Motion for Case Management in Lovgren, Christian et al vs Enloe Medical Center| Trellis.Law

On January 18, 2024 a Conference was filed involving a dispute between Cuneo, Gina, Lovgren, Christian, and Enloe Medical Center, 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)
Jeffrey S. Herman (State Bar #280058)
4 2255 Calle Clara 1/18/2024
La Jolla, CA 92037
5 Telephone: (858)551-1223
Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
6 Website: www.bamlawca.com
7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE

10 CHRISTIAN LOVGREN and GINA CUNEO, Case No. ____________________
individuals, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of
24CV00200
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR:
11 all persons similarly situated, 1. UNFAIR COMPETITION IN VIOLATION OF
CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200, et seq.;
12 2. FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES IN
VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 1194, 1197 &
13 Plaintiffs, 1197.1;
3. FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES IN
14 vs. VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE § 510;
4. FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED MEAL
15 ENLOE MEDICAL CENTER, a California PERIODS IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE §§
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 226.7 & 512 AND THE APPLICABLE IWC WAGE
16 ORDER;
5. FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED REST
17 PERIODS IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE §§
Defendants. 226.7 & 512 AND THE APPLICABLE IWC WAGE
18 ORDER;
6. FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE
19 ITEMIZED STATEMENTS IN VIOLATION OF
CAL. LAB. CODE § 226;
20 7. FAILURE TO REIMBURSE EMPLOYEES FOR
REQUIRED EXPENSES IN VIOLATION OF CAL.
21 LAB. CODE § 2802;
8. FAILURE TO PROVIDE WAGES WHEN DUE IN
22 VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 201, 202
AND 203;
23 9. FAILURE TO PAY SICK PAY WAGES IN
VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB CODE §§201-203, 233,
24 246;
10. DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION
25 VIOLATION OF FEHA; and,
11. CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE AND OTHER
26 ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS IN
VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY.
27
DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
28
1
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Christian Lovgren and Gina Cuneo (“PLAINTIFFS”), individuals, on behalf of
2 themselves and all other similarly situated current and former employees allege on information
3 and belief, except for their own acts and knowledge which are based on personal knowledge,
4 the following.
5
6 THE PARTIES
7 1. Enloe Medical Center (“DEFENDANT”) is a Corporation that at all relevant
8 times mentioned herein conducted and continues to conduct substantial business in California.
9 2. DEFENDANT offers an array of health care services from its 298 bed hospital.
10 3. Plaintiff Lovgren was employed by DEFENDANT in California from October
11 of 2008 to March of 2023. Plaintiff Lovgren was at all times classified by DEFENDANT as
12 a non-exempt employee, paid on an hourly basis, and entitled to the legally required meal and
13 rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages due for all time worked.
14 4. Plaintiff Cuneo has been employed by DEFENDANT in California since April
15 of 2018. Plaintiff Cuneo was at all times classified by DEFENDANT as a non-exempt
16 employee, paid on an hourly basis, and entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods and
17 payment of minimum and overtime wages due for all time worked.
18 5. PLAINTIFFS bring this Class Action on behalf of themselves and a California
19 class, defined as all individuals who are or previously were employed by DEFENDANT in
20 California, including any employees staffed with DEFENDANT by a third party, and classified
21 as non-exempt employees (the “CALIFORNIA CLASS”) at any time during the period
22 beginning four (4) years prior to the filing of this Complaint and ending on the date as
23 determined by the Court (the “CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD”). The amount in controversy
24 for the aggregate claim of CALIFORNIA CLASS Members is under five million dollars
25 ($5,000,000.00).
26 6. PLAINTIFFS bring this Class Action on behalf of themselves and a
27 CALIFORNIA CLASS in order to fully compensate the CALIFORNIA CLASS for their
28 losses incurred during the CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD caused by DEFENDANT's
2
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 policy and practice which failed to lawfully compensate these employees. DEFENDANT's
2 policy and practice alleged herein was an unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practice
3 whereby DEFENDANT retained and continues to retain wages due to PLAINTIFFS and the
4 other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS. PLAINTIFFS and the other members of the
5 CALIFORNIA CLASS seek an injunction enjoining such conduct by DEFENDANT in the
6 future, relief for the named PLAINTIFFS and the other members of the CALIFORNIA
7 CLASS who have been economically injured by DEFENDANT's past and current unlawful
8 conduct, and all other appropriate legal and equitable relief.
9 7. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, subsidiary,
10 partnership, associate or otherwise of defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are
11 presently unknown to PLAINTIFFS who therefore sue these Defendants by such fictitious
12 names pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 474. PLAINTIFFS will seek leave to amend this
13 Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of Does 1 through 50, inclusive, when
14 they are ascertained. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based upon that
15 information and belief allege, that the Defendants named in this Complaint, including DOES
16 1 through 50, inclusive, are responsible in some manner for one or more of the events and
17 happenings that proximately caused the injuries and damages hereinafter alleged.
18 8. The agents, servants and/or employees of the Defendants and each of them
19 acting on behalf of the Defendants acted within the course and scope of his, her or its
20 authority as the agent, servant and/or employee of the Defendants, and personally
21 participated in the conduct alleged herein on behalf of the Defendants with respect to the
22 conduct alleged herein. Consequently, the acts of each Defendant are legally attributable to
23 the other Defendants and all Defendants are jointly and severally liable to PLAINTIFFS and
24 the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS, for the loss sustained as a proximate result
25 of the conduct of the Defendants' agents, servants and/or employees.
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
3
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 THE CONDUCT
2 9. Pursuant to the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, DEFENDANT
3 was required to pay PLAINTIFFS and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for all their time
4 worked, meaning the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an
5 employer, including all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work.
6 DEFENDANT requires PLAINTIFFS and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members to work
7 without paying them for all the time they are under DEFENDANT’s control. Among other
8 things, DEFENDANT requires PLAINTIFFS to work while clocked out during what is
9 supposed to be PLAINTIFF’s off-duty meal break. PLAINTIFFS were from time to time
10 interrupted by work assignments while clocked out for what should have been
11 PLAINTIFFS’ off-duty meal break. DEFENDANT, as a matter of established company
12 policy and procedure, administers a uniform practice of rounding the actual time worked and
13 recorded by PLAINTIFFS and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members, always to the benefit of
14 DEFENDANT, so that during the course of their employment, PLAINTIFFS and
15 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members are paid less than they would have been paid had they
16 been paid for actual recorded time rather than “rounded” time. Additionally, DEFENDANT
17 engages in the practice of requiring PLAINTIFFS and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members to
18 perform work off the clock in that DEFENDANT, as a condition of employment, required
19 these employees to submit to mandatory temperature checks and symptom questionnaires for
20 COVID-19 screening prior to clocking into DEFENDANT’s timekeeping system for the
21 workday. As a result, PLAINTIFFS and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members forfeit
22 minimum wage, overtime wage compensation, and off-duty meal breaks by working without
23 their time being correctly recorded and without compensation at the applicable rates.
24 DEFENDANT’s policy and practice not to pay PLAINTIFFS and other CALIFORNIA
25 CLASS Members for all time worked, is evidenced by DEFENDANT’s business records.
26 10. State and federal law provides that employees must be paid overtime and meal
27 and rest break premiums at one-and-one-half times their “regular rate of pay.”
28
4
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 PLAINTIFFS and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members are compensated at an hourly rate
2 plus incentive pay that is tied to specific elements of an employee’s performance.
3 11. The second component of PLAINTIFFS’ and other CALIFORNIA CLASS
4 Members’ compensation is DEFENDANT’s non-discretionary incentive program that paid
5 PLAINTIFFS and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members incentive wages based on their
6 performance for DEFENDANT. The non-discretionary incentive program provided all
7 employees paid on an hourly basis with incentive compensation when the employees met the
8 various performance goals set by DEFENDANT. However, when calculating the regular
9 rate of pay in order to pay overtime and meal and rest break premiums to PLAINTIFFS and
10 other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members, DEFENDANT failed to include the incentive
11 compensation as part of the employees’ “regular rate of pay” for purposes of calculating
12 overtime pay and meal and rest break premium pay. Management and supervisors described
13 the incentive program to potential and new employees as part of the compensation package.
14 As a matter of law, the incentive compensation received by PLAINTIFFS and other
15 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members must be included in the “regular rate of pay.” The failure
16 to do so has resulted in a underpayment of overtime compensation and meal and rest break
17 premiums to PLAINTIFFS and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members by DEFENDANT.
18 12. As a result of their rigorous work schedules, PLAINTIFFS and other
19 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were from time to time unable to take thirty (30) minute
20 off duty meal breaks and were not fully relieved of duty for their meal periods.
21 PLAINTIFFS and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were required from time to time
22 to perform work as ordered by DEFENDANT for more than five (5) hours during some
23 shifts without receiving a meal break. Further, DEFENDANT from time to time failed to
24 provide PLAINTIFFS and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members with a second off-duty meal
25 period for some workdays in which these employees were required by DEFENDANT to
26 work ten (10) hours of work. DEFENDANT also engaged in the practice of rounding the
27 meal period times to avoid paying penalties to PLAINTIFFS and other CALIFORNIA
28 CLASS Members. PLAINTIFFS and other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS
5
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 therefore forfeit meal breaks without additional compensation and in accordance with
2 DEFENDANT’s corporate policy and practice.
3 13. During the CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD, PLAINTIFFS and other
4 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were also required from time to time to work in excess of
5 four (4) hours without being provided ten (10) minute rest periods. Further, these employees
6 were denied their first rest periods of at least ten (10) minutes for some shifts worked of at
7 least two (2) to four (4) hours from time to time, a first and second rest period of at least ten
8 (10) minutes for some shifts worked of between six (6) and eight (8) hours from time to
9 time, and a first, second and third rest period of at least ten (10) minutes for some shifts
10 worked of ten (10) hours or more from time to time. PLAINTIFFS and other CALIFORNIA
11 CLASS Members were also not provided with one hour wages in lieu thereof. Additionally,
12 the applicable California Wage Order requires employers to provide employees with off-
13 duty rest periods, which the California Supreme Court defined as time during which an
14 employee is relieved from all work related duties and free from employer control. In so
15 doing, the Court held that the requirement under California law that employers authorize and
16 permit all employees to take rest period means that employers must relieve employees of all
17 duties and relinquish control over how employees spend their time which includes control
18 over the locations where employees may take their rest period. Employers cannot impose
19 controls that prohibit an employee from taking a brief walk - five minutes out, five minutes
20 back. Here, DEFENDANT’s policy restricted PLAINTIFFS and other CALIFORNIA
21 CLASS Members from unconstrained walks and is unlawful based on DEFENDANT’s rule
22 which states PLAINTIFFS and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members cannot leave the
23 work premises during their rest period.
24 14. During the CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD, DEFENDANT failed to
25 accurately record and pay PLAINTIFFS and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for the
26 actual amount of time these employees worked. Pursuant to the Industrial Welfare
27 Commission Wage Orders, DEFENDANT was required to pay PLAINTIFFS and other
28 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for all time worked, meaning the time during which an
6
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 employee was subject to the control of an employer, including all the time the employee was
2 permitted or suffered to permit this work. DEFENDANT required these employees to work
3 off the clock without paying them for all the time they were under DEFENDANT’s control.
4 As such, DEFENDANT knew or should have known that PLAINTIFFS and the other
5 members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS were under compensated for all time worked. As a
6 result, PLAINTIFFS and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members forfeited time worked by
7 working without their time being accurately recorded and without compensation at the
8 applicable minimum wage and overtime wage rates. To the extent that the time worked off
9 the clock does not qualify for overtime premium payment, DEFENDANT fails to pay
10 minimum wages for the time worked off-the-clock in violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194,
11 1197, and 1197.1.
12 15. From time to time, DEFENDANT also failed to provide PLAINTIFFS and the
13 other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS with complete and accurate wage statements
14 which failed to show, among other things, the correct gross and net wages earned. Cal. Lab.
15 Code § 226 provides that every employer shall furnish each of his or her employees with an
16 accurate itemized wage statement in writing showing, among other things, gross wages
17 earned and all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding
18 amount of time worked at each hourly rate. PLAINTIFFS and CALIFORNIA CLASS
19 Members were paid on an hourly basis. As such, the wage statements should reflect all
20 applicable hourly rates during the pay period and the total hours worked, and the applicable
21 pay period in which the wages were earned pursuant to California Labor Code Section
22 226(a). The wage statements DEFENDANT provided to PLAINTIFFS and other
23 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members failed to identify such information. More specifically, the
24 wage statements failed to identify the accurate total hours worked each pay period. When
25 the hours shown on the wage statements were added up, they did not equal the actual total
26 hours worked during the pay period in violation of Cal. Lab. Code 226(a)(2). Aside, from
27 the violations listed above in this paragraph, DEFENDANT failed to issue to PLAINTIFFS
28 an itemized wage statement that lists all the requirements under California Labor Code 226
7
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 et seq. As a result, DEFENDANT from time to time provided PLAINTIFFS and the other

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

3 § 226.

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

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

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

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

8 [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
9 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
10 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
11 unlawfully withheld.

12 17. DEFENDANT from time to time failed to pay PLAINTIFFS and members of

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

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

15 the “Hourly” regular wage payments.

16 18. DEFENDANT underpaid sick pay wages to PLAINTIFFS and other

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

18 violation of Cal. Lab. Code Section 246. Specifically, PLAINTIFFS and other non-exempt

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

20 of pay, DEFENDANT underpaid sick pay to PLAINTIFFS and other CALIFORNIA

21 CLASS Members at their base rates of pay.

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

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

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

25 days of employment.

26 20. DEFENDANT violated Cal. Lab. Code Section 246 by failing to pay sick pay

27 at the regular rate of pay. PLAINTIFFS and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members routinely

28 earned non-discretionary incentive wages which increased their regular rate of pay.
8
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 However, when sick pay was paid, it was paid at the base rate of pay for PLAINTIFFS and

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

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

4 21. As a pattern and practice, DEFENDANT regularly failed to pay PLAINTIFFS

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

6 waiting time penalties pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code Section 203. Further, PLAINTIFFS are

7 informed and believe and based thereon allege that such failure to pay sick pay at regular

8 rate was willful, such that PLAINTIFFS and members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS whose

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

10 Sections 201-203.

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

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

13 to said employee.” DEFENDANT failed to pay all compensation due to PLAINTIFFS and

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

15 compensation payable to PLAINTIFFS and CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS

16 Members, failed to disclose all aspects of the deductions from compensation payable to

17 PLAINTIFFS and CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members, and thereby failed to

18 pay these employees all wages due at each applicable pay period and upon termination.

19 PLAINTIFFS and members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS seek recovery of

20 all illegal deductions from wages according to proof, related penalties, interest, attorney fees

21 and costs.

22 23. DEFENDANT intentionally and knowingly failed to reimburse and indemnify

23 PLAINTIFFS and the other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for required business expenses

24 incurred by the PLAINTIFFS and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members in direct

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

26 Labor Code Section 2802, employers are required to indemnify employees for all expenses

27 incurred in the course and scope of their employment. Cal. Lab. Code § 2802 expressly

28 states that "an employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures
9
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her

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

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

4 24. In the course of their employment PLAINTIFFS and other CALIFORNIA

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

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

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

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

9 Specifically, PLAINTIFFS and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were required by

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

11 employment with DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFFS and other members of the CALIFORNIA

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

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

14 of DEFENDANT.

15 25. In violation of the applicable sections of the California Labor Code and the

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

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

18 knowingly and systematically failed to provide PLAINTIFFS and the other Aggrieved

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

20 sitting.

21 26. DEFENDANT knew or should have known that PLAINTIFFS and other

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

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

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

25 performance of their duties.

26 27. By reason of this conduct applicable to PLAINTIFFS and all Aggrieved

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

28 Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 11070(14) (Failure to Provide Seating), Wage Order
10
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 4-2001, Section 14 by failing to provide suitable seats. PLAINTIFFS seek penalties on

2 behalf of PLAINTIFFS and other Aggrieved Employees as provided herein. Providing

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

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

5 Code and regulations promulgated thereunder as herein alleged.

6 28. Specifically as to PLAINTIFFS, DEFENDANT failed to provide all the

7 legally required off-duty meal and rest breaks to PLAINTIFFS as required by the applicable

8 Wage Order and Labor Code and failed to pay PLAINTIFFS all minimum and overtime

9 wages due to PLAINTIFFS. DEFENDANT did not have a policy or practice which provided

10 timely off-duty meal and rest breaks to PLAINTIFFS and also failed to compensate

11 PLAINTIFFS for PLAINTIFFS’ missed meal and rest breaks. The nature of the work

12 performed by the PLAINTIFFS did not prevent PLAINTIFFS from being relieved of all of

13 PLAINTIFFS’ duties for the legally required off-duty meal periods. As a result,

14 DEFENDANT’s failure to provide PLAINTIFFS with the legally required meal periods is

15 evidenced by DEFENDANT’s business records. The amount in controversy for

16 PLAINTIFFS individually does not exceed the sum or value of $75,000.

17
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
18
29. This Court has jurisdiction over this Action pursuant to California Code of
19
Civil Procedure, Section 410.10 and California Business & Professions Code, Section
20
17203. This action is brought as a Class Action on behalf of PLAINTIFFS and similarly
21
situated employees of DEFENDANT pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382.
22
30. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure,
23
Sections 395 and 395.5, because PLAINTIFFS worked in this County for DEFENDANT
24
and DEFENDANT (i) currently maintains and at all relevant times maintained offices and
25
facilities in this County and/or conducts substantial business in this County, and (ii)
26
committed the wrongful conduct herein alleged in this County against members of the
27
CALIFORNIA CLASS.
28
11
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 THE CALIFORNIA CLASS
2 31. PLAINTIFFS bring the First Cause of Action for Unfair, Unlawful and
3 Deceptive Business Practices pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (the
4 "UCL") as a Class Action, pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382, on behalf of a
5 California class, defined as all individuals who are or previously were employed by
6 DEFENDANT in California, including any employees staffed with DEFENDANT by a third
7 party, and classified as non-exempt employees (the “CALIFORNIA CLASS”) at any time
8 during the period beginning four (4) years prior to the filing of this Complaint and ending on
9 the date as determined by the Court (the “CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD”). The amount
10 in controversy for the aggregate claim of CALIFORNIA CLASS Members is under five
11 million dollars ($5,000,000.00).
12 32. To the extent equitable tolling operates to toll claims by the CALIFORNIA
13 CLASS against DEFENDANT, the CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD should be adjusted
14 accordingly.
15 33. DEFENDANT, as a matter of company policy, practice and procedure, and in
16 violation of the applicable Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage
17 Order requirements, and the applicable provisions of California law, intentionally,
18 knowingly, and wilfully, engaged in a practice whereby DEFENDANT failed to record all
19 meal and rest breaks missed by PLAINTIFFS and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members,
20 even though DEFENDANT enjoyed the benefit of this work, required employees to perform
21 this work and permits or suffers to permit this work.
22 34. DEFENDANT has the legal burden to establish that each and every
23 CALIFORNIA CLASS Member was paid accurately for all meal and rest breaks missed as
24 required by California laws. The DEFENDANT, however, as a matter of policy and
25 procedure failed to have in place during the CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD and still fails
26 to have in place a policy or practice to ensure that each and every CALIFORNIA CLASS
27 Member is paid as required by law. This common business practice is applicable to each
28 and every CALIFORNIA CLASS Member can be adjudicated on a class-wide basis as
12
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 unlawful, unfair, and/or deceptive under Cal. Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.
2 (the “UCL”) as causation, damages, and reliance are not elements of this claim.
3 35. The CALIFORNIA CLASS, is so numerous that joinder of all CALIFORNIA
4 CLASS Members is impracticable.
5 36. DEFENDANT violated the rights of the CALIFORNIA CLASS under
6 California law by:
7 (a) Committing an act of unfair competition in violation of , Cal. Bus. &
8 Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (the "UCL"), by unlawfully, unfairly
9 and/or deceptively having in place company policies, practices and
10 procedures that failed to record and pay PLAINTIFFS and the other
11 members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS for all time worked, including
12 minimum wages owed and overtime wages owed for work performed
13 by these employees; and,
14 (b) Committing an act of unfair competition in violation of the UCL, by
15 failing to provide the PLAINTIFFS and the other members of the
16 CALIFORNIA CLASS with the legally required meal and rest periods.
17 37. This Class Action meets the statutory prerequisites for the maintenance of a
18 Class Action as set forth in Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382, in that:
19 (a) The persons who comprise the CALIFORNIA CLASS are so numerous
20 that the joinder of all such persons is impracticable and the disposition
21 of their claims as a class will benefit the parties and the Court;
22 (b) Nearly all factual, legal, statutory, declaratory and injunctive relief
23 issues that are raised in this Complaint are common to the
24 CALIFORNIA CLASS will apply to every member of the
25 CALIFORNIA CLASS;
26 (c) The claims of the representative PLAINTIFFS are typical of the claims
27 of each member of the CALIFORNIA CLASS. PLAINTIFFS, like all
28 the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS, were classified as
13
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 non-exempt employees paid on an hourly basis who were subjected to
2 the DEFENDANT’s deceptive practice and policy which failed to
3 provide the legally required meal and rest periods to the CALIFORNIA
4 CLASS and thereby underpaid compensation to PLAINTIFFS and
5 CALIFORNIA CLASS. PLAINTIFFS sustained economic injury as a
6 result of DEFENDANT’s employment practices. PLAINTIFFS and the
7 members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS were and are similarly or
8 identically harmed by the same unlawful, deceptive and unfair
9 misconduct engaged in by DEFENDANT; and,
10 (d) The representative PLAINTIFFS will fairly and adequately represent
11 and protect the interest of the CALIFORNIA CLASS, and have
12 retained counsel who are competent and experienced in Class Action
13 litigation. There are no material conflicts between the claims of the
14 representative PLAINTIFFS and the members of the CALIFORNIA
15 CLASS that would make class certification inappropriate. Counsel for
16 the CALIFORNIA CLASS will vigorously assert the claims of all
17 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members.
18 38. In addition to meeting the statutory prerequisites to a Class Action, this action
19 is properly maintained as a Class Action pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382, in that:
20 (a) Without class certification and determination of declaratory, injunctive,
21 statutory and other legal questions within the class format, prosecution
22 of separate actions by individual members of the CALIFORNIA
23 CLASS will create the risk of:
24 1) Inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual
25 members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS which would establish
26 incompatible standards of conduct for the parties opposing the
27 CALIFORNIA CLASS; and/or,
28
14
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 2) Adjudication with respect to individual members of the
2 CALIFORNIA CLASS which would as a practical matter be
3 dispositive of interests of the other members not party to the
4 adjudication or substantially impair or impede their ability to
5 protect their interests.
6 (b) The parties opposing the CALIFORNIA CLASS have acted or refused
7 to act on grounds generally applicable to the CALIFORNIA CLASS,
8 making appropriate class-wide relief with respect to the CALIFORNIA
9 CLASS as a whole in that DEFENDANT failed to pay all wages due to
10 members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS as required by law;
11 1) With respect to the First Cause of Action, the final relief on
12 behalf of the CALIFORNIA CLASS sought does not relate
13 exclusively to restitution because through this claim
14 PLAINTIFFS seek declaratory relief holding that the
15 DEFENDANT’s policy and practices constitute unfair
16 competition, along with declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and
17 incidental equitable relief as may be necessary to prevent and
18 remedy the conduct declared to constitute unfair competition;
19 (c) Common questions of law and fact exist as to the members of the
20 CALIFORNIA CLASS, with respect to the practices and violations of
21 California law as listed above, and predominate over any question
22 affecting only individual CALIFORNIA CLASS Members, and a Class
23 Action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
24 adjudication of the controversy, including consideration of:
25 1) The interests of the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS in
26 individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate
27 actions in that the substantial expense of individual actions will
28 be avoided to recover the relatively small amount of economic
15
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 losses sustained by the individual CALIFORNIA CLASS
2 Members when compared to the substantial expense and burden
3 of individual prosecution of this litigation;
4 2) Class certification will obviate the need for unduly duplicative
5 litigation that would create the risk of:
6 A. Inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to
7 individual members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS, which
8 would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the
9 DEFENDANT; and/or,
10 B. Adjudications with respect to individual members of the
11 CALIFORNIA CLASS would as a practical matter be
12 dispositive of the interests of the other members not
13 parties to the adjudication or substantially impair or
14 impede their ability to protect their interests;
15 3) In the context of wage litigation because a substantial number of
16 individual CALIFORNIA CLASS Members will avoid asserting
17 their legal rights out of fear of retaliation by DEFENDANT,
18 which may adversely affect an individual’s job with
19 DEFENDANT or with a subsequent employer, the Class Action
20 is the only means to assert their claims through a representative;
21 and,
22 4) A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair
23 and efficient adjudication of this litigation because class
24 treatment will obviate the need for unduly and unnecessary
25 duplicative litigation that is likely to result in the absence of
26 certification of this action pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §
27 382.
28
16
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 39. This Court should permit this action to be maintained as a Class Action
2 pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382 because:
3 (a) The questions of law and fact common to the CALIFORNIA CLASS
4 predominate over any question affecting only individual CALIFORNIA
5 CLASS Members because the DEFENDANT’s employment practices
6 are applied with respect to the CALIFORNIA CLASS;
7 (b) A Class Action is superior to any other available method for the fair
8 and efficient adjudication of the claims of the members of the
9 CALIFORNIA CLASS because in the context of employment litigation
10 a substantial number of individual CALIFORNIA CLASS Members
11 will avoid asserting their rights individually out of fear of retaliation or
12 adverse impact on their employment;
13 (c) The members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS are so numerous that it is
14 impractical to bring all members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS before
15 the Court;
16 (d) PLAINTIFF, and the other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members, will not
17 be able to obtain effective and economic legal redress unless the action
18 is maintained as a Class Action;
19 (e) There is a community of interest in obtaining appropriate legal and
20 equitable relief for the acts of unfair competition, statutory violations
21 and other improprieties, and in obtaining adequate compensation for
22 the damages and injuries which DEFENDANT’s actions have inflicted
23 upon the CALIFORNIA CLASS;
24 (f) There is a community of interest in ensuring that the combined assets of
25 DEFENDANT are sufficient to adequately compensate the members of
26 the CALIFORNIA CLASS for the injuries sustained;
27 (g) DEFENDANT has acted or refused to act on grounds generally
28 applicable to the CALIFORNIA CLASS, thereby making final class-
17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 wide relief appropriate with respect to the CALIFORNIA CLASS as a
2 whole;
3 (h) The members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS are readily ascertainable
4 from the business records of DEFENDANT; and,
5 (i) Class treatment provides manageable judicial treatment calculated to
6 bring a efficient and rapid conclusion to all litigation of all wage and
7 hour related claims arising out of the conduct of DEFENDANT as to
8 the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS.
9 40. DEFENDANT maintains records from which the Court can ascertain and
10 identify by job title each of DEFENDANT’s employees who have been intentionally
11 subjected to DEFENDANT’s company policy, practices and procedures as herein alleged.
12 PLAINTIFFS will seek leave to amend the Complaint to include any additional job titles of
13 similarly situated employees when they have been identified.
14
15 THE CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS
16 41. PLAINTIFFS further bring the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh,
17 Eighth, Ninth and Tenth causes Action on behalf of a California sub-class, defined as all
18 members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS who are or previously were employed by
19 DEFENDANT in California, including any employees staffed with DEFENDANT by a third
20 party, and classified as non-exempt employees (the “CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-
21 CLASS”) at any time during the period three (3) years prior to the filing of the complaint
22 and ending on the date as determined by the Court (the “CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-
23 CLASS PERIOD”) pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382. The amount in controversy
24 for the aggregate claim of CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members is under five
25 million dollars ($5,000,000.00).
26 42. DEFENDANT, in violation of the applicable Labor Code, Industrial Welfare
27 Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order requirements, and the applicable provisions of California
28 law, intentionally, knowingly, and wilfully, engaged in a practice whereby DEFENDANT
18
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 failed to correctly calculate compensation for the time worked by PLAINTIFFS and the
2 other members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS and reporting time wages owed
3 to these employees, even though DEFENDANT enjoyed the benefit of this work, required
4 employees to perform this work and permitted or suffered to permit this work.
5 DEFENDANT has denied these CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members wages to
6 which these employees are entitled in order to unfairly cheat the competition and unlawfully
7 profit. To the extent equitable tolling operates to toll claims by the CALIFORNIA LABOR
8 SUB-CLASS against DEFENDANT, the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS PERIOD
9 should be adjusted accordingly.
10 43. DEFENDANT maintains records from which the Court can ascertain and
11 identify by name and job title, each of DEFENDANT’s employees who have been
12 intentionally subjected to DEFENDANT’s company policy, practices and procedures as
13 herein alleged. PLAINTIFFS will seek leave to amend the complaint to include any
14 additional job titles of similarly situated employees when they have been identified.
15 44. The CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS is so numerous that joinder of all
16 CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members is impracticable.
17 45. Common questions of law and fact exist as to members of the CALIFORNIA
18 LABOR SUB-CLASS, including, but not limited, to the following:
19 (a) Whether DEFENDANT unlawfully failed to correctly calculate and pay
20 compensation due to members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-
21 CLASS for missed meal and rest breaks in violation of the California
22 Labor Code and California regulations and the applicable California
23 Wage Order;
24 (b) Whether DEFENDANT failed to provide the PLAINTIFFS and the
25 other members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS with
26 accurate itemized wage statements;
27 (c) Whether DEFENDANT has engaged in unfair competition by the
28 above-listed conduct;
19
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 (d) The proper measure of damages and penalties owed to the members of
2 the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS; and,
3 (e) Whether DEFENDANT’s conduct was willful.
4 46. DEFENDANT violated the rights of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-
5 CLASS under California law by:
6 (a) Violating Cal. Lab. Code § 510, by failing to correctly pay the
7 PLAINTIFFS and the members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-
8 CLASS all wages due for overtime worked, for which DEFENDANT is
9 liable pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code § 1194;
10 (b) Violating Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1197 & 1197.1 et seq., by failing to
11 accurately pay PLAINTIFFS and the members of the CALIFORNIA
12 LABOR SUB-CLASS the correct minimum wage pay for which
13 DEFENDANT is liable pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194 and 1197;
14 (c) Violating Cal. Lab. Code § 226, by failing to provide PLAINTIFFS and
15 the members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS with an
16 accurate itemized statement in writing showing the corresponding
17 correct amount of wages earned by the employee;
18 (d) Violating Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7 and 512, by failing to provide
19 PLAINTIFFS and the other members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR
20 SUB-CLASS with all legally required off-duty, uninterrupted thirty
21 (30) minute meal breaks and the legally required off-duty rest breaks;
22 (e) Violating Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201, 202 and/or 203, which provides that
23 when an employee is discharged or quits from employment, the
24 employer must pay the employee all wages due without abatement, by
25 failing to tender full payment and/or restitution of wages owed or in the
26 manner required by California law to the members of the
27 CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS who have terminated their
28 employment; and,
20
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 (f) Violating Cal. Lab. Code § 2802 by failing to reimburse PLAINTIFFS
2 and the CALIFORNIA LABOR S

Case Info

Judge

Benson, Stephen E Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

July 17, 2024

Case Filing Date

January 18, 2024

County

Parties

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

Conference: Lovgren, Christian et al vs Enloe Medical Center

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties