PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members to perform work off the clock in that
21 DEFENDANT, as a condition of employment, required these employees to submit to
22 mandatory temperature checks and symptom questionnaires for COVID-19 screening prior
23 to clocking into DEFENDANT’s timekeeping system for the workday. As a result,
24 PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members forfeit minimum wage, overtime
25 wage compensation, and off-duty meal breaks by working without their time being correctly
26 recorded and without compensation at the applicable rates. DEFENDANT’s policy and
27 practice not to pay PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for all time
28 worked, is evidenced by DEFENDANT’s business records.
4
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 12. State and federal law provides that employees must be paid overtime and meal
2 and rest break premiums at one-and-one-half times their “regular rate of pay.” PLAINTIFF
3 and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members are compensated at an hourly rate plus incentive
4 pay that is tied to specific elements of an employee’s performance.
5 13. The second component of PLAINTIFF’s and other CALIFORNIA CLASS
6 Members’ compensation is DEFENDANT’s non-discretionary incentive program that paid
7 PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members incentive wages based on their
8 performance for DEFENDANT. The non-discretionary incentive program provided all
9 employees paid on an hourly basis with incentive compensation when the employees met the
10 various performance goals set by DEFENDANT. However, when calculating the regular
11 rate of pay in order to pay overtime and meal and rest break premiums to PLAINTIFF and
12 other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members, DEFENDANT failed to include the incentive
13 compensation as part of the employees’ “regular rate of pay” for purposes of calculating
14 overtime pay and meal and rest break premium pay. Management and supervisors described
15 the incentive program to potential and new employees as part of the compensation package.
16 As a matter of law, the incentive compensation received by PLAINTIFF and other
17 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members must be included in the “regular rate of pay.” The failure
18 to do so has resulted in a underpayment of overtime compensation and meal and rest break
19 premiums to PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members by DEFENDANT.
20 14. As a result of their rigorous work schedules, PLAINTIFF and other
21 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were from time to time unable to take thirty (30) minute
22 off duty meal breaks and were not fully relieved of duty for their meal periods. PLAINTIFF
23 and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were required from time to time to perform
24 work as ordered by DEFENDANT for more than five (5) hours during some shifts without
25 receiving a meal break. Further, DEFENDANT from time to time failed to provide
26 PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members with a second off-duty meal period for
27 some workdays in which these employees were required by DEFENDANT to work ten (10)
28 hours of work. DEFENDANT also engaged in the practice of rounding the meal period
5
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 times to avoid paying penalties to PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members.
2 PLAINTIFF and other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS therefore forfeit meal breaks
3 without additional compensation and in accordance with DEFENDANT’s corporate policy
4 and practice.
5 15. During the CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD, PLAINTIFF and other
6 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were also required from time to time to work in excess of
7 four (4) hours without being provided ten (10) minute rest periods. Further, these employees
8 were denied their first rest periods of at least ten (10) minutes for some shifts worked of at
9 least two (2) to four (4) hours from time to time, a first and second rest period of at least ten
10 (10) minutes for some shifts worked of between six (6) and eight (8) hours from time to
11 time, and a first, second and third rest period of at least ten (10) minutes for some shifts
12 worked of ten (10) hours or more from time to time. PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA
13 CLASS Members were also not provided with one hour wages in lieu thereof. Additionally,
14 the applicable California Wage Order requires employers to provide employees with off-
15 duty rest periods, which the California Supreme Court defined as time during which an
16 employee is relieved from all work related duties and free from employer control. In so
17 doing, the Court held that the requirement under California law that employers authorize and
18 permit all employees to take rest period means that employers must relieve employees of all
19 duties and relinquish control over how employees spend their time which includes control
20 over the locations where employees may take their rest period. Employers cannot impose
21 controls that prohibit an employee from taking a brief walk - five minutes out, five minutes
22 back. Here, DEFENDANT’s policy restricted PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA
23 CLASS Members from unconstrained walks and is unlawful based on DEFENDANT’s rule
24 which states PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members cannot leave the work
25 premises during their rest period.
26 16. During the CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD, DEFENDANT failed to
27 accurately record and pay PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for the
28 actual amount of time these employees worked. Pursuant to the Industrial Welfare
6
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Commission Wage Orders, DEFENDANT was required to pay PLAINTIFF and other
2 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for all time worked, meaning the time during which an
3 employee was subject to the control of an employer, including all the time the employee was
4 permitted or suffered to permit this work. DEFENDANT required these employees to work
5 off the clock without paying them for all the time they were under DEFENDANT’s control.
6 As such, DEFENDANT knew or should have known that PLAINTIFF and the other
7 members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS were under compensated for all time worked. As a
8 result, PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members forfeited time worked by
9 working without their time being accurately recorded and without compensation at the
10 applicable minimum wage and overtime wage rates. To the extent that the time worked off
11 the clock does not qualify for overtime premium payment, DEFENDANT fails to pay
12 minimum wages for the time worked off-the-clock in violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194,
13 1197, and 1197.1.
14 17. From time to time, DEFENDANT also failed to provide PLAINTIFF and the
15 other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS with complete and accurate wage statements
16 which failed to show, among other things, the correct gross and net wages earned. Cal. Lab.
17 Code § 226 provides that every employer shall furnish each of his or her employees with an
18 accurate itemized wage statement in writing showing, among other things, gross wages
19 earned and all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding
20 amount of time worked at each hourly rate. PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS
21 Members were paid on an hourly basis. As such, the wage statements should reflect all
22 applicable hourly rates during the pay period and the total hours worked, and the applicable
23 pay period in which the wages were earned pursuant to California Labor Code Section
24 226(a). The wage statements DEFENDANT provided to PLAINTIFF and other
25 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members failed to identify such information. More specifically, the
26 wage statements failed to identify the accurate total hours worked each pay period. When
27 the hours shown on the wage statements were added up, they did not equal the actual total
28 hours worked during the pay period in violation of Cal. Lab. Code 226(a)(2). Aside, from
7
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 the violations listed above in this paragraph, DEFENDANT failed to issue to PLAINTIFF

2 an itemized wage statement that lists all the requirements under California Labor Code 226

3 et seq. As a result, DEFENDANT from time to time provided PLAINTIFF and the other

4 members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS with wage statements which violated Cal. Lab. Code

5 § 226.

6 18. Cal. Lab. Code § 204(d) provides, the requirements of this section shall be

7 deemed satisfied by the payment of wages for weekly, biweekly, or semimonthly payroll if

8 the wages are paid not more than seven (7) calendar days following the close of the payroll

9 period. Cal. Lab. Code § 210 provides:

10 [I]n addition to, and entirely independent and apart from, any other penalty provided
in this article, every person who fails to pay the wages of each employee as provided in
11 Sections. . . .204. . .shall be subject to a civil penalty as follows: (1) For any initial
violation, one hundred dollars ($100) for each failure to pay each employee; (2) For
12 each subsequent violation, or any willful or intentional violation, two hundred dollars
($200) for each failure to pay each employee, plus 25 percent of the amount
13 unlawfully withheld.

14 19. DEFENDANT from time to time failed to pay PLAINTIFF and members of

15 the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members within seven (7) days of the close of the

16 payroll period in accordance with Cal. Lab. Code § 204(d), including but not limited to for

17 the “Hourly” regular wage payments.

18 20. DEFENDANT underpaid sick pay wages to PLAINTIFF and other

19 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members by failing to pay such wages at the regular rate of pay in

20 violation of Cal. Lab. Code Section 246. Specifically, PLAINTIFF and other non-exempt

21 employees earn non-discretionary remuneration. Rather than pay sick pay at the regular rate

22 of pay, DEFENDANT underpaid sick pay to PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS

23 Members at their base rates of pay.

24 21. Cal. Lab. Code Section 246(l)(2) requires that paid sick time for nonexempt

25 employees be calculated by dividing the employee’s total wages, not including overtime

26 premium pay, by the employee’s total hours worked in the full pay periods of the prior 90

27 days of employment.

28
8
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 22. DEFENDANT violated Cal. Lab. Code Section 246 by failing to pay sick pay

2 at the regular rate of pay. PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members routinely

3 earned non-discretionary incentive wages which increased their regular rate of pay.

4 However, when sick pay was paid, it was paid at the base rate of pay for PLAINTIFF and

5 members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS, as opposed to the correct, higher regular rate of pay,

6 as required under Cal. Lab. Code Section 246.

7 23. As a pattern and practice, DEFENDANT regularly failed to pay PLAINTIFF

8 and other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS their correct wages and accordingly owe

9 waiting time penalties pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code Section 203. Further, PLAINTIFF is

10 informed and believes and based thereon alleges that such failure to pay sick pay at regular

11 rate was willful, such that PLAINTIFF and members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS whose

12 employment has separated are entitled to waiting time penalties pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code

13 Sections 201-203.

14 24. Pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code Section 221, “It shall be unlawful for any employer

15 to collect or receive from an employee any part of wages theretofore paid by said employer

16 to said employee.” DEFENDANT failed to pay all compensation due to PLAINTIFF and

17 other CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members, made unlawful deductions from

18 compensation payable to PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members,

19 failed to disclose all aspects of the deductions from compensation payable to PLAINTIFF

20 and CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members, and thereby failed to pay these

21 employees all wages due at each applicable pay period and upon termination. PLAINTIFF

22 and members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS seek recovery of all illegal

23 deductions from wages according to proof, related penalties, interest, attorney fees and costs.

24 25. DEFENDANT intentionally and knowingly failed to reimburse and indemnify

25 PLAINTIFF and the other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for required business expenses

26 incurred by the PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members in direct

27 consequence of discharging their duties on behalf of DEFENDANT. Under California

28 Labor Code Section 2802, employers are required to indemnify employees for all expenses
9
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 incurred in the course and scope of their employment. Cal. Lab. Code § 2802 expressly

2 states that "an employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures

3 or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her

4 duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of the employer, even though unlawful,

5 unless the employee, at the time of obeying the directions, believed them to be unlawful."

6 26. In the course of their employment PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA

7 CLASS Members as a business expense, were required by DEFENDANT to use their own

8 personal cellular phones as a result of and in furtherance of their job duties as employees for

9 DEFENDANT but are not reimbursed or indemnified by DEFENDANT for the cost

10 associated with the use of their personal cellular phones for DEFENDANT’s benefit.

11 Specifically, PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were required by

12 DEFENDANT to use their personal cellular phones. As a result, in the course of their

13 employment with DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF and other members of the CALIFORNIA

14 CLASS incurred unreimbursed business expenses which included, but were not limited to,

15 costs related to the use of their personal cellular phones all on behalf of and for the benefit

16 of DEFENDANT.

17 27. In violation of the applicable sections of the California Labor Code and the

18 requirements of the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Order,

19 DEFENDANT as a matter of company policy, practice and procedure, intentionally,

20 knowingly and systematically failed to provide PLAINTIFF and the other Aggrieved

21 Employees suitable seating when the nature of these employees’ work reasonably permitted

22 sitting.

23 28. DEFENDANT knew or should have known that PLAINTIFF and other

24 Aggrieved Employees were entitled to suitable seating and/or were entitled to sit when it did

25 not interfere with the performance of their duties, and that DEFENDANT did not provide

26 suitable seating and/or did not allow them to sit when it did not interfere with the

27 performance of their duties.

28
10
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 29. By reason of this conduct applicable to PLAINTIFF and all Aggrieved

2 Employees, DEFENDANT violated California Labor Code Section 1198 and California

3 Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 11070(14) (Failure to Provide Seating), Wage Order

4 4-2001, Section 14 by failing to provide suitable seats. PLAINTIFF seeks penalties on

5 behalf of PLAINTIFF and other Aggrieved Employees as provided herein. Providing

6 suitable seating is the DEFENDANT’s burden. As a result of DEFENDANT’s intentional

7 disregard of the obligation to meet this burden, DEFENDANT violated the California Labor

8 Code and regulations promulgated thereunder as herein alleged.

9 30. Specifically as to PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT failed to provide all the legally

10 required off-duty meal and rest breaks to PLAINTIFF as required by the applicable Wage

11 Order and Labor Code and failed to pay PLAINTIFF all minimum and overtime wages due

12 to PLAINTIFF. DEFENDANT did not have a policy or practice which provided timely off-

13 duty meal and rest breaks to PLAINTIFF and also failed to compensate PLAINTIFF for

14 PLAINTIFF’s missed meal and rest breaks. The nature of the work performed by the

15 PLAINTIFF did not prevent PLAINTIFF from being relieved of all of PLAINTIFF’s duties

16 for the legally required off-duty meal periods. As a result, DEFENDANT’s failure to

17 provide PLAINTIFF with the legally required meal periods is evidenced by DEFENDANT’s

18 business records. The amount in controversy for PLAINTIFF individually does not exceed

19 the sum or value of $75,000.

20
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
21
31. This Court has jurisdiction over this Action pursuant to California Code of
22
Civil Procedure, Section 410.10 and California Business & Professions Code, Section
23
17203. This action is brought as a Class Action on behalf of PLAINTIFF and similarly
24
situated employees of DEFENDANT pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382.
25
32. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure,
26
Sections 395 and 395.5, because PLAINTIFF worked in this County for DEFENDANT and
27
DEFENDANT (i) currently maintains and at all relevant times maintained offices and
28
11
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 facilities in this County and/or conducts substantial business in this County, and (ii)

2 committed the wrongful conduct herein alleged in this County against members of the

3 CALIFORNIA CLASS.

4
5 THE CALIFORNIA CLASS

6 33. PLAINTIFF brings the First Cause of Action for Unfair, Unlawful and

7 Deceptive Business Practices pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (the

8 "UCL") as a Class Action, pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382, on behalf of a

9 California class, defined as all individuals who are or previously were employed by Joy

10 Signal Technology LLC and/or Meritec and/or and Ohio Associated Enterprises, LLC in

11 California, including any employees staffed with Joy Signal Technology LLC and/or

12 Meritec and/or and Ohio Associated Enterprises, LLC by a third party, and classified as non-

13 exempt employees (the “CALIFORNIA CLASS”) at any time during the period beginning

14 four (4) years prior to the filing of this Complaint and ending on the date as determined by

15 the Court (the “CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD”). The amount in controversy for the

16 aggregate claim of CALIFORNIA CLASS Members is under five million dollars

17 ($5,000,000.00).

18 34. To the extent equitable tolling operates to toll claims by the CALIFORNIA

19 CLASS against DEFENDANT, the CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD should be adjusted

20 accordingly.

21 35. DEFENDANT, as a matter of company policy, practice and procedure, and in

22 violation of the applicable Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage

23 Order requirements, and the applicable provisions of California law, intentionally,

24 knowingly, and wilfully, engaged in a practice whereby DEFENDANT failed to record all

25 meal and rest breaks missed by PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members,

26 even though DEFENDANT enjoyed the benefit of this work, required employees to perform

27 this work and permits or suffers to permit this work.

28
12
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 36. DEFENDANT has the legal burden to establish that each and every

2 CALIFORNIA CLASS Member was paid accurately for all meal and rest breaks missed as

3 required by California laws. The DEFENDANT, however, as a matter of policy and

4 procedure failed to have in place during the CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD and still fails

5 to have in place a policy or practice to ensure that each and every CALIFORNIA CLASS

6 Member is paid as required by law. This common business practice is applicable to each

7 and every CALIFORNIA CLASS Member can be adjudicated on a class-wide basis as

8 unlawful, unfair, and/or deceptive under Cal. Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.

9 (the “UCL”) as causation, damages, and reliance are not elements of this claim.

10 37. The CALIFORNIA CLASS, is so numerous that joinder of all CALIFORNIA

11 CLASS Members is impracticable.

12 38. DEFENDANT violated the rights of the CALIFORNIA CLASS under

13 California law by:

14 (a) Committing an act of unfair competition in violation of , Cal. Bus. &

15 Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (the "UCL"), by unlawfully, unfairly

16 and/or deceptively having in place company policies, practices and

17 procedures that failed to record and pay PLAINTIFF and the other

18 members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS for all time worked, including

19 minimum wages owed and overtime wages owed for work performed

20 by these employees; and,

21 (b) Committing an act of unfair competition in violation of the UCL, by

22 failing to provide the PLAINTIFF and the other members of the

23 CALIFORNIA CLASS with the legally required meal and rest periods.

24 39. This Class Action meets the statutory prerequisites for the maintenance of a

25 Class Action as set forth in Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382, in that:

26 (a) The persons who comprise the CALIFORNIA CLASS are so numerous

27 that the joinder of all such persons is impracticable and the disposition

28 of their claims as a class will benefit the parties and the Court;
13
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 (b) Nearly all factual, legal, statutory, declaratory and injunctive relief

2 issues that are raised in this Complaint are common to the

3 CALIFORNIA CLASS will apply to every member of the

4 CALIFORNIA CLASS;

5 (c) The claims of the representative PLAINTIFF are typical of the claims

6 of each member of the CALIFORNIA CLASS. PLAINTIFF, like all

7 the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS, was classified as a

8 non-exempt employee paid on an hourly basis who was subjected to the

9 DEFENDANT’s deceptive practice and policy which failed to provide

10 the legally required meal and rest periods to the CALIFORNIA CLASS

11 and thereby underpaid compensation to PLAINTIFF and

12 CALIFORNIA CLASS. PLAINTIFF sustained economic injury as a

13 result of DEFENDANT’s employment practices. PLAINTIFF and the

14 members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS were and are similarly or

15 identically harmed by the same unlawful, deceptive and unfair

16 misconduct engaged in by DEFENDANT; and,

17 (d) The representative PLAINTIFF will fairly and adequately represent and

18 protect the interest of the CALIFORNIA CLASS, and has retained

19 counsel who are competent and experienced in Class Action litigation.

20 There are no material conflicts between the claims of the representative

21 PLAINTIFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS that would

22 make class certification inappropriate. Counsel for the CALIFORNIA

23 CLASS will vigorously assert the claims of all CALIFORNIA CLASS

24 Members.

25 40. In addition to meeting the statutory prerequisites to a Class Action, this action

26 is properly maintained as a Class Action pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382, in that:

27 (a) Without class certification and determination of declaratory, injunctive,

28 statutory and other legal questions within the class format, prosecution
14
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 of separate actions by individual members of the CALIFORNIA

2 CLASS will create the risk of:

3 1) Inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual

4 members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS which would establish

5 incompatible standards of conduct for the parties opposing the

6 CALIFORNIA CLASS; and/or,

7 2) Adjudication with respect to individual members of the

8 CALIFORNIA CLASS which would as a practical matter be

9 dispositive of interests of the other members not party to the

10 adjudication or substantially impair or impede their ability to

11 protect their interests.

12 (b) The parties opposing the CALIFORNIA CLASS have acted or refused

13 to act on grounds generally applicable to the CALIFORNIA CLASS,

14 making appropriate class-wide relief with respect to the CALIFORNIA

15 CLASS as a whole in that DEFENDANT failed to pay all wages due to

16 members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS as required by law;

17 1) With respect to the First Cause of Action, the final relief on

18 behalf of the CALIFORNIA CLASS sought does not relate

19 exclusively to restitution because through this claim

20 PLAINTIFF seeks declaratory relief holding that the

21 DEFENDANT’s policy and practices constitute unfair

22 competition, along with declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and

23 incidental equitable relief as may be necessary to prevent and

24 remedy the conduct declared to constitute unfair competition;

25 (c) Common questions of law and fact exist as to the members of the

26 CALIFORNIA CLASS, with respect to the practices and violations of

27 California law as listed above, and predominate over any question

28 affecting only individual CALIFORNIA CLASS Members, and a Class
15
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient

2 adjudication of the controversy, including consideration of:

3 1) The interests of the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS in

4 individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate

5 actions in that the substantial expense of individual actions will

6 be avoided to recover the relatively small amount of economic

7 losses sustained by the individual CALIFORNIA CLASS

8 Members when compared to the substantial expense and burden

9 of individual prosecution of this litigation;

10 2) Class certification will obviate the need for unduly duplicative

11 litigation that would create the risk of:

12 A. Inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to

13 individual members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS, which

14 would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the

15 DEFENDANT; and/or,

16 B. Adjudications with respect to individual members of the

17 CALIFORNIA CLASS would as a practical matter be

18 dispositive of the interests of the other members not

19 parties to the adjudication or substantially impair or

20 impede their ability to protect their interests;

21 3) In the context of wage litigation because a substantial number of

22 individual CALIFORNIA CLASS Members will avoid asserting

23 their legal rights out of fear of retaliation by DEFENDANT,

24 which may adversely affect an individual’s job with

25 DEFENDANT or with a subsequent employer, the Class Action

26 is the only means to assert their claims through a representative;

27 and,

28
16
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 4) A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair

2 and efficient adjudication of this litigation because class

3 treatment will obviate the need for unduly and unnecessary

4 duplicative litigation that is likely to result in the absence of

5 certification of this action pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §

6 382.

7 41. This Court should permit this action to be maintained as a Class Action

8 pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382 because:

9 (a) The questions of law and fact common to the CALIFORNIA CLASS

10 predominate over any question affecting only individual CALIFORNIA

11 CLASS Members because the DEFENDANT’s employment practices

12 are applied with respect to the CALIFORNIA CLASS;

13 (b) A Class Action is superior to any other available method for the fair

14 and efficient adjudication of the claims of the members of the

15 CALIFORNIA CLASS because in the context of employment litigation

16 a substantial number of individual CALIFORNIA CLASS Members

17 will avoid asserting their rights individually out of fear of retaliation or

18 adverse impact on their employment;

19 (c) The members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS are so numerous that it is

20 impractical to bring all members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS before

21 the Court;

22 (d) PLAINTIFF, and the other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members, will not

23 be able to obtain effective and economic legal redress unless the action

24 is maintained as a Class Action;

25 (e) There is a community of interest in obtaining appropriate legal and

26 equitable relief for the acts of unfair competition, statutory violations

27 and other improprieties, and in obtaining adequate compensation for

28
17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 the damages and injuries which DEFENDANT’s actions have inflicted

2 upon the CALIFORNIA CLASS;

3 (f) There is a community of interest in ensuring that the combined assets of

4 DEFENDANT are sufficient to adequately compensate the members of

5 the CALIFORNIA CLASS for the injuries sustained;

6 (g) DEFENDANT has acted or refused to act on grounds generally

7 applicable to the CALIFORNIA CLASS, thereby making final class-

8 wide relief appropriate with respect to the CALIFORNIA CLASS as a

9 whole;

10 (h) The members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS are readily ascertainable

11 from the business records of DEFENDANT; and,

12 (i) Class treatment provides manageable judicial treatment calculated to

13 bring a efficient and rapid conclusion to all litigation of all wage and

14 hour related claims arising out of the conduct of DEFENDANT as to

15 the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS.

16 42. DEFENDANT maintains records from which the Court can ascertain and

17 identify by job title each of DEFENDANT’s employees who have been intentionally

18 subjected to DEFENDANT’s company policy, practices and procedures as herein alleged.

19 PLAINTIFF will seek leave to amend the Complaint to include any additional job titles of

20 similarly situated employees when they have been identified.

21
22 THE CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS

23 43. PLAINTIFF further brings the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh,

24 Eighth and Ninth causes Action on behalf of a California sub-class, defined as all members

25 of the CALIFORNIA CLASS who are or previously were employed by Joy Signal

26 Technology LLC and/or Meritec and/or and Ohio Associated Enterprises, LLC in

27 California, including any employees staffed with Joy Signal Technology LLC and/or

28 Meritec and/or and Ohio Associated Enterprises, LLC by a third party, and classified as non
18
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 exempt employees (the “CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS”) at any time during the
2 period three (3) years prior to the filing of the complaint and ending on the date as
3 determined by the Court (the “CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS PERIOD”) pursuant
4 to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382. The amount in controversy for the aggregate claim of
5 CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members is under five million dollars
6 ($5,000,000.00).
7 44. DEFENDANT, in violation of the applicable Labor Code, Industrial Welfare
8 Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order requirements, and the applicable provisions of California
9 law, intentionally, knowingly, and wilfully, engaged in a practice whereby DEFENDANT
10 failed to correctly calculate compensation for the time worked by PLAINTIFF and the other
11 members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS and reporting time wages owed to
12 these employees, even though DEFENDANT enjoyed the benefit of this work, required
13 employees to perform this work and permitted or suffered to permit this work.
14 DEFENDANT has denied these CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members wages to
15 which these employees are entitled in order to unfairly cheat the competition and unlawfully
16 profit. To the extent equitable tolling operates to toll claims by the CALIFORNIA LABOR
17 SUB-CLASS against DEFENDANT, the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS PERIOD
18 should be adjusted accordingly.
19 45. DEFENDANT maintains records from which the Court can ascertain and
20 identify by name and job title, each of DEFENDANT’s employees who have been
21 intentionally subjected to DEFENDANT’s company policy, practices and procedures as
22 herein alleged. PLAINTIFF will seek leave to amend the complaint to include any
23 additional job titles of similarly situated employees when they have been identified.
24 46. The CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS is so numerous that joinder of all
25 CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members is impracticable.
26 47. Common questions of law and fact exist as to members of the CALIFORNIA
27 LABOR SUB-CLASS, including, but not limited, to the following:
28
19
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 (a) Whether DEFENDANT unlawfully failed to correctly calculate and pay
2 compensation due to members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-
3 CLASS for missed meal and rest breaks in violation of the California
4 Labor Code and California regulations and the applicable California
5 Wage Order;
6 (b) Whether DEFENDANT failed to provide the PLAINTIFF and the other
7 members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS with accurate
8 itemized wage statements;
9 (c) Whether DEFENDANT has engaged in unfair competition by the
10 above-listed conduct;
11 (d) The proper measure of damages and penalties owed to the members of
12 the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS; and,
13 (e) Whether DEFENDANT’s conduct was willful.
14 48. DEFENDANT violated the rights of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-
15 CLASS under California law by:
16 (a) Violating Cal. Lab. Code § 510, by failing to correctly pay the
17 PLAINTIFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-
18 CLASS all wages due for overtime worked, for which DEFENDANT is
19 liable pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code § 1194;
20 (b) Violating Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1197 & 1197.1 et seq., by failing to
21 accurately pay PLAINTIFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA
22 LABOR SUB-CLASS the correct minimum wage pay for which
23 DEFENDANT is liable pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194 and 1197;
24 (c) Violating Cal. Lab. Code § 226, by failing to provide PLAINTIFF and
25 the members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS with an
26 accurate itemized statement in writing showing the corresponding
27 correct amount of wages earned by the employee;
28
20
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 (d) Violating Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7 and 512, by failing to provide
2 PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR
3 SUB-CLASS with all legally required off-duty, uninterrupted thirty
4 (30) minute meal breaks and the legally required off-duty rest breaks;
5 (e) Violating Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201, 202 and/or 203, which provides that
6 when an employee is discharged or quits from employment, the
7 employer must pay the employee all wages due without abatement, by
8 failing to tender full payment and/or restitution of wages owed or in the
9 manner required by California law to the members of

Case Info

Judge

Benson, Stephen E Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

May 15, 2024

Case Filing Date

November 21, 2023

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Conference: Shaughnessy, Sara vs Joy Signal Technology LLC et al

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties