Preview
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
1
David D. Bibiyan (Cal. Bar No. 287811)
2 david@tomorrowlaw.com
Jeffrey D. Klein (Cal. Bar No. 297296)
3 jeff@tomorrowlaw.com
Paal Bakstad (Cal. Bar No. 213630)
4 paal@tomorrowlaw.com
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
5
Beverly Hills, California 90211
6 Tel: (310) 438-5555; Fax: (310) 300-1705
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff, BRIANNA LAUREN MORENO and
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10
11 BRIANNA LAUREN MORENO, an CASE NO.:
individual and on behalf of all others similarly
12 situated, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR:
13 1. FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES;
Plaintiff,
14 2. FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES;
v.
15
3. FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL
16 PERIODS;
17 CONCENTRA HEALTH SERVICES, INC., a 4. FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST PERIODS;
Nevada corporation; REAL TIME STAFFING
18 SERVICES, LLC; a California limited liability 5. WAITING TIME PENALTIES;
company; DUKE KRATHIUM, an individual;
19 and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
6. WAGE STATEMENT VIOLATIONS;
20 Defendants.
7. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY WAGES;
21
8. FAILURE TO INDEMNIFY;
22
23 9. FAILURE TO PAY INTEREST ON
DEPOSITS:
24
10. VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 227.3
25
11. UNFAIR COMPETITION.
26
27
28
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
COMPLAINT FOR:
1
2 12. SEXUAL HARASSMENT;
3 13. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
4
14. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
5
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
6
15. CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE IN
7 VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY.
8
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
9
[Amount in Controversy Exceeds $25,000.00]
10
11
Plaintiff BRIANNA LAUREN MORENO, on behalf of Plaintiff and all others similarly
12
situated, alleges as follows:
13
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
14
INTRODUCTION
15
1. This is a Class Action, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 382, against
16
Concentra Health Services, Inc., and any of its respective subsidiaries or affiliated companies within
17
the State of California (“Concentra”); Real Time Staffing Services, LLC; and any of its respective
18
subsidiaries or affiliated companies within the State of California (“Real Time”);and Duke Krathium
19
(“Krathium” and collectively, with Concentra, Real Time and DOES 1 through 100, as further
20
defined below, “Defendants”) on behalf of Plaintiff and all other current and former non-exempt
21
California employees employed by or formerly employed by Defendants (“Class Members”).
22
PARTIES
23
A. Plaintiff
24
2. Plaintiff BRIANNA LAUREN MORENO is a resident of the State of California. At
25
all relevant times herein, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that
26
Defendants employed Plaintiff as a non-exempt employee, with duties that included, but were not
27
limited to, administrator, contact insurance companies, and check-in and out patients. Plaintiff is
28
2
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Plaintiff BRIANNA LAUREN MORENO
2 worked for Defendants from approximately April 10, 2023 through approximately May 2, 2023.
3 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that she was subjected to
4 sexual harassment, physical touching, and conditions giving rise to emotional distress in her
5 workplace, which she reported to her supervisor. Plaintiff is informed and believes that she was
6 constructively discharged from her employment, sexually harassed against on the basis of her sex,
7 engagement in protected conduct, and for requesting an accommodation to protect herself against
further harm and harassment. Due to her membership in a protected class, Plaintiff is entitled to
8
protection under California Department Fair Employment and Housing Act under Government
9
Code section 12900, et seq. (hereinafter “FEHA”) and California common law.
10
B. Defendants
11
4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant Concentra
12
is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of
13
the laws of the State of Nevada and doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
14
5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant Real Time
15
is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a limited liability company organized and existing under and
16
by virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los Angeles,
17
State of California.
18
6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant Krathium
19
is, and at all times relevant hereto was, an individual residing in California, as well as the supervisor
20
of Concentra, and DOES 1 through 100, as further defined below..
21
7. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise,
22
of defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are currently unknown to Plaintiff,
23
who therefore sues defendants by such fictitious names under Code of Civil Procedure section 474.
24
Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that each of the defendants designated
25
herein as DOE is legally responsible in some manner for the unlawful acts referred to herein.
26
Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to reflect the true names and capacities of
27
the defendants designated hereinafter as DOES when such identities become known. Plaintiff is
28
3
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each defendant acted in all respects pertinent
2 to this action, as the agent of the other defendant(s), carried out a joint scheme, business plan or
3 policy in all respects pertinent hereto, and the acts of each defendant are legally attributable to the
4 other defendants. Whenever, heretofore or hereinafter, reference is made to “Defendants,” it shall
5 include Concentra, Real Time, and any of their parent, subsidiary, or affiliated companies within
6 the State of California, as well as Krathium and DOES 1 through 100 identified herein.
7 JOINT LIABILITY ALLEGATIONS
8 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that all the times
9 mentioned herein, each of the Defendants was the agent, principal, employee, employer,
10 representative, joint venture or co-conspirator of each of the other defendants, either actually or
11 ostensibly, and in doing the things alleged herein acted within the course and scope of such agency,
12 employment, joint venture, and conspiracy.
13 9. All of the acts and conduct described herein of each and every corporate defendant
14 was duly authorized, ordered, and directed by the respective and collective defendant corporate
15 employers, and the officers and management-level employees of said corporate employers. In
16 addition thereto, said corporate employers participated in the aforementioned acts and conduct of
17 their said employees, agents, and representatives, and each of them; and upon completion of the
18 aforesaid acts and conduct of said corporate employees, agents, and representatives, the defendant
19 corporation respectively and collectively ratified, accepted the benefits of, condoned, lauded,
20 acquiesced, authorized, and otherwise approved of each and all of the said acts and conduct of the
21 aforementioned corporate employees, agents and representatives.
22 10. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Krathium
23 and DOES 51 through 100 violated, or caused to be violated, the above-referenced and below-
24 referenced Labor Code provisions in violation of Labor Code section 558.1.
25 11. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon allege, that there exists such a
26 unity of interest and ownership between Defendants, and each of them, that their individuality and
27 separateness have ceased to exist.
28 12. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that despite the
4
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 formation of the purported corporate existence of Concentra, Real Time, and DOES 1 through 50,
2 inclusive (the “Alter Ego Defendants”), they, and each of them, are one and the same with Krathium
3 and DOES 51 through 100 (“Individual Defendants”), and each of them, due to, but not limited to,
4 the following reasons:
5 A. The Alter Ego Defendants are completely dominated and controlled by the Individual
6 Defendants who personally committed the wrongful and illegal acts and violated the
7 laws as set forth in this Complaint, and who has hidden and currently hide behind the
8 Alter Ego Defendants to perpetrate frauds, circumvent statutes, or accomplish some
9 other wrongful or inequitable purpose;
10 B. The Individual Defendants derive actual and significant monetary benefits by and
11 through the Alter Ego Defendants’ unlawful conduct, and by using the Alter Ego
12 Defendants as the funding source for the Individual Defendants’ own personal
13 expenditures;
14 C. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Individual Defendants
15 and the Alter Ego Defendants, while really one and the same, were segregated to
16 appear as though separate and distinct for purposes of perpetrating a fraud,
17 circumventing a statute, or accomplishing some other wrongful or inequitable
18 purpose;
19 D. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the business affairs of the
20 Individual Defendants and the Alter Ego Defendants are, and at all relevant times
21 mentioned herein were, so mixed and intermingled that the same cannot reasonably
22 be segregated, and the same are inextricable confusion. The Alter Ego Defendants
23 are, and at all relevant times mentioned herein were, used by the Individual
24 Defendants as mere shells and conduits for the conduct of certain of their, and each
25 of their affairs. The Alter Ego Defendants are, and at all relevant times mentioned
26 herein were, the alter egos of the Individual Defendants;
27 E. The recognition of the separate existence of the Individual Defendants and the Alter
28 Ego Defendants would promote injustice insofar that it would permit defendants to
5
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 insulate themselves from liability to Plaintiff for violations of the Civil Code, Labor
2 Code, and other statutory violations. The corporate existence of these defendants
3 should thus be disregarded in equity and for the ends of justice because such
4 disregard is necessary to avoid fraud and injustice to Plaintiff herein;
5 F. Accordingly, the Alter Ego Defendants constitute the alter ego of the Individual
6 Defendants (and vice versa), and the fiction of their separate corporate existence
7 must be disregarded;
8 13. As a result of the aforementioned facts, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based
9 thereon alleges that Defendants, and each of them, are joint employers.
10 EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
11 29. Plaintiff timely filed a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing
12 (“DFEH”) against the Defendants and obtained the Notice of Right to Sue on February 7, 2024,
13 thereby exhausting her administrative remedies.
14 JURISDICTION
15 14. Jurisdiction exists in the Superior Court of the State of California pursuant to Code
16 of Civil Procedure section 410.10.
17 15. Venue is proper in Los Angeles County, California pursuant to Code of Civil
18 Procedure sections 392, et seq. because, among other things, Los Angeles County is where the
19 causes of action complained of herein arose; the county in which the employment relationship
20 began; the county in which performance of the employment contract, or part of it, between Plaintiff
21 and Defendants was due to be performed; the county in which the employment contract, or part of
22 it, between Plaintiff and Defendants was actually performed; and the county in which Defendants,
23 or some of them, reside. Moreover, the unlawful acts alleged herein have a direct effect on Plaintiff
24 and Class Members in Los Angeles County, and because Defendants employ numerous Class
25 Members in Los Angeles County.
26 FACTUAL BACKGROUND
27 16. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the
28 present, Defendants have, at times, failed to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and Class Members, or
6
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 some of them, in violation of California state wage and hour laws as a result of, without limitation,
2 Plaintiff and Class Members working over eight (8) hours per day, forty (40) hours per week, and
3 seven consecutive work days in a work week without being properly compensated for hours worked
4 in excess of (8) hours per day in a work day, forty (40) hours per week in a work week, and/or hours
5 worked on the seventh consecutive work day in a work week by, among other things, failing to
6 accurately track and/or pay for all minutes actually worked at the proper overtime rate of pay ;
7 engaging, suffering, or permitting employees to work off the clock, including, without limitation,
8 by requiring Plaintiff and Class Members: to come early to work and leave late work without being
9 able to clock in for all that time, to suffer under Defendants’ control due to long lines for clocking
10 in, to complete pre-shift tasks before clocking in and post-shift tasks after clocking out, to clock out
11 for meal periods and continue working, to clock out for rest periods, to don and doff uniforms and/or
12 safety equipment off the clock, to attend company meetings off the clock, failing to include all forms
13 of remuneration, including non-discretionary bonuses, incentive pay, meal allowances, mask
14 allowances, gift cards and other forms of remuneration into the regular rate of pay for the pay periods
15 where overtime was worked and the additional compensation was earned for the purpose of
16 calculating the overtime rate of pay; detrimental rounding of employee time entries, editing and/or
17 manipulation of time entries; and by attempting but failing to properly implement an alternative
18 workweek schedule (“AWS”) (including, without limitation, by failing to implement a written
19 agreement designating the regularly scheduled alternative workweek in which the specified number
20 of work days and work hours are regularly recurring; failing to adopt the AWS in a secret ballot
21 election, before the performance of work, by at least a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the affected
22 employees in the work unit; failing to follow the notice/disclosures procedures prior to any AWS
23 election; and/or failing to register an AWS election with the State of California, as required by Labor
24 Code section 511 and applicable Wage Orders) to the detriment of Plaintiff and Class Members.
25 17. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this Action and continuing to the
26 present, Defendants have, at times, failed to pay minimum wages to Plaintiff and Class Members,
27 or some of them, in violation of California state wage and hour laws as a result of, among other
28 things, at times, failing to accurately track and/or pay for all hours actually worked at their regular
7
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 rate of pay that is above the minimum wage; engaging, suffering, or permitting employees to work
2 off the clock, including, without limitation, by requiring Plaintiff and Class Members: to come early
3 to work and leave late work without being able to clock in for all that time, to suffer under
4 Defendants’ control due to long lines for clocking in, to complete pre-shift tasks before clocking in
5 and post-shift tasks after clocking out, to clock out for meal periods and continue working, to clock
6 out for rest periods, to don and doff uniforms and/or safety equipment off the clock, to attend
7 company meetings off the clock, detrimental rounding of employee time entries; editing and/or
8 manipulation of time entries to show less hours than actually worked; failing to pay split shift
9 premiums; and failing to pay reporting time pay to the detriment of Plaintiff and Class Members.
10 18. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this Action and continuing to the
11 present, Defendants have, at times, failed to provide Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of them,
12 full, timely thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal period for days on which they worked more than
13 five (5) hours in a work day and a second thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal period for days on
14 which they worked in excess of ten (10) hours in a work day, and failing to provide compensation
15 for such unprovided meal periods as required by California wage and hour laws.
16 19. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the
17 present, Defendants have, at times, failed to authorize and permit Plaintiff and Class Members, or
18 some of them, to take rest periods of at least ten (10) minutes per four (4) hours worked or major
19 fraction thereof and failed to provide compensation for such unprovided rest periods as required by
20 California wage and hour laws.
21 20. For at least three (3) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the
22 present, Defendants have, at times, failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of them, the
23 full amount of their wages owed to them upon termination and/or resignation as required by Labor
24 Code sections 201 and 202, including for, without limitation, failing to pay overtime wages,
25 minimum wages, premium wages, and vacation pay pursuant to Labor Code section 227.3.
26 21. For at least one (1) year prior to the filing of this Action and continuing to the present,
27 Defendants have, at times, failed to furnish Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of them, with
28 itemized wage statements that accurately reflect gross wages earned; total hours worked; net wages
8
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 earned; all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of
2 hours worked at each hourly rate; and other such information as required by Labor Code section
3 226, subdivision (a). As a result thereof, Defendants have further failed to furnish employees with
4 an accurate calculation of gross and gross wages earned, as well as gross and net wages paid.
5 22. For at least one (1) year prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the present,
6 Defendants have, at times, failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of them, the full
7 amount of their wages for labor performed in a timely fashion as required under Labor Code section
8 204.
9 23. For at least three (3) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the
10 present, Defendants have, at times, failed to indemnify Class Members, or some of them, for the
11 costs incurred in purchasing and/or laundering mandatory work uniforms.
12 24. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the
13 present, Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to provide Plaintiff and similarly situated
14 employees or former employees within the State of California with compensation at their final rate
15 of pay for unused vested paid vacation days pursuant to Labor Code section 227.3.
16 25. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the
17 present, Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to provide Plaintiffs and similarly
18 situated employees or former employees within the State of California with the rights provided to
19 them under the Healthy Workplace Heathy Families Act of 2014, codified at Labor Code section
20 245, et seq.
21 26. Plaintiff, on their own behalf and on behalf of Class Members, brings this action
22 pursuant to, including but not limited to, Labor Code sections 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7,
23 227.3, 245, et seq., 404, 510, 512, 558.1, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 2802, and California Code of
24 Regulations, Title 8, section 11040, seeking overtime wages, minimum wages, payment of premium
25 wages for missed meal and rest periods, failure to pay timely wages, waiting time penalties, wage
26 statement penalties, failure to indemnify work-related expenses, failure to pay interest on deposits
27 made, failing to pay vested vacation time at the proper rate of pay, other such provisions of
28 California law, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
9
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 27. Plaintiff, on Plaintiff’s own behalf and on behalf of Class Members, pursuant to
2 Business and Professions Code sections 17200 through 17208, also seeks (an) injunction(s)
3 prohibiting Defendants from further violating the Labor Code and requiring the establishment of
4 appropriate and effective means to prevent further violations, as well as all monies owed but
5 withheld and retained by Defendants to which Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled, as well as
6 restitution of amounts owed.
7 28. Throughout the course of her employment, Plaintiff was subject to sexual harassment
8 at the hands of Defendants’ supervisor, Duke Krathium (“Krathium”).
9 29. For example, in or around April 2023, during the first week Plaintiff started working for
10 Defendants,
11 Krathium put his hands on Plaintiff’s back. In or around April 27, 2023, Krathium walked by
Plaintiff and rubbed Plaintiff’s arm making Plaintiff feel very uncomfortable.
12
30. In or around April 28, 2023, Krathium ask Plaintiff to take a picture of him and other
13
colleagues Hailey and Cong. Plaintiff took the picture and then while returning his phone to
14
Krathium he put his hands on Plaintiff’s waist and squeezed it. Plaintiff felt very uncomfortable,
15
embarrassed, and reported the harassment to her immediate supervisor Ceclia Ceballos. Cecilia
16
Ceballos responded to Plaintiff by stating that Krathium can be a little touchy on the shoulder area.
17
31. On or about May 2, 2023, Plaintiff complained to Luis Tijerino, Human Resources
18
manager about the sexual harassment and that she had reported it to her immediate supervisor Ceclia
19
Ceballos but nothing was done.
20 32. Later that day Ceclia Ceballos called Plaintiff and asked if she was going to come
21 back to work. As a result of the continuing harassment Defendants’ constructively terminated
22 Plaintiff.
23 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
24 33. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of Plaintiff and Class Members as a class action
25 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 382. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all current
26 and former non-exempt employees of Defendants within the State of California at any time
27 commencing four (4) years preceding the filing of Plaintiff’s complaint up until the time that notice
28 of the class action is provided to the class (collectively referred to as “Class Members”).
10
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 34. Plaintiff reserves the right under California Rule of Court rule 3.765, subdivision (b)
2 to amend or modify the class description with greater specificity, further divide the defined class
3 into subclasses, and to further specify or limit the issues for which certification is sought.
4 35. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action under
5 the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 382 because there is a well-defined community
6 of interest in the litigation and the proposed Class is easily ascertainable.
7 A. Numerosity
8 36. The potential Class Members as defined are so numerous that joinder of all the
9 members of the Class is impracticable. While the precise number of Class Members has not been
10 determined yet, Plaintiff is informed and believes that there are over seventy-five (75) Class
11 Members employed by Defendants within the State of California.
12 37. Accounting for employee turnover during the relevant periods necessarily increases
13 this number. Plaintiff alleges Defendants’ employment records would provide information as to the
14 number and location of all Class Members. Joinder of all members of the proposed Class is not
15 practicable.
16 B. Commonality
17 38. There are questions of law and fact common to Class Members. These common
18 questions include, but are not limited to:
19 A. Did Defendants violate Labor Code sections 510 and 1194 by failing to pay all hours
20 worked at a proper overtime rate of pay?
21 B. Did Defendants violate Labor Code sections 510, 1194 and 1197 by failing to pay
22 for all other time worked at the employee’s regular rate of pay and a rate of pay that
23 is greater than the applicable minimum wage?
24 C. Did Defendants violate Labor Code section 512 by not authorizing or permitting
25 Class Members to take compliant meal periods?
26 D. Did Defendants violate Labor Code section 226.7 by not providing Class Members
27 with additional wages for missed or interrupted meal periods?
28 E. Did Defendants violate applicable Wage Orders by not authorizing or permitting
11
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Class Members to take compliant rest periods?
2 F. Did Defendants violate Labor Code section 226.7 by not providing Class Members
3 with additional wages for missed rest periods?
4 G. Did Defendants violate Labor Code sections 201 and 202 by failing to pay Class
5 Members upon termination or resignation all wages earned?
6 H. Are Defendants liable to Class Members for waiting time penalties under Labor Code
7 section 203?
8 I. Did Defendants violate Labor Code section 226, subdivision (a) by not furnishing
9 Class Members with accurate wage statements?
10 J. Did Defendants fail to pay Class Members in a timely fashion as required under
11 Labor Code section 204?
12 K. Did Defendants fail to indemnify Class Members for all necessary expenditures or
13 losses incurred in direct consequence of the discharge of their duties or by obedience
14 to the directions of Defendants as required under Labor Code section 2802?
15 L. Did Defendants fail to return deposits made by Class Members with accrued interest
16 thereon as required under Labor Code section 404?
17 M. Did Defendants violate Labor Code section 227.3 by not providing Class Members
18 with compensation at their final rate of pay for vested paid vacation time.
19 N. Did Defendants violate the Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code
20 section 17200, et seq., by their unlawful practices as alleged herein?
21 O. Are Class Members entitled to restitution of wages under Business and Professions
22 Code section 17203?
23 P. Are Class Members entitled to costs and attorneys’ fees?
24 Q. Are Class Members entitled to interest?
25 C. Typicality
26 39. The claims of Plaintiff herein alleged are typical of those claims which could be
27 alleged by any Class Members, and the relief sought is typical of the relief which would be sought
28 by each Class Member in separate actions. Plaintiff and Class Members sustained injuries and
12
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 damages arising out of and caused by Defendants’ common course of conduct in violation of laws
2 and regulations that have the force and effect of law and statutes as alleged herein.
3 D. Adequacy of Representation
4 40. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interest of Class
5 Members. Counsel who represents Plaintiff is competent and experienced in litigating wage and
6 hour class actions.
7 E. Superiority of Class Action
8 41. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient
9 adjudication of this controversy. Individual joinder of all Class Members is not practicable, and
10 questions of law and fact common to Class Members predominate over any questions affecting only
11 individual Class Members. Class Members, as further described therein, have been damaged and
12 are entitled to recovery by reason of Defendants’ policies and/or practices that have resulted in the
13 violation of the Labor Code at times, as set out herein.
14 42. Class action treatment will allow Class Members to litigate their claims in a manner
15 that is most efficient and economical for the parties and the judicial system. Plaintiff is unaware of
16 any difficulties that are likely to be encountered in the management of this action that would
17 preclude its maintenance as a class action.
18 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
19 (Failure to Pay Overtime Wages – Against All Defendants)
20 43. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in
21 the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.
22 44. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class Members were employees or former
23 employees of Defendants covered by Labor Code sections 510, 1194 and 1199, as well as applicable
24 Wage Orders.
25 45. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Labor Code section 510 was in effect and
26 provided: “(a) Eight hours of labor constitutes a day’s work. Any work in excess of eight hours in
27 one workday and any work in excess of forty hours in any one workweek . . . shall be compensated
28 at the rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for an employee.”
13
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 46. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Labor Code section 510 further provided that
2 “[a]ny work in excess of 12 hours in one day shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice
3 the regular rate of pay for an employee. In addition, any work in excess of eight hours on any
4 seventh day of a workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of
5 pay.”
6 47. Four (4) years prior to the filing of the Complaint in this Action through the present,
7 Plaintiff and Class Members, at times, worked for Defendants during shifts that consisted of more
8 than eight (8) hours in a workday and/or more than forty hours in a workweek, and/or seven (7)
9 consecutive workdays in a workweek, without being paid overtime wages for all hours worked as a
10 result of, including but not limited to, Defendants failing to accurately track and/or pay for all hours
11 actually worked at the proper overtime rate of pay; engaging, suffering, or permitting employees to
12 work off the clock, including, without limitation, by requiring Plaintiff and Class Members: to come
13 early to work and leave late work without being able to clock in for all that time, to suffer under
14 Defendants’ control due to long lines for clocking in, to complete pre-shift tasks before clocking in
15 and post-shift tasks after clocking out, to clock out for meal periods and continue working, to clock
16 out for rest periods, to don and doff uniforms and/or safety equipment off the clock, to attend
17 company meetings off the clock, failing to include all forms of remuneration, including non-
18 discretionary bonuses, incentive pay, meal allowances, mask allowances, gift cards and other forms
19 of remuneration into the regular rate of pay for the pay periods where overtime was worked and the
20 additional compensation was earned for the purpose of calculating the overtime rate of pay;
21 detrimental rounding of employee time entries, editing and/or manipulation of time entries; and by
22 attempting but failing to properly implement an alternative workweek schedule (“AWS”)
23 (including, without limitation, by failing to implement a written agreement designating the regularly
24 scheduled alternative workweek in which the specified number of work days and work hours are
25 regularly recurring; failing to adopt the AWS in a secret ballot election, before the performance of
26 work, by at least a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the affected employees in the work unit; failing to follow
27 the notice/disclosures procedures prior to any AWS election; and/or failing to register an AWS
28 election with the State of California, as required by Labor Code section 511 and applicable Wage
14
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Orders) to the detriment of Plaintiff and Class Members.
2 48. Accordingly, by requiring Plaintiff and Class Members to, at times, work greater
3 than eight (8) hours per workday, forty (40) hours per workweek, and/or seven (7) straight workdays
4 without properly compensating overtime wages at the proper overtime rate of pay, Defendants, on
5 occasion, willfully violated the provisions of the Labor Code, among others, sections 510, 1194, and
6 applicable IWC Wage Orders, and California law.
7 49. As a result of the unlawful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff and Class Members have
8 been deprived of overtime wages in amounts to be determined at trial, and are entitled to recovery,
9 plus interest and penalties thereon, attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to Labor Code section 1194
10 and 1199, Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 and 1032, and Civil Code section 3287.
11 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
12 (Failure to Pay Minimum Wages – Against All Defendants)
13 50. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in
14 the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.
15 51. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class Members were employees or former
16 employees of Defendants covered by Labor Code sections 1197, 1199 and applicable Wage Orders.
17 52. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1197 and applicable Wage Orders, Plaintiff and
18 Class Members were entitled to receive minimum wages for all hours worked or otherwise under
19 Defendants’ control.
20 53. For four (4) years prior to the filing of the Complaint in this Action through the
21 present, Defendants failed, at times, to accurately track and/or pay for all hours actually worked at
22 their regular rate of pay that is above the minimum wage; engaged, suffered, or permitted employees
23 to work off the clock, including, without limitation, by requiring Plaintiff and Class Members: to
24 come early to work and leave late work without being able to clock in for all that time, to suffer
25 under Defendants’ control due to long lines for clocking in, to complete pre-shift tasks before
26 clocking in and post-shift tasks after clocking out, to clock out for meal periods and continue
27 working, to clock out for rest periods, to don and doff uniforms and/or safety equipment off the
28 clock, to attend company meetings off the clock, detrimental rounding of employee time entries;
15
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 editing and/or manipulation of time entries to show less hours than actually worked; failing to pay
2 split shift premiums; and failing to pay reporting time pay to the detriment of Plaintiff and Class
3 Members.
4 54. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have
5 suffered damages in an amount, subject to proof, to the extent they were not paid minimum wages
6 for all hours worked or otherwise due.
7 55. Pursuant to Labor Code sections 218.6, 1194, 1194.2, Code of Civil Procedure
8 sections 1021.5 and 1032, and Civil Code section 3287, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to
9 recover the full amount of unpaid minimum wages, interest and penalties thereon, liquidated
10 damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.
11 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
12 (Failure to Provide Meal Periods – Against All Defendants)
13 56. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in
14 the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.
15 57. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class Members were employees or former
16 employees of Defendants covered by Labor Code section 512 and applicable Wage Orders.
17 58. Pursuant to Labor Code section 512 and applicable Wage Orders, no employer shall
18 employ an employee for a work period of more than five (5) hours without a timely meal break of
19 not less than thirty (30) minutes in which the employee is relieved of all of his or her duties.
20 Furthermore, no employer shall employ an employee for a work period of more than ten (10) hours
21 per day without providing the employee with a second timely meal period of not less than thirty (30)
22 minutes in which the employee is relieved of all of his or her duties.
23 59. Pursuant to Labor Code section 226.7, if an employer fails to provide an employee
24 with a meal period as provided in the applicable Wage Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission,
25 the employer shall pay the employee one (1) additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate
26 of compensation for each workday that the meal period is not provided.
27 60. For four (4) years prior to the filing of the Complaint in this Action through the
28 present, Plaintiff and Class Members were, at times, not provided complete, timely 30-minute, duty-
16
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 free uninterrupted meal periods every five hours of work without waiving the right to take them, as
2 permitted. Moreover, at times, Defendants failed to provide one (1) additional hour of pay at the
3 Class Member’s regular rate of compensation on the occasions that Class Members were not
4 provided compliant meal periods.
5 61. By their failure to provide Plaintiff and Class Members compliant meal periods as
6 contemplated by Labor Code section 512, among other California authorities, and failing, at times,
7 to provide compensation for such unprovided meal periods, as alleged above, Defendants willfully
8 violated the provisions of Labor Code section 512 and applicable Wage Orders.
9 62. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have
10 suffered damages in an amount, subject to proof, to the extent they were not paid additional pay
11 owed for missed, untimely, interrupted, incomplete and/or on-duty meal periods.
12 63. Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to recover the full amount of their unpaid
13 additional pay for unprovided compliant meal periods, in amounts to be determined at trial, plus
14 interest and penalties thereon, attorneys’ fees, and costs, under Labor Code sections 226 and 226.7,
15 Code of Civil Procedure sections 1021.5 and 1032, and Civil Code section 3287.
16 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
17 (Failure to Provide Rest Periods – Against All Defendants)
18 64. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in
19 the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.
20 65. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class Members were employees or former
21 employees of Defendants covered by applicable Wage Orders.
22 66. California law and applicable Wage Orders require that employers “authorize and
23 permit” employees to take ten (10) minute rest periods in about the middle of each four (4) hour
24 work period “or major fraction thereof.” Accordingly, employees who work shifts of three and-a-
25 half (3 ½) to six (6) hours must be provided ten (10) minutes of paid rest period, employees who
26 work shifts of more than six (6) and up to ten (10) hours must be provided with twenty (20) minutes
27 of paid rest period, and employees who work shifts of more than ten (10) hours must be provided
28 thirty (30) minutes of paid rest period.
17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 67. Pursuant to Labor Code section 226.7, if an employer fails to provide an employee
2 with a meal period or rest period as provided in the applicable Wage Order of the Industrial Welfare
3 Commission, the employer shall pay the employee one (1) additional hour of pay at the employee’s
4 regular rate of compensation for each work day that the rest period is not provided.
5 68. For four (4) years prior to the filing of the Complaint in this Action through the
6 present, Plaintiff and Class Members were, at times, not authorized or permitted to take complete,
7 timely 10-minute, duty-free uninterrupted rest periods every four (4) hours of work or major fraction
8 thereof. Moreover, at times, Defendants failed to provide one (1) additional hour of pay at the Class
9 Member’s regular rate of compensation on the occasions that Class Members were not authorized
10 or permitted to take compliant rest periods.
11 69. By their failure, at times, to authorize and permit Plaintiff and Class Members to take
12 rest periods contemplated by California law, and one (1) additional hour of pay at the employee’s
13 regular rate of compensation for such unprovided rest periods, as alleged above, Defendants
14 willfully violated the provisions of Labor Code section 226.7 and applicable Wage Orders.
15 70. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have
16 suffered damages in an amount, subject to proof, to the extent they were not paid additional pay
17 owed for rest periods that they were not authorized or permitted to take.
18 71. Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to recover the full amount of their unpaid
19 additional pay for unprovided compliant rest periods, in amounts to be determined at trial, plus
20 interest and penalties thereon, attorneys’ fees, and costs, under Labor Code sections 226 and 226.7,
21 Code of Civil Procedure sections 1021.5 and 1032, and Civil Code section 3287.
22 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
23 (Failure to Pay All Wages Due Upon Termination – Against All Defendants)
24 72. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in
25 the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.
26 73. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class Members were employees or former
27 employees of Defendants covered by Labor Code sections 201, 202 and 203, as well as applicable
28 Wage Orders.
18
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 74. Pursuant to Labor Code sections 201 and 202, Plaintiff and Class Members were
2 entitled upon termination to timely payment of all wages earned and unpaid prior to termination.
3 Discharged Class Members were entitled to payment of all wages earned and unpaid prior to
4 discharge immediately upon termination. Class Members who resigned were entitled to payment
5 of all wages earned and unpaid prior to resignation within 72 hours after giving notice of resignation
6 or, if they gave 72 hours previous notice, they were entitled to payment of all wages earned and
7 unpaid at the time of resignation.
8 75. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that in the three (3)
9 years before the filing of the Complaint in this Action through the present, Defendants, due to the
10 failure, at times, to provide overtime wages mentioned above, failed to pay Plaintiff and Class
11 Members all wages earned prior to resignation or termination in accordance with Labor Code
12 sections 201 or 202.
13 76. Plaintiff is informed and believes Defendants’ failure, at times, to pay Plaintiff and
14 Class Members all wages earned prior to termination or resignation in accordance with Labor Code
15 sections 201 and 202 was willful. Defendants had the ability to pay all wages earned by Plaintiff
16 and Class Members at the time of termination in accordance with Labor Code sections 201 and 202,
17 but intentionally adopted policies or practices incompatible with the requirements of Labor Code
18 sections 201 and 202 resulting in the failure, at times, to pay all wages earned prior to termination
19 or resignation.
20 77. Pursuant to Labor Code section 203, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to
21 waiting time penalties from the date their earned and unpaid wages were due, upon termination or
22 resignation, until paid, up to a maximum of thirty (30) days.
23 78. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have
24 suffered damages in an amount subject to proof, to the extent they were not paid for all wages earn
Preview
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1 David D. Bibiyan (Cal. Bar No. 287811) 2 david@tomorrowlaw.com Jeffrey D. Klein (Cal. Bar No. 297296) 3 jeff@tomorrowlaw.com Paal Bakstad (Cal. Bar No. 213630) 4 paal@tomorrowlaw.com 8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500 5 Beverly Hills, California 90211 6 Tel: (310) 438-5555; Fax: (310) 300-1705 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff, BRIANNA LAUREN MORENO and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 10 11 BRIANNA LAUREN MORENO, an CASE NO.: individual and on behalf of all others similarly 12 situated, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR: 13 1. FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES; Plaintiff, 14 2. FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES; v. 15 3. FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL 16 PERIODS; 17 CONCENTRA HEALTH SERVICES, INC., a 4. FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST PERIODS; Nevada corporation; REAL TIME STAFFING 18 SERVICES, LLC; a California limited liability 5. WAITING TIME PENALTIES; company; DUKE KRATHIUM, an individual; 19 and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 6. WAGE STATEMENT VIOLATIONS; 20 Defendants. 7. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY WAGES; 21 8. FAILURE TO INDEMNIFY; 22 23 9. FAILURE TO PAY INTEREST ON DEPOSITS: 24 10. VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 227.3 25 11. UNFAIR COMPETITION. 26 27 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT COMPLAINT FOR: 1 2 12. SEXUAL HARASSMENT; 3 13. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; 4 14. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF 5 EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; 6 15. CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE IN 7 VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY. 8 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 9 [Amount in Controversy Exceeds $25,000.00] 10 11 Plaintiff BRIANNA LAUREN MORENO, on behalf of Plaintiff and all others similarly 12 situated, alleges as follows: 13 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 14 INTRODUCTION 15 1. This is a Class Action, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 382, against 16 Concentra Health Services, Inc., and any of its respective subsidiaries or affiliated companies within 17 the State of California (“Concentra”); Real Time Staffing Services, LLC; and any of its respective 18 subsidiaries or affiliated companies within the State of California (“Real Time”);and Duke Krathium 19 (“Krathium” and collectively, with Concentra, Real Time and DOES 1 through 100, as further 20 defined below, “Defendants”) on behalf of Plaintiff and all other current and former non-exempt 21 California employees employed by or formerly employed by Defendants (“Class Members”). 22 PARTIES 23 A. Plaintiff 24 2. Plaintiff BRIANNA LAUREN MORENO is a resident of the State of California. At 25 all relevant times herein, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that 26 Defendants employed Plaintiff as a non-exempt employee, with duties that included, but were not 27 limited to, administrator, contact insurance companies, and check-in and out patients. Plaintiff is 28 2 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Plaintiff BRIANNA LAUREN MORENO 2 worked for Defendants from approximately April 10, 2023 through approximately May 2, 2023. 3 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that she was subjected to 4 sexual harassment, physical touching, and conditions giving rise to emotional distress in her 5 workplace, which she reported to her supervisor. Plaintiff is informed and believes that she was 6 constructively discharged from her employment, sexually harassed against on the basis of her sex, 7 engagement in protected conduct, and for requesting an accommodation to protect herself against further harm and harassment. Due to her membership in a protected class, Plaintiff is entitled to 8 protection under California Department Fair Employment and Housing Act under Government 9 Code section 12900, et seq. (hereinafter “FEHA”) and California common law. 10 B. Defendants 11 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant Concentra 12 is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of 13 the laws of the State of Nevada and doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 14 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant Real Time 15 is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a limited liability company organized and existing under and 16 by virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los Angeles, 17 State of California. 18 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant Krathium 19 is, and at all times relevant hereto was, an individual residing in California, as well as the supervisor 20 of Concentra, and DOES 1 through 100, as further defined below.. 21 7. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, 22 of defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are currently unknown to Plaintiff, 23 who therefore sues defendants by such fictitious names under Code of Civil Procedure section 474. 24 Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that each of the defendants designated 25 herein as DOE is legally responsible in some manner for the unlawful acts referred to herein. 26 Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to reflect the true names and capacities of 27 the defendants designated hereinafter as DOES when such identities become known. Plaintiff is 28 3 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each defendant acted in all respects pertinent 2 to this action, as the agent of the other defendant(s), carried out a joint scheme, business plan or 3 policy in all respects pertinent hereto, and the acts of each defendant are legally attributable to the 4 other defendants. Whenever, heretofore or hereinafter, reference is made to “Defendants,” it shall 5 include Concentra, Real Time, and any of their parent, subsidiary, or affiliated companies within 6 the State of California, as well as Krathium and DOES 1 through 100 identified herein. 7 JOINT LIABILITY ALLEGATIONS 8 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that all the times 9 mentioned herein, each of the Defendants was the agent, principal, employee, employer, 10 representative, joint venture or co-conspirator of each of the other defendants, either actually or 11 ostensibly, and in doing the things alleged herein acted within the course and scope of such agency, 12 employment, joint venture, and conspiracy. 13 9. All of the acts and conduct described herein of each and every corporate defendant 14 was duly authorized, ordered, and directed by the respective and collective defendant corporate 15 employers, and the officers and management-level employees of said corporate employers. In 16 addition thereto, said corporate employers participated in the aforementioned acts and conduct of 17 their said employees, agents, and representatives, and each of them; and upon completion of the 18 aforesaid acts and conduct of said corporate employees, agents, and representatives, the defendant 19 corporation respectively and collectively ratified, accepted the benefits of, condoned, lauded, 20 acquiesced, authorized, and otherwise approved of each and all of the said acts and conduct of the 21 aforementioned corporate employees, agents and representatives. 22 10. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Krathium 23 and DOES 51 through 100 violated, or caused to be violated, the above-referenced and below- 24 referenced Labor Code provisions in violation of Labor Code section 558.1. 25 11. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon allege, that there exists such a 26 unity of interest and ownership between Defendants, and each of them, that their individuality and 27 separateness have ceased to exist. 28 12. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that despite the 4 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 formation of the purported corporate existence of Concentra, Real Time, and DOES 1 through 50, 2 inclusive (the “Alter Ego Defendants”), they, and each of them, are one and the same with Krathium 3 and DOES 51 through 100 (“Individual Defendants”), and each of them, due to, but not limited to, 4 the following reasons: 5 A. The Alter Ego Defendants are completely dominated and controlled by the Individual 6 Defendants who personally committed the wrongful and illegal acts and violated the 7 laws as set forth in this Complaint, and who has hidden and currently hide behind the 8 Alter Ego Defendants to perpetrate frauds, circumvent statutes, or accomplish some 9 other wrongful or inequitable purpose; 10 B. The Individual Defendants derive actual and significant monetary benefits by and 11 through the Alter Ego Defendants’ unlawful conduct, and by using the Alter Ego 12 Defendants as the funding source for the Individual Defendants’ own personal 13 expenditures; 14 C. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Individual Defendants 15 and the Alter Ego Defendants, while really one and the same, were segregated to 16 appear as though separate and distinct for purposes of perpetrating a fraud, 17 circumventing a statute, or accomplishing some other wrongful or inequitable 18 purpose; 19 D. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the business affairs of the 20 Individual Defendants and the Alter Ego Defendants are, and at all relevant times 21 mentioned herein were, so mixed and intermingled that the same cannot reasonably 22 be segregated, and the same are inextricable confusion. The Alter Ego Defendants 23 are, and at all relevant times mentioned herein were, used by the Individual 24 Defendants as mere shells and conduits for the conduct of certain of their, and each 25 of their affairs. The Alter Ego Defendants are, and at all relevant times mentioned 26 herein were, the alter egos of the Individual Defendants; 27 E. The recognition of the separate existence of the Individual Defendants and the Alter 28 Ego Defendants would promote injustice insofar that it would permit defendants to 5 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 insulate themselves from liability to Plaintiff for violations of the Civil Code, Labor 2 Code, and other statutory violations. The corporate existence of these defendants 3 should thus be disregarded in equity and for the ends of justice because such 4 disregard is necessary to avoid fraud and injustice to Plaintiff herein; 5 F. Accordingly, the Alter Ego Defendants constitute the alter ego of the Individual 6 Defendants (and vice versa), and the fiction of their separate corporate existence 7 must be disregarded; 8 13. As a result of the aforementioned facts, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based 9 thereon alleges that Defendants, and each of them, are joint employers. 10 EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 11 29. Plaintiff timely filed a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing 12 (“DFEH”) against the Defendants and obtained the Notice of Right to Sue on February 7, 2024, 13 thereby exhausting her administrative remedies. 14 JURISDICTION 15 14. Jurisdiction exists in the Superior Court of the State of California pursuant to Code 16 of Civil Procedure section 410.10. 17 15. Venue is proper in Los Angeles County, California pursuant to Code of Civil 18 Procedure sections 392, et seq. because, among other things, Los Angeles County is where the 19 causes of action complained of herein arose; the county in which the employment relationship 20 began; the county in which performance of the employment contract, or part of it, between Plaintiff 21 and Defendants was due to be performed; the county in which the employment contract, or part of 22 it, between Plaintiff and Defendants was actually performed; and the county in which Defendants, 23 or some of them, reside. Moreover, the unlawful acts alleged herein have a direct effect on Plaintiff 24 and Class Members in Los Angeles County, and because Defendants employ numerous Class 25 Members in Los Angeles County. 26 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 27 16. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the 28 present, Defendants have, at times, failed to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and Class Members, or 6 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 some of them, in violation of California state wage and hour laws as a result of, without limitation, 2 Plaintiff and Class Members working over eight (8) hours per day, forty (40) hours per week, and 3 seven consecutive work days in a work week without being properly compensated for hours worked 4 in excess of (8) hours per day in a work day, forty (40) hours per week in a work week, and/or hours 5 worked on the seventh consecutive work day in a work week by, among other things, failing to 6 accurately track and/or pay for all minutes actually worked at the proper overtime rate of pay ; 7 engaging, suffering, or permitting employees to work off the clock, including, without limitation, 8 by requiring Plaintiff and Class Members: to come early to work and leave late work without being 9 able to clock in for all that time, to suffer under Defendants’ control due to long lines for clocking 10 in, to complete pre-shift tasks before clocking in and post-shift tasks after clocking out, to clock out 11 for meal periods and continue working, to clock out for rest periods, to don and doff uniforms and/or 12 safety equipment off the clock, to attend company meetings off the clock, failing to include all forms 13 of remuneration, including non-discretionary bonuses, incentive pay, meal allowances, mask 14 allowances, gift cards and other forms of remuneration into the regular rate of pay for the pay periods 15 where overtime was worked and the additional compensation was earned for the purpose of 16 calculating the overtime rate of pay; detrimental rounding of employee time entries, editing and/or 17 manipulation of time entries; and by attempting but failing to properly implement an alternative 18 workweek schedule (“AWS”) (including, without limitation, by failing to implement a written 19 agreement designating the regularly scheduled alternative workweek in which the specified number 20 of work days and work hours are regularly recurring; failing to adopt the AWS in a secret ballot 21 election, before the performance of work, by at least a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the affected 22 employees in the work unit; failing to follow the notice/disclosures procedures prior to any AWS 23 election; and/or failing to register an AWS election with the State of California, as required by Labor 24 Code section 511 and applicable Wage Orders) to the detriment of Plaintiff and Class Members. 25 17. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this Action and continuing to the 26 present, Defendants have, at times, failed to pay minimum wages to Plaintiff and Class Members, 27 or some of them, in violation of California state wage and hour laws as a result of, among other 28 things, at times, failing to accurately track and/or pay for all hours actually worked at their regular 7 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 rate of pay that is above the minimum wage; engaging, suffering, or permitting employees to work 2 off the clock, including, without limitation, by requiring Plaintiff and Class Members: to come early 3 to work and leave late work without being able to clock in for all that time, to suffer under 4 Defendants’ control due to long lines for clocking in, to complete pre-shift tasks before clocking in 5 and post-shift tasks after clocking out, to clock out for meal periods and continue working, to clock 6 out for rest periods, to don and doff uniforms and/or safety equipment off the clock, to attend 7 company meetings off the clock, detrimental rounding of employee time entries; editing and/or 8 manipulation of time entries to show less hours than actually worked; failing to pay split shift 9 premiums; and failing to pay reporting time pay to the detriment of Plaintiff and Class Members. 10 18. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this Action and continuing to the 11 present, Defendants have, at times, failed to provide Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of them, 12 full, timely thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal period for days on which they worked more than 13 five (5) hours in a work day and a second thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal period for days on 14 which they worked in excess of ten (10) hours in a work day, and failing to provide compensation 15 for such unprovided meal periods as required by California wage and hour laws. 16 19. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the 17 present, Defendants have, at times, failed to authorize and permit Plaintiff and Class Members, or 18 some of them, to take rest periods of at least ten (10) minutes per four (4) hours worked or major 19 fraction thereof and failed to provide compensation for such unprovided rest periods as required by 20 California wage and hour laws. 21 20. For at least three (3) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the 22 present, Defendants have, at times, failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of them, the 23 full amount of their wages owed to them upon termination and/or resignation as required by Labor 24 Code sections 201 and 202, including for, without limitation, failing to pay overtime wages, 25 minimum wages, premium wages, and vacation pay pursuant to Labor Code section 227.3. 26 21. For at least one (1) year prior to the filing of this Action and continuing to the present, 27 Defendants have, at times, failed to furnish Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of them, with 28 itemized wage statements that accurately reflect gross wages earned; total hours worked; net wages 8 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 earned; all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of 2 hours worked at each hourly rate; and other such information as required by Labor Code section 3 226, subdivision (a). As a result thereof, Defendants have further failed to furnish employees with 4 an accurate calculation of gross and gross wages earned, as well as gross and net wages paid. 5 22. For at least one (1) year prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the present, 6 Defendants have, at times, failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of them, the full 7 amount of their wages for labor performed in a timely fashion as required under Labor Code section 8 204. 9 23. For at least three (3) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the 10 present, Defendants have, at times, failed to indemnify Class Members, or some of them, for the 11 costs incurred in purchasing and/or laundering mandatory work uniforms. 12 24. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the 13 present, Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to provide Plaintiff and similarly situated 14 employees or former employees within the State of California with compensation at their final rate 15 of pay for unused vested paid vacation days pursuant to Labor Code section 227.3. 16 25. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the 17 present, Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to provide Plaintiffs and similarly 18 situated employees or former employees within the State of California with the rights provided to 19 them under the Healthy Workplace Heathy Families Act of 2014, codified at Labor Code section 20 245, et seq. 21 26. Plaintiff, on their own behalf and on behalf of Class Members, brings this action 22 pursuant to, including but not limited to, Labor Code sections 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7, 23 227.3, 245, et seq., 404, 510, 512, 558.1, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 2802, and California Code of 24 Regulations, Title 8, section 11040, seeking overtime wages, minimum wages, payment of premium 25 wages for missed meal and rest periods, failure to pay timely wages, waiting time penalties, wage 26 statement penalties, failure to indemnify work-related expenses, failure to pay interest on deposits 27 made, failing to pay vested vacation time at the proper rate of pay, other such provisions of 28 California law, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 9 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 27. Plaintiff, on Plaintiff’s own behalf and on behalf of Class Members, pursuant to 2 Business and Professions Code sections 17200 through 17208, also seeks (an) injunction(s) 3 prohibiting Defendants from further violating the Labor Code and requiring the establishment of 4 appropriate and effective means to prevent further violations, as well as all monies owed but 5 withheld and retained by Defendants to which Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled, as well as 6 restitution of amounts owed. 7 28. Throughout the course of her employment, Plaintiff was subject to sexual harassment 8 at the hands of Defendants’ supervisor, Duke Krathium (“Krathium”). 9 29. For example, in or around April 2023, during the first week Plaintiff started working for 10 Defendants, 11 Krathium put his hands on Plaintiff’s back. In or around April 27, 2023, Krathium walked by Plaintiff and rubbed Plaintiff’s arm making Plaintiff feel very uncomfortable. 12 30. In or around April 28, 2023, Krathium ask Plaintiff to take a picture of him and other 13 colleagues Hailey and Cong. Plaintiff took the picture and then while returning his phone to 14 Krathium he put his hands on Plaintiff’s waist and squeezed it. Plaintiff felt very uncomfortable, 15 embarrassed, and reported the harassment to her immediate supervisor Ceclia Ceballos. Cecilia 16 Ceballos responded to Plaintiff by stating that Krathium can be a little touchy on the shoulder area. 17 31. On or about May 2, 2023, Plaintiff complained to Luis Tijerino, Human Resources 18 manager about the sexual harassment and that she had reported it to her immediate supervisor Ceclia 19 Ceballos but nothing was done. 20 32. Later that day Ceclia Ceballos called Plaintiff and asked if she was going to come 21 back to work. As a result of the continuing harassment Defendants’ constructively terminated 22 Plaintiff. 23 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 24 33. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of Plaintiff and Class Members as a class action 25 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 382. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all current 26 and former non-exempt employees of Defendants within the State of California at any time 27 commencing four (4) years preceding the filing of Plaintiff’s complaint up until the time that notice 28 of the class action is provided to the class (collectively referred to as “Class Members”). 10 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 34. Plaintiff reserves the right under California Rule of Court rule 3.765, subdivision (b) 2 to amend or modify the class description with greater specificity, further divide the defined class 3 into subclasses, and to further specify or limit the issues for which certification is sought. 4 35. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action under 5 the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 382 because there is a well-defined community 6 of interest in the litigation and the proposed Class is easily ascertainable. 7 A. Numerosity 8 36. The potential Class Members as defined are so numerous that joinder of all the 9 members of the Class is impracticable. While the precise number of Class Members has not been 10 determined yet, Plaintiff is informed and believes that there are over seventy-five (75) Class 11 Members employed by Defendants within the State of California. 12 37. Accounting for employee turnover during the relevant periods necessarily increases 13 this number. Plaintiff alleges Defendants’ employment records would provide information as to the 14 number and location of all Class Members. Joinder of all members of the proposed Class is not 15 practicable. 16 B. Commonality 17 38. There are questions of law and fact common to Class Members. These common 18 questions include, but are not limited to: 19 A. Did Defendants violate Labor Code sections 510 and 1194 by failing to pay all hours 20 worked at a proper overtime rate of pay? 21 B. Did Defendants violate Labor Code sections 510, 1194 and 1197 by failing to pay 22 for all other time worked at the employee’s regular rate of pay and a rate of pay that 23 is greater than the applicable minimum wage? 24 C. Did Defendants violate Labor Code section 512 by not authorizing or permitting 25 Class Members to take compliant meal periods? 26 D. Did Defendants violate Labor Code section 226.7 by not providing Class Members 27 with additional wages for missed or interrupted meal periods? 28 E. Did Defendants violate applicable Wage Orders by not authorizing or permitting 11 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 Class Members to take compliant rest periods? 2 F. Did Defendants violate Labor Code section 226.7 by not providing Class Members 3 with additional wages for missed rest periods? 4 G. Did Defendants violate Labor Code sections 201 and 202 by failing to pay Class 5 Members upon termination or resignation all wages earned? 6 H. Are Defendants liable to Class Members for waiting time penalties under Labor Code 7 section 203? 8 I. Did Defendants violate Labor Code section 226, subdivision (a) by not furnishing 9 Class Members with accurate wage statements? 10 J. Did Defendants fail to pay Class Members in a timely fashion as required under 11 Labor Code section 204? 12 K. Did Defendants fail to indemnify Class Members for all necessary expenditures or 13 losses incurred in direct consequence of the discharge of their duties or by obedience 14 to the directions of Defendants as required under Labor Code section 2802? 15 L. Did Defendants fail to return deposits made by Class Members with accrued interest 16 thereon as required under Labor Code section 404? 17 M. Did Defendants violate Labor Code section 227.3 by not providing Class Members 18 with compensation at their final rate of pay for vested paid vacation time. 19 N. Did Defendants violate the Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code 20 section 17200, et seq., by their unlawful practices as alleged herein? 21 O. Are Class Members entitled to restitution of wages under Business and Professions 22 Code section 17203? 23 P. Are Class Members entitled to costs and attorneys’ fees? 24 Q. Are Class Members entitled to interest? 25 C. Typicality 26 39. The claims of Plaintiff herein alleged are typical of those claims which could be 27 alleged by any Class Members, and the relief sought is typical of the relief which would be sought 28 by each Class Member in separate actions. Plaintiff and Class Members sustained injuries and 12 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 damages arising out of and caused by Defendants’ common course of conduct in violation of laws 2 and regulations that have the force and effect of law and statutes as alleged herein. 3 D. Adequacy of Representation 4 40. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interest of Class 5 Members. Counsel who represents Plaintiff is competent and experienced in litigating wage and 6 hour class actions. 7 E. Superiority of Class Action 8 41. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient 9 adjudication of this controversy. Individual joinder of all Class Members is not practicable, and 10 questions of law and fact common to Class Members predominate over any questions affecting only 11 individual Class Members. Class Members, as further described therein, have been damaged and 12 are entitled to recovery by reason of Defendants’ policies and/or practices that have resulted in the 13 violation of the Labor Code at times, as set out herein. 14 42. Class action treatment will allow Class Members to litigate their claims in a manner 15 that is most efficient and economical for the parties and the judicial system. Plaintiff is unaware of 16 any difficulties that are likely to be encountered in the management of this action that would 17 preclude its maintenance as a class action. 18 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 19 (Failure to Pay Overtime Wages – Against All Defendants) 20 43. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in 21 the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat. 22 44. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class Members were employees or former 23 employees of Defendants covered by Labor Code sections 510, 1194 and 1199, as well as applicable 24 Wage Orders. 25 45. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Labor Code section 510 was in effect and 26 provided: “(a) Eight hours of labor constitutes a day’s work. Any work in excess of eight hours in 27 one workday and any work in excess of forty hours in any one workweek . . . shall be compensated 28 at the rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for an employee.” 13 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 46. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Labor Code section 510 further provided that 2 “[a]ny work in excess of 12 hours in one day shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice 3 the regular rate of pay for an employee. In addition, any work in excess of eight hours on any 4 seventh day of a workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of 5 pay.” 6 47. Four (4) years prior to the filing of the Complaint in this Action through the present, 7 Plaintiff and Class Members, at times, worked for Defendants during shifts that consisted of more 8 than eight (8) hours in a workday and/or more than forty hours in a workweek, and/or seven (7) 9 consecutive workdays in a workweek, without being paid overtime wages for all hours worked as a 10 result of, including but not limited to, Defendants failing to accurately track and/or pay for all hours 11 actually worked at the proper overtime rate of pay; engaging, suffering, or permitting employees to 12 work off the clock, including, without limitation, by requiring Plaintiff and Class Members: to come 13 early to work and leave late work without being able to clock in for all that time, to suffer under 14 Defendants’ control due to long lines for clocking in, to complete pre-shift tasks before clocking in 15 and post-shift tasks after clocking out, to clock out for meal periods and continue working, to clock 16 out for rest periods, to don and doff uniforms and/or safety equipment off the clock, to attend 17 company meetings off the clock, failing to include all forms of remuneration, including non- 18 discretionary bonuses, incentive pay, meal allowances, mask allowances, gift cards and other forms 19 of remuneration into the regular rate of pay for the pay periods where overtime was worked and the 20 additional compensation was earned for the purpose of calculating the overtime rate of pay; 21 detrimental rounding of employee time entries, editing and/or manipulation of time entries; and by 22 attempting but failing to properly implement an alternative workweek schedule (“AWS”) 23 (including, without limitation, by failing to implement a written agreement designating the regularly 24 scheduled alternative workweek in which the specified number of work days and work hours are 25 regularly recurring; failing to adopt the AWS in a secret ballot election, before the performance of 26 work, by at least a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the affected employees in the work unit; failing to follow 27 the notice/disclosures procedures prior to any AWS election; and/or failing to register an AWS 28 election with the State of California, as required by Labor Code section 511 and applicable Wage 14 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 Orders) to the detriment of Plaintiff and Class Members. 2 48. Accordingly, by requiring Plaintiff and Class Members to, at times, work greater 3 than eight (8) hours per workday, forty (40) hours per workweek, and/or seven (7) straight workdays 4 without properly compensating overtime wages at the proper overtime rate of pay, Defendants, on 5 occasion, willfully violated the provisions of the Labor Code, among others, sections 510, 1194, and 6 applicable IWC Wage Orders, and California law. 7 49. As a result of the unlawful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff and Class Members have 8 been deprived of overtime wages in amounts to be determined at trial, and are entitled to recovery, 9 plus interest and penalties thereon, attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to Labor Code section 1194 10 and 1199, Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 and 1032, and Civil Code section 3287. 11 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 12 (Failure to Pay Minimum Wages – Against All Defendants) 13 50. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in 14 the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat. 15 51. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class Members were employees or former 16 employees of Defendants covered by Labor Code sections 1197, 1199 and applicable Wage Orders. 17 52. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1197 and applicable Wage Orders, Plaintiff and 18 Class Members were entitled to receive minimum wages for all hours worked or otherwise under 19 Defendants’ control. 20 53. For four (4) years prior to the filing of the Complaint in this Action through the 21 present, Defendants failed, at times, to accurately track and/or pay for all hours actually worked at 22 their regular rate of pay that is above the minimum wage; engaged, suffered, or permitted employees 23 to work off the clock, including, without limitation, by requiring Plaintiff and Class Members: to 24 come early to work and leave late work without being able to clock in for all that time, to suffer 25 under Defendants’ control due to long lines for clocking in, to complete pre-shift tasks before 26 clocking in and post-shift tasks after clocking out, to clock out for meal periods and continue 27 working, to clock out for rest periods, to don and doff uniforms and/or safety equipment off the 28 clock, to attend company meetings off the clock, detrimental rounding of employee time entries; 15 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 editing and/or manipulation of time entries to show less hours than actually worked; failing to pay 2 split shift premiums; and failing to pay reporting time pay to the detriment of Plaintiff and Class 3 Members. 4 54. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have 5 suffered damages in an amount, subject to proof, to the extent they were not paid minimum wages 6 for all hours worked or otherwise due. 7 55. Pursuant to Labor Code sections 218.6, 1194, 1194.2, Code of Civil Procedure 8 sections 1021.5 and 1032, and Civil Code section 3287, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to 9 recover the full amount of unpaid minimum wages, interest and penalties thereon, liquidated 10 damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit. 11 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 12 (Failure to Provide Meal Periods – Against All Defendants) 13 56. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in 14 the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat. 15 57. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class Members were employees or former 16 employees of Defendants covered by Labor Code section 512 and applicable Wage Orders. 17 58. Pursuant to Labor Code section 512 and applicable Wage Orders, no employer shall 18 employ an employee for a work period of more than five (5) hours without a timely meal break of 19 not less than thirty (30) minutes in which the employee is relieved of all of his or her duties. 20 Furthermore, no employer shall employ an employee for a work period of more than ten (10) hours 21 per day without providing the employee with a second timely meal period of not less than thirty (30) 22 minutes in which the employee is relieved of all of his or her duties. 23 59. Pursuant to Labor Code section 226.7, if an employer fails to provide an employee 24 with a meal period as provided in the applicable Wage Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, 25 the employer shall pay the employee one (1) additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate 26 of compensation for each workday that the meal period is not provided. 27 60. For four (4) years prior to the filing of the Complaint in this Action through the 28 present, Plaintiff and Class Members were, at times, not provided complete, timely 30-minute, duty- 16 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 free uninterrupted meal periods every five hours of work without waiving the right to take them, as 2 permitted. Moreover, at times, Defendants failed to provide one (1) additional hour of pay at the 3 Class Member’s regular rate of compensation on the occasions that Class Members were not 4 provided compliant meal periods. 5 61. By their failure to provide Plaintiff and Class Members compliant meal periods as 6 contemplated by Labor Code section 512, among other California authorities, and failing, at times, 7 to provide compensation for such unprovided meal periods, as alleged above, Defendants willfully 8 violated the provisions of Labor Code section 512 and applicable Wage Orders. 9 62. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have 10 suffered damages in an amount, subject to proof, to the extent they were not paid additional pay 11 owed for missed, untimely, interrupted, incomplete and/or on-duty meal periods. 12 63. Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to recover the full amount of their unpaid 13 additional pay for unprovided compliant meal periods, in amounts to be determined at trial, plus 14 interest and penalties thereon, attorneys’ fees, and costs, under Labor Code sections 226 and 226.7, 15 Code of Civil Procedure sections 1021.5 and 1032, and Civil Code section 3287. 16 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 17 (Failure to Provide Rest Periods – Against All Defendants) 18 64. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in 19 the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat. 20 65. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class Members were employees or former 21 employees of Defendants covered by applicable Wage Orders. 22 66. California law and applicable Wage Orders require that employers “authorize and 23 permit” employees to take ten (10) minute rest periods in about the middle of each four (4) hour 24 work period “or major fraction thereof.” Accordingly, employees who work shifts of three and-a- 25 half (3 ½) to six (6) hours must be provided ten (10) minutes of paid rest period, employees who 26 work shifts of more than six (6) and up to ten (10) hours must be provided with twenty (20) minutes 27 of paid rest period, and employees who work shifts of more than ten (10) hours must be provided 28 thirty (30) minutes of paid rest period. 17 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 67. Pursuant to Labor Code section 226.7, if an employer fails to provide an employee 2 with a meal period or rest period as provided in the applicable Wage Order of the Industrial Welfare 3 Commission, the employer shall pay the employee one (1) additional hour of pay at the employee’s 4 regular rate of compensation for each work day that the rest period is not provided. 5 68. For four (4) years prior to the filing of the Complaint in this Action through the 6 present, Plaintiff and Class Members were, at times, not authorized or permitted to take complete, 7 timely 10-minute, duty-free uninterrupted rest periods every four (4) hours of work or major fraction 8 thereof. Moreover, at times, Defendants failed to provide one (1) additional hour of pay at the Class 9 Member’s regular rate of compensation on the occasions that Class Members were not authorized 10 or permitted to take compliant rest periods. 11 69. By their failure, at times, to authorize and permit Plaintiff and Class Members to take 12 rest periods contemplated by California law, and one (1) additional hour of pay at the employee’s 13 regular rate of compensation for such unprovided rest periods, as alleged above, Defendants 14 willfully violated the provisions of Labor Code section 226.7 and applicable Wage Orders. 15 70. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have 16 suffered damages in an amount, subject to proof, to the extent they were not paid additional pay 17 owed for rest periods that they were not authorized or permitted to take. 18 71. Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to recover the full amount of their unpaid 19 additional pay for unprovided compliant rest periods, in amounts to be determined at trial, plus 20 interest and penalties thereon, attorneys’ fees, and costs, under Labor Code sections 226 and 226.7, 21 Code of Civil Procedure sections 1021.5 and 1032, and Civil Code section 3287. 22 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 23 (Failure to Pay All Wages Due Upon Termination – Against All Defendants) 24 72. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in 25 the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat. 26 73. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class Members were employees or former 27 employees of Defendants covered by Labor Code sections 201, 202 and 203, as well as applicable 28 Wage Orders. 18 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 74. Pursuant to Labor Code sections 201 and 202, Plaintiff and Class Members were 2 entitled upon termination to timely payment of all wages earned and unpaid prior to termination. 3 Discharged Class Members were entitled to payment of all wages earned and unpaid prior to 4 discharge immediately upon termination. Class Members who resigned were entitled to payment 5 of all wages earned and unpaid prior to resignation within 72 hours after giving notice of resignation 6 or, if they gave 72 hours previous notice, they were entitled to payment of all wages earned and 7 unpaid at the time of resignation. 8 75. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that in the three (3) 9 years before the filing of the Complaint in this Action through the present, Defendants, due to the 10 failure, at times, to provide overtime wages mentioned above, failed to pay Plaintiff and Class 11 Members all wages earned prior to resignation or termination in accordance with Labor Code 12 sections 201 or 202. 13 76. Plaintiff is informed and believes Defendants’ failure, at times, to pay Plaintiff and 14 Class Members all wages earned prior to termination or resignation in accordance with Labor Code 15 sections 201 and 202 was willful. Defendants had the ability to pay all wages earned by Plaintiff 16 and Class Members at the time of termination in accordance with Labor Code sections 201 and 202, 17 but intentionally adopted policies or practices incompatible with the requirements of Labor Code 18 sections 201 and 202 resulting in the failure, at times, to pay all wages earned prior to termination 19 or resignation. 20 77. Pursuant to Labor Code section 203, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to 21 waiting time penalties from the date their earned and unpaid wages were due, upon termination or 22 resignation, until paid, up to a maximum of thirty (30) days. 23 78. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have 24 suffered damages in an amount subject to proof, to the extent they were not paid for all wages earn