Preview
CIV-130
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY STATE BAR NUMBER: 349176 FOR COURT USE ONLY
NAME: Caroline Hill
FIRM NAME: Mallison & Martinez
STREET ADDRESS: 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
CITY: OAkaland STATE: CA ZIP CODE: 94612
TELEPHONE NO.: (510) 832-9999 FAX NO.: (510) 832-1101
EMAIL ADDRESS: enotices@themmlawfirm.com; chill@themmlawfirm.com
ATTORNEY FOR (name): Albino Guzman, Barbarino Ramirez, Guillermo Ramirez, Arturo Cruz, Ruben Martinez, and Leonel Martinez
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Monterey
STREET ADDRESS: 1200 Aguajito Road
MAILING ADDRESS: 1200 Aguajito Road
CITY AND ZIP CODE: Monterey
BRANCH NAME: Monterey Courthouse
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Albino Guzman, et al.
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Central Cali Farm Labor, et al.
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
OR ORDER CASE NUMBER:
23CV002860
(Check one): ✖ UNLIMITED CASE LIMITED CASE
(Amount demanded (Amount demanded was
exceeded $35,000) $35,000 or less)
TO ALL PARTIES :
1. A judgment, decree, or order was entered in this action on (date): January 29th, 2024
2. A copy of the judgment, decree, or order is attached to this notice.
Date: 03/05/2024
Caroline Hill
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF ✖ ATTORNEY PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY) (SIGNATURE)
Page 1 of 2
Form Approved for Optional Use
Judicial Council of California NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER www.courts.ca.gov
CIV-130 [Rev. January 1, 2024]
CIV-130
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: CASE NUMBER:
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT:
PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER
(NOTE: You cannot serve the Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order if you are a party in the action. The person who served
the notice must complete this proof of service.)
1. I am at least 18 years old and not a party to this action. I am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing took
place, and my residence or business address is (specify):
2. I served a copy of the Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order by enclosing it in a sealed envelope with postage
fully prepaid and (check one):
a. deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service.
b. placed the sealed envelope for collection and processing for mailing, following this business's usual practices,
with which I am readily familiar. On the same day correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is
deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service.
3. The Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order was mailed:
a. on (date):
b. from (city and state):
4. The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows:
a. Name of person served: c. Name of person served:
Street address: Street address:
City: City:
State and zip code: State and zip code:
b. Name of person served: d. Name of person served:
Street address: Street address:
City: City:
State and zip code: State and zip code:
Names and addresses of additional persons served are attached. (You may use form POS-030(P).)
5. Number of pages attached:
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date:
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT) (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT)
Page 2 of 2
CIV-130 [Rev. January 1, 2024] NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER
ction and privacy, please press the Clear This Form button after you have printed
Print thisthe form.
form Save this form Clear this form
STAN S. MALLISON (Bar No. 184191)
1
StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com ELECTRONICALLY FILED BY
HECTOR R. MARTINEZ (Bar N0. 206336) Superior Court of California,
2
HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com County of Monterey
GONZALO QUEZADA (Bar No. 338386) On 01/31/2024
3
GQuezada@TheMMLawFirm.com By Deputy: Cerna, Brenda
CAROLINE L. HILL (Bar No. 349176)
4
CHill@ TheMMLawFirm.com
MALLISON & MARTINEZ
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
56789
Oakland, California 94612-3547
Telephone: (510) 832-9999
Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
Attorneys for Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves
and on behalf of those similarly situated
JENNIFER E. DOUGLAS (Bar N0. 172770)
10 MELISSA CULP GRANILLO (Bar No. 265159)
DICKENSON PEATMAN & FOGARTY, P.C.
11 1500 First Street, Suite 200
12
Napa, CA 94559
Telephone: (707) 261-7000
13 Facsimile: (707) 340-7239
Email: jdouglas@dpf-law.com
14 mgranillo@dpflaw.com
15 GERARDO HERNANDEZ (Bar No. 292809)
16 ghernandez@littler.com
EMILIO A. RODRIGUEZ (Bar No. 340877)
17 earodriguez@littler.com
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
18 5200 North Palm Avenue
Suite 302
19
Fresno, California 93704
20 Telephone: (559) 244-7500
Facsimile: (559) 244-7525
21
Attorneys for Defendants
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
28 STIPULATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY
3
Case No. 23CV002860
4 ALBINO GUZMAN, BARBARINO
RAMIREZ, GUILLERMO RAMIREZ, STIPULATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED
[m
56789
ARTURO CRUZ, RUBEN MARTINEZ, and
LEONEL MARTINEZ, on behalf of COMPLAINT; ORDER
themselves and those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, The Honorable Carrie M. Panetta
VS.
10 CENTRAL CALI FARM LABOR, a
California Corporation; AGUILAR FARMING
11 INC., a California Corporation; J LOHR
VINEYARDS, INC., a California Corporation;
12 CAGLIERO RANCHES, INC., a California
13 Corporation; FILBERTO AGUILAR PEREZ,
an individual, and JOSE ANTONIO
14 AGUILAR, an individual; and DOES 1
through 20,
15
Defendants.
16
17 It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between Plaintiffs Albino Guzman, Barbarino
18 Ramirez, Guillermo Ramirez, Arturo Cruz, Ruben Martinez, and Leonel Martinez (the "Plaintiffs")
19 and defendants Central Cali Farm Labor, Aguilar Farming, Inc., J Lohr Vineyards, Inc., Cagliero
20 Ranches, Inc., Filberto Aguilar Perez, Jose Antonio Aguilar (the "Defendants"), sometimes referred
21 to as "the Parties," the following:
22 RECITALS
23 WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed this wage and hour case on September 1, 2023. Plaintiffs are
24 individuals who were employed as non-exempt employees in Monterey County, California for
25 Defendant Central Cali and/or Aguilar Farming Inc providing labor for Defendant J Lohr Vineyards,
26 Inc. and/or Defendant Cagliero Ranches, Inc., and does 1-50 during the class period.
27
2
28 STIPULATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 WHEREAS, Defendant J Lohr Vineyards, Inc. timely filed an Answer on November 9,
2 2023. Defendant Cagliero Ranches timely filed an Answer on November 14, 2023. Defendants
3 Central Cali Farm Labor, Aguilar Farming, Inc., Filberto Aguilar Perez, and Jose Aguilar timely
4 filed Answers on November 29, 2023.
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs realized an inadvertent error involving the time period worked for
56789
four of the five plaintiffs in Plaintiffs' Complaint. The Complaint provides the time period worked
for all Plaintiffs as "on or around December 2019 to January 2020." This is incorrect. Plaintiff Albino
Guzman was employed on or around December 2019 to January 2020. The remaining Plaintiffs were
employed on or around December 2022 to January 2023. These errors were inadvertent.
10 WHEREAS, the Parties met and conferred in preparation for the Initial Case Management
11 Conference scheduled on January 9, 2024. Plaintiff's counsel subsequently informed counsel for
12 Defendants of these errors. Plaintiff's counsel provided proposed amendments in the form hereto
13 attached as Exhibit 1, First Amended Complaint (Redline).
14 WHEREAS, to conserve judicial resources and costs to the Parties, the Parties stipulate that
15 Plaintiffs may have leave to file their First Amended Complaint in the form hereto attached as
16 Exhibit 2, First Amended Complaint.
17 WHEREAS, to promote efficiency and conserve judicial resources, the Parties stipulate that
18 Plaintiff' s First Amended Complaint be deemed filed as of the date this Stipulation for Leave to File
19 Plaintiff' s First Amended Complaint and [Proposed] Order is signed by the Court.
20 WHEREAS, the Parties further stipulate that service of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint
21 will be effective as of the date of Plaintiffs' service upon Defendants of Notice of Entry of Order on
22 this Stipulation for Leave to File Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint.
23
24 //
25 //
26 //
27 //
3
28 STIPULATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 STIPULATION
2 THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the undersigned parties,
3 through their respective counsel, as follows:
4 l. The Parties stipulate that to conserve judicial resources and costs to the Parties, that
Plaintiffs may have leave to file their First Amended Complaint in the form as hereto attached as
56789
Exhibit 2, First Amended Complaint.
2. The Parties further stipulate that to promote efficiency and conserve judicial
resources, the Parties stipulate that Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint be deemed filed as of the
date this Stipulation for Leave to File Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and [Proposed] Order is
10 signed by the Court.
11 3. The Parties further stipulate that service of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint will
12 be effective as of the date of Plaintiffs' service upon Defendants of Notice of Entry of Order on this
13 Stipulation for Leave to File Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint.
14 4. The Parties further stipulate that Defendants' time to file a responsive pleading to
15 Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint will follow per California Code of Civil Procedure following
16 service of the Notice of Entry of this Order.
17
18 IT IS SO STIPULATED.
19
DATED: January 12, 2024 MALLISON & MARTINEZ
20
21
By
22 sail Mauison
Hector Martinez
23 Gonzalo Quezada
Caroline L. Hill
24
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
25
26
27
4
28 STIPULATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 DATED: January 12, 2024
2
DICKENSON PEATMAN & FOGARTY, P.C.
3
By; /s/Melissa C. Granillo
4 Jennifer E. Douglas
Melissa Culp Granillo
56789
Attorneys for Defendants
J. Lohr Vineyards &
Cagliero Ranches, Inc.
DATED: January 12, 2024
10 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
11 By: /s/Emi1io A. Rodriguez
Gerardo Hernandez
12 Emilio A. Rodriguez
13
Attorneys for Defendants
14 Central Cali Farm Labor, Inc.
Aguilar Farming, Inc.
15 Filberto Aguilar Perez
Jose Antonio Aguilar
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
5
28 STIPULATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 m1 ORDER
2 Upon consideration of the foregoing stipulation and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED
3 THAT:
4 1. That Plaintiffs are hereby granted leave of Court to file their First Amended Complaint
attached to the Stipulation as Exhibit 2, First Amended Complaint.
56789
2 The Clerk of the Court shall file the First Amended Complaint, attached to the
Stipulation as Exhibit 2, as of the date of this Order;
3 Service of the First Amended Complaint will be deemed effective upon Plaintiffs'
service of Notice of Entry of this Order upon Defendants.
10 4 A
Defendants' time in which to file a responsive pleading to Plaintiffs' First Amended
11 Complaint will follow per the California Code of Civil Procedure following service of
12 the Notice of Entry of this Order.
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
WMM
15
16
Dated: 1/29/2024
17 HON. CirfiRIflZT fiANETTA
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
6
28 STIPULATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
EXHIBIT 2
1 STAN S. MALLISON (Bar No. 184191)
StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com
2 HECTOR R. MARTINEZ (Bar No. 206336)
HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com
3 GONZALO QUEZADA (Bar No. 338386)
GQuezada@TheMMLawFirm.com
4 MALLISON & MARTINEZ
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
Oakland, California 94612-3547
5 Telephone: (510) 832-9999
Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
6
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
7
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY
11 ALBINO GUZMAN, BARBARINO Case No. 23CV002860
RAMIREZ, GUILLERMO RAMIREZ,
12 ARTURO CRUZ, RUBEN MARTINEZ, and PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED
LEONEL MARTINEZ, individually and on CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR:
13 behalf of a class of similarly situated 1. Failure to Pay Minimum Wages (LC
individuals and the State of California, §§ 1194, 1194.2 1197(A))
14
2. Waiting Time Penalty (LC §§ 201,
15 Plaintiffs, 202, 203)
3. Wage Statement and Record Keeping
16 vs. Violations (LC §§ 226, 1174 et al);
17 4. Violation of UCL (Bus. & Prof. Code
CENTRAL CALI FARM LABOR a §§ 17200 et seq.); and
18 California Corporation; AGUILAR
FARMING INC., a California Corporation, J
LOHR VINEYARDS, INC., a California NON-CLASS COMPLAINT FOR:
19
Corporation, CAGLIERO RANCHES, INC., a 5. Penalties Under LC 2699 et seq.
20 California Corporation, FILBERTO
AGUILAR PEREZ, an individual, JOSE DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
21 ANTONIO AGUILAR, an individual; and
22 DOES 1 through 50,
23 Defendants.
24
25
26
27
28
1
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND PAGA COMPLAINT- DEMAND FOR JURY
TRIAL
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 1. Plaintiffs ALBINO GUZMAN, BARBARINO RAMIREZ, GUILLERMO
3 RAMIREZ, ARTURO CRUZ, RUBEN MARTINEZ, and LEONEL MARTINEZ, (collectively
4 “PLAINTIFFS”) bring this action against CENTRAL CALI FARM LABOR., AGUILAR
5 FARMING INC., J LOHR VINEYARDS, INC., CAGLIERO RANCHES, INC., FILBERTO
6 AGUILAR PEREZ, an individual; JOSE ANTONIO AGUILAR, an individual, and DOES 1
7 through 50 (collectively “DEFENDANTS”) for failure to provide accurate wage statements,
8 failure to reimburse employees for necessary business expenditures, and violation of unfair
9 competition law.
10 2. The allegations in this complaint are made on the basis of PLAINTIFFS’ personal
11 knowledge, and on information and belief based on a reasonable investigation under the
12 circumstances.
13 3. As a result of the violations described herein, PLAINTIFFS bring this class action
14 on behalf of a Class of non-exempt workers employed by DEFENDANTS in California.
15 4. PLAINTIFFS’ California Private Attorney General Act, Labor Code §§ 2698 et
16 seq. (“PAGA”) claim is brought as an enforcement action on behalf of the state for penalties and
17 other remedies on behalf of the State of California and current and former employees as
18 expressly permitted by that statute. All PAGA administrative requirements will have been met
19 for this purpose prior to service of the instant amended complaint.
20 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
21 5. This case is subject to the jurisdiction of this court pursuant to the California
22 Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, and California Code of Civil Procedure.
23 DEFENDANTS are entities, partnerships, businesses and persons who reside and/or conduct
24 business in the State of California.
25 6. Venue is proper in this judicial district because DEFENDANTS conduct business
26 in Monterey County, California. In addition, venue in Monterey County is proper because many
27 of DEFENDANTS’ alleged violations arose in Monterey County.
28
-2-
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND PAGA COMPLAINT- DEMAND FOR JURY
TRIAL
1 PARTIES
2 Plaintiff
3 7. PLAINTIFFS are individuals residing in California who were employed by
4 Defendant CENTRAL CALI as non-exempt employees in Monterey County, California.
5 PLAINTIFFS worked for Defendant CENTRAL CALI and/or Defendant AGUILAR FARMING
6 INC providing labor for Defendant J LOHR VINEYARDS, INC. and/or Defendant CAGLIERO
7 RANCHES, INC., and DOES 1-50 (collectively DEFENDANTS) during the class period.
8 PLAINTIFFS were directly or jointly employed by DEFENDANTS within all times relevant and
9 were denied proper compensation for all hours worked, and proper rest and meal periods.
10 PLAINTIFFS have suffered injuries in fact and loss of property as a result of DEFENDANTS’
11 conduct described in this Complaint and are aggrieved employees.
12 8. Plaintiff ALBINO GUZMAN is an individual residing in Monterey County.
13 During the relevant time period, Plaintiff ALBINO GUZMAN was directly or jointly employed
14 by DEFENDANTS as a non-exempt employee at several growers in Monterey, California.
15 Plaintiff ALBINO GUZMAN was employed from approximately December 2019 to on or about
16 January 2020. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff ALBINO GUZMAN was an aggrieved
17 employee who was subjected to the violations and unlawful policies described herein.
18 9. Plaintiff BARBARINO RAMIREZ is an individual and a resident of Monterey
19 County. During the class period, Plaintiff BARBARINO RAMIREZ was directly or jointly
20 employed by DEFENDANTS as a non-exempt employee at several growers in Monterey,
21 California. Plaintiff BARBARINO RAMIREZ was employed from approximately December
22 2022 to on or about January 2023. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff BARBARINO
23 RAMIREZ was an aggrieved employee who was subjected to the violations and unlawful
24 policies described herein.
25 10. Plaintiff GUILLERMO RAMIREZ is an individual residing in Monterey County.
26 During the relevant time period, Plaintiff GUILLERMO RAMIREZ was directly or jointly
27 employed by DEFENDANTS as a non-exempt employee at several growers in Monterey,
28
-3-
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND PAGA COMPLAINT- DEMAND FOR JURY
TRIAL
1 California. Plaintiff GUILLERMO RAMIREZ was employed from approximately December
2 2022 to on or about January 2023. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff GUILLERMO
3 RAMIREZ was an aggrieved employee who was subjected to the violations and unlawful
4 policies described herein.
5 11. Plaintiff LEONEL MARTINEZ is an individual and a resident of Monterey
6 County. During the class period, Plaintiff LEONEL MARTINEZ was directed or jointly
7 employed by DEFENDANTS as a non-exempt employee at several growers in Monterey,
8 California. Plaintiff LEONEL MARTINEZ was employed from approximately December 2022
9 to on or about January 2023. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff LEONEL MARTINEZ was an
10 aggrieved employee who was subjected to the violations and unlawful policies described herein.
11 12. Plaintiff ARTURO CRUZ is an individual and a resident of Monterey County.
12 During the class period, Plaintiff ARTURO CRUZ was directly or jointly employed by
13 DEFENDANTS as a non-exempt employee at several growers in Monterey, California. Plaintiff
14 ARTURO CRUZ was employed from approximately December 2021 to on or about January
15 2023. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff ARTURO CRUZ was an aggrieved employee who
16 was subjected to the violations and unlawful policies described herein.
17 13. Plaintiff RUBEN MARTINEZ is an individual and a resident of Monterey
18 County. During the class period, Plaintiff RUBEN MARTINEZ was directly or jointly employed
19 by DEFENDANTS as a non-exempt employee at several growers in Monterey, California.
20 Plaintiff RUBEN MARTINEZ was employed from approximately December 2022 to on or about
21 January 2023. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff RUBEN MARTINEZ was an aggrieved
22 employee who was subjected to the violations and unlawful policies described herein.
23 14. On information and belief, PLAINTIFFS, purported Class members, and other
24 current and former employees of DEFENDANTS were regularly subjected to, or had personal
25 knowledge of, the violations described in this Complaint and/or the allegations contained herein
26 made on information and belief based upon investigation of counsel. Each member of the
27
28
-4-
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND PAGA COMPLAINT- DEMAND FOR JURY
TRIAL
1 purported class and other current or former employees of DEFENDANTS are therefore
2 witnesses to the allegations of this Complaint.
3
4 Defendants
5 15. The following allegations as to DEFENDANTS are made on information and
6 belief, and are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further
7 investigation or discovery.
8 16. At all times relevant, Defendant CENTRAL CALI is a California Corporation
9 located in King City, California. Defendant CENTRAL CALI is a farm labor contractor that
10 employs agricultural workers to work for growers in California, including in and around
11 Monterey County. At the core of Defendant CENTRAL CALI violations are: failing to pay piece
12 rate workers at least minimum wage for all hours worked, waiting time penalties, failing to
13 provide accurate wage statements, unfair competition, and penalties.
14 17. At all times relevant, Defendant FILBERTO AGUILAR PEREZ (“PEREZ”) was,
15 on information and belief, the Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, and Chief Financial Officer of
16 Defendant CENTRAL CALI during the relevant time period and was in charge of making major
17 corporate decisions and managing the operations of the corporation during the relevant time
18 period. As such, he was on notice, whether actual or constructive, of all of the violations
19 described above, and failed to prevent or address them. PEREZ controlled and caused the
20 violations at issue here either by making illegal policies, implementing illegal policies, or failing
21 to correct illegal policies. Defendant PEREZ is therefore liable as a person acting on behalf of
22 Defendant CENTRAL CALI under Labor Code §§ 558, 558.1. Plaintiff further alleges that
23 Defendant PEREZ is liable under PAGA and Labor Code §§ 558, 558.1, 1197.1, 2699(f) and 18
24 as a “person” who violated or caused to be violated the Labor Code and Wage Orders listed in
25 this complaint, by exercising control over and involvement in the creation and/or implementation
26 of the wage and hour practices and policies that are the subject matter of this complaint.
27
28
-5-
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND PAGA COMPLAINT- DEMAND FOR JURY
TRIAL
1 18. At all times relevant, Defendant AGUILAR FARMING is a California
2 Corporation located in King City, California. Defendant AGUILAR FARMING is a farm labor
3 contractor that employs agricultural workers to work for growers in California, including in and
4 around Monterey County. At the core of Defendant AGUILAR FARMING violations are: failing
5 to pay piece rate workers at least minimum wage for all hours worked, waiting time penalties,
6 failing to provide accurate wage statements, unfair competition, and penalties.
7 19. At all times relevant, Defendant JOSE ANTONIO AGUILAR (“JOSE”) was, on
8 information and belief, the Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, and Chief Financial Officer of
9 Defendant AGUILAR FARMING during the relevant time period and was in charge of making
10 major corporate decisions and managing the operations of the corporation during the relevant
11 time period. As such, he was on notice, whether actual or constructive, of all of the violations
12 described above, and failed to prevent or address them. JOSE controlled and caused the
13 violations at issue here either by making illegal policies, implementing illegal policies, or failing
14 to correct illegal policies. Defendant JOSE is therefore liable as a person acting on behalf of
15 Defendant AGUILAR FARMING under Labor Code §§ 558, 558.1. PLAINTIFFS further
16 alleges that Defendant JOSE is liable under PAGA and Labor Code §§ 558, 558.1, 1197.1,
17 2699(f) and 18 as a “person” who violated or caused to be violated the Labor Code and Wage
18 Orders listed in this complaint, by exercising control over and involvement in the creation and/or
19 implementation of the wage and hour practices and policies that are the subject matter of this
20 complaint.
21 20. At all times relevant, J LOHR VINEYARDS, INC., (“J LOHR”) owned,
22 controlled, or operated a business or establishment who contracted with Defendant CENTRAL
23 CALI and/or AGUILAR FARMING to obtain workers and shares civil responsibility and civil
24 liability as a client employer of Defendant CENTRAL CALI and/or AGUILAR FARMING for
25 the payment of wages to PLAINTIFFS under California Labor Code § 2810.3(b)(1).
26 21. At all times relevant, CAGLIERO RANCHES, INC., (“CAGLIERO”) owned,
27 controlled, or operated a business or establishment in San Luis Obispo County who contracted
28
-6-
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND PAGA COMPLAINT- DEMAND FOR JURY
TRIAL
1 with Defendant CENTRAL CALI and/or AGUILAR FARMING to obtain workers and shares
2 civil responsibility and civil liability as a client employer of Defendant CENTRAL CALI and/or
3 AGUILAR FARMING for the payment of wages to PLAINTIFFS under California Labor Code
4 § 2810.3(b)(1).
5 22. PLAINTIFFS have complied with the notice requirement of Labor Code §
6 2810.3(d) which requires that employers be notified of violations of Labor Code § 2810.3(b) by
7 mailing notice via certified mail to Defendants J LHOR and CAGLIERO on May 17, 2023.
8 23. The true names and capacities of defendants named as DOE 1 through DOE 50,
9 inclusive, are presently unknown to PLAINTIFFS. PLAINTIFFS will amend this complaint,
10 setting forth the true names and capacities of these fictitious defendants when they are
11 ascertained. PLAINTIFFS is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that each of the
12 fictitious defendants has participated in the acts alleged in this complaint to have been done by
13 the named DEFENDANTS.
14 24. Defendants were employers or joint employers of PLAINTIFFS, are liable as
15 employers under California Labor Code § 558, 558.1, and/or are liable for penalties under PAGA
16 as persons acting on behalf of the employer who caused violations under California Labor Code
17 § 558(a).
18 25. On information and belief, PLAINTIFFS further assert that the damages herein
19 alleged were actually and proximately caused by each DEFENDANTS’ conduct.
20
21 III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
22 26. For at least four years prior to the filing of this action and through to the present
23 (liability period for the UCL cause of action), DEFENDANTS have maintained and enforced
24 against PLAINTIFFS and the Class the following unlawful practices and policies in violation of
25 California wage and hour laws, including but not limited to:
26 a. failing to pay minimum wages to PLAINTIFFS and the Class by providing piece-
27 rate workers less than minimum wage for all hours worked.
28
-7-
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND PAGA COMPLAINT- DEMAND FOR JURY
TRIAL
1 b. failing to provide Class members, including PLAINTIFFS, with accurate itemized
2 wage statements in violation of California law and public policy;
3 c. failing to pay to Class members, including PLAINTIFFS, all wages owed as
4 detailed above upon separation from employment – whether voluntary or not – in
5 violation of California law and policy;
6 d. engaging in unfair competition in violation of the UCL, Bus. & Prof. §§17200 et
7 seq., as a result of failing to pay wages owed and generate and maintain accurate
8 records as described above.
9 27. At all times relevant, DEFENDANTS paid PLAINTIFFS and other similarly
10 situated employees by “piece rate.”
11 28. On information and belief, DEFENDANTS were on notice of the improprieties
12 alleged herein by their employees, and intentionally refused to rectify their unlawful policies. By
13 their conduct, DEFENDANTS make clear that they were and/or are intentionally and
14 maliciously subverting California labor laws, resulting in loss of property to PLAINTIFFS and
15 other current or former employees of DEFENDANTS that occurs as a result of DEFENDANTS’
16 unlawful policies. DEFENDANTS’ failure to reimburse employees for out-of-pocket expenses,
17 and failure to provide compliant wage statements to employees in addition to the other violations
18 alleged above, during all relevant times herein was intentional, willful, and deliberate.
19 29. PLAINTIFFS, on behalf of themselves and all other non-exempt employees
20 employed by, or formerly employed by DEFENDANTS, bring this action pursuant to California
21 Labor Code §§ 226, 1174, 2802, 2699 et seq., and Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.
22 seeking statutory penalties, liquidated damages, declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief,
23 reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, interest, restitution, and disgorgement of all profits
24 or benefits retained by DEFENDANTS as a result of their failure to comply with the above laws.
25 30. DEFENDANTS have failed to comply with California Labor Code § 226(a) by
26 failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements to PLAINTIFFS and the members of the
27
28
-8-
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND PAGA COMPLAINT- DEMAND FOR JURY
TRIAL
1 proposed class. PLAINTIFFS and Class Members are therefore entitled to statutory penalties not
2 to exceed $4,000 for each employee pursuant to Labor Code § 226(e).
3
4 IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
5 31. PLAINTIFFS bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others pursuant to
6 Section 382 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, on the basis that there is a well-defined
7 community of interest in the litigation and the proposed class is easily ascertainable.
8 PLAINTIFFS seek to represent the following Class:
9 All non-exempt workers employed by DEFENDANTS at any time
10 between four years prior to the filing of the original complaint in
11 this action and the final disposition of this action.
12 32. On information and belief, the injury and loss of money to Class Members is
13 substantial and exceeds the minimum jurisdiction of this Court. PLAINTIFFS and the Class were
14 regularly subjected to the policy violations described in this Complaint. On information and
15 belief, the legal and factual issues are common to the Class and affect all Class Members.
16 PLAINTIFFS reserve the right to amend or modify the class description with greater specificity
17 or further division into subclasses, as well as to limit the class or subclasses to particular issues,
18 as warranted.
19 A. NUMEROSITY
20 33. The potential members of the Class as defined are so numerous that joinder of all
21 of them is impracticable. While the precise number of Class Members has not been determined at
22 this time, PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that the Class is comprised of more than 100
23 individuals.
24 34. On information and belief, PLAINTIFFS allege that Defendant CENTRAL CALI
25 and/or Defendant AGUILAR FARMING’S employment records will provide information as to
26 the number and locations of Class Members.
27 B. COMMONALITY & PREDOMINANCE
28
-9-
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND PAGA COMPLAINT- DEMAND FOR JURY
TRIAL
1 35. There are questions of law and fact that are common to the Class and predominate
2 over individualized questions. These common questions of law and fact include, without
3 limitation:
4 a. Whether DEFENDANTS violated Labor Code §§ 1194, 1194.2, 1197(A), 226, the
5 applicable IWC Wage Order, and/or public policy by maintaining a policy or practice
6 of failing to pay piece rate workers at least minimum wage for all hours worked;
7 b. Whether DEFENDANTS violated the Labor Code, the applicable IWC Wage Order,
8 and/or public policy by enforcing a policy or practice of refusing to indemnify non-
9 exempt employees for necessary business expenses;
10 c. Whether DEFENDANTS violated Sections 17200, et seq. of the Business and
11 Professions Code by the actions alleged in this complaint;
12 d. Whether PLAINTIFFS and other Class Members are entitled to damages, restitution,
13 statutory penalties, declaratory, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees,
14 interest, and costs, and other relief pursuant to the California Labor Code and Wage
15 Orders, and Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.
16 36. There are no individualized factual or legal issues for the court to resolve other
17 than the application of a formula to calculate each Class Members' damages.
18
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
19 FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES
Labor Code §§1194, 1194.2 1197(a) & applicable IWC Wage Order
20 (PLAINTIFFS BARBARINO RAMIREZ, GUILLERMO RAMIREZ, ARTURO CRUZ,
RUBEN MARTINEZ AND LEONEL MARTINEZ)
21 (AGAINST ALL Defendants)
22 37. PLAINTIFFS incorporate all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth
23 herein.
24 38. California Labor Code §1197, which is entitled “Pay of Less Than Minimum
25 Wage,” states:
26 The minimum wage for employees fixed by the commission is the
minimum wage to be paid to employees, and the payment of a less wage
27 than the minimum so fixed is unlawful.
28
-10-
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND PAGA COMPLAINT- DEMAND FOR JURY
TRIAL
1 39. The applicable minimum wage fixed by the commission in the Industrial Welfare
2 Commission (“IWC”) Wage Orders was set at six dollars and seventy-five cents ($6.75) per hour
3 for all hours worked effective January 1, 2002 but has since been amended for farm workers.
4 Effective January 1, 2017, the minimum wage for employers with 26 or more farm workers was
5 $10.50 per hour, and the minimum wage effective January 1, 2018 was $11.00 per hour, then
6 effective January 1, 2019 the minimum wage was $12.00 per hour. The minimum wage for farm
7 workers is $15.00 per hour effective January 1, 2022.
8 40. California Labor Code § 226.1 does not limit or alter minimum wage or overtime
9 compensation requirements, or the obligation to compensate employees for all hours worked
10 under any other status or local ordinance for employees who are compensated on a piece-rate
11 basis for any work performed during a pay period.
12 41. DEFENDANTS have failed to pay minimum wages for all hours worked. During
13 various times through the relevant time period, DEFENDANTS supervisors and managers
14 routinely either sent PLAINTIFFS and similarly situated employees home early and were not
15 allowed to finish or were unable to complete the required number of piece-rate units in the time
16 allotted to earn at least minimum wage for the workday. As a result of these practices, and
17 among others, DEFENDANTS have not paid piece rate workers at least the minimum wage for
18 all hours worked during the relevant time period. This violation of California minimum wage
19 law was substantial and a main feature of DEFENDANTS’ employment practices.
20 42. The Minimum Wage provisions of California Labor Code are enforceable by
21 private civil action pursuant to California Labor Code §1194(a), which states:
Notwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage, any employee
22 receiving less than the legal minimum wage or the legal overtime
compensation applicable to the employee is entitled to recover in a civil
23 action the unpaid balance of the full amount of this minimum wage or
overtime compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable attorney’s
24 fees and costs of suit.
25 43. As such, PLAINTIFFS and the Class may bring this action for minimum wages,
26 interest, costs of suit and attorney’s fees pursuant to California Labor Code § 1194(a).
27
28
-11-
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND PAGA COMPLAINT- DEMAND FOR JURY
TRIAL
1 44. As described in California Labor Code § 1194.2, any such action incorporate the
2 applicable wage order of the California Labor Commission.
3 45. California Labor Code § 1194.2 provides that:
In any action under Section 1194 … to recover wages because of the
4 payment of a wage less than the minimum wages fixed by an order of the
commission, an employee shall be entitled to recover liquidated damages in
5 an amount equal to the wages unlawfully unpaid and interest thereon.
6 46. As described herein, this is an action under California Labor Code § 1194 to
7 recover wages on account of DEFENDANTS’ failure to pay minimum wages as described in
8 California Labor Code §§1197, 1194(a), 1194.2 and applicable IWC Wage Order. Therefore,
9 PLAINTIFFSs and the Class are also entitled to recover liquidated damages in an amount equal
10 to the wages unlawfully unpaid and interest thereon.
11 47. Under Labor Code § 558.1, any natural person who is an owner, director, officer,
12 or managing agent of an employer, acting on behalf of the employer, who violates or causes to
13 be violated any provision regulating minimum wages or hours and days of work in any order of
14 the Industrial Welfare Commission, or violates, or causes to be violated, Labor Code §§ 203,
15 226, 226.7, 1193.6, 1194, or 2802, may be held liable as the employer for such violation.
16 Therefore, Defendant PEREZ and JOSE are liable for the violations herein alleged.
17 48. Under California Labor Code § 2810.3, a client employer shall share with a labor
18 contractor all civil legal responsibility and civil liability for the payment of wages for all workers
19 supplied by that labor contractor. Therefore, Defendant J LOHR and CAGLIERO are liable for
20 the violations herein alleged, regardless of the extent to which Defendant CENTRAL CALI
21 and/or AGUILAR FARMING may have created such violations.
22 49. Wherefore, PLAINTIFFS and the Class request relief as described herein and
23 below.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
24 WAITING TIME PENALTY
CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §§201, 202 & 203
25 (PLAINTIFFS BARBARINO RAMIREZ, GUILLERMO RAMIREZ, ARTURO CRUZ,
RUBEN MARTINEZ AND LEONEL MARTINEZ)
26 (AGAINST ALL Defendants)
27
28
-12-
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND PAGA COMPLAINT- DEMAND FOR JURY
TRIAL
1 50. PLAINTIFFS incorporate all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth
2 herein.
3 51. California Labor Code §§201 and 202 provide for immediate payment of all
4 wages owed at termination of employment.
5 52. As described above, DEFENDANTS failed to pay minimum wage for all hours
6 worked as a result of DEFENDANTS supervisors and managers routinely either sending
7 PLAINTIFFS and similarly situated employees home early and were not allowed to finish or
8 were unable to complete the required number of piece-rate units in the time allotted to earn at
9 least minimum wage for the workday. This failure to pay piece rate workers at least minimum
10 wages for all hours worked resulted in DEFENDANTS failure to pay for all wages earned at the
11 time of termination or resignation. Defendant willfully refused to pay in accordance with the law
12 because it constituted and intentional failure to perform the required act.
13 53. DEFENDANTS have violated California Labor Code §§201 and/or 202 by failing
14 to pay PLAINTIFFS and a substantial portion of the Class all the wages owed to them, because
15 when PLAINTIFFS and a substantial portion of the Class left their employment with
16 DEFENDANTS or were seasonally laid off, DEFENDANTS did not pay them the wages owed
17 for pay rest and recovery period and other nonproductive time separate from any piece-rate
18 compensation, missed meal periods or for unreimbursed expenses. This failure to pay wages
19 owed was willful and, as such, DEFENDANTS are liable for penalties under §203 of the Labor
20 Code.
21 54. California Labor Code §203 states:
If an employer willfully fails to pay, without abatement or reduction, in
22 accordance with Sections 201, 201.5, 202, and 205.5, any wages of an
employee who is discharged or who quits, the wages of the employee shall
23 continue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or
until an action therefore is commenced; but the wages shall not continue for
24 more than 30 days. An employee who secretes or absents himself or herself
to avoid payment to him or her, or who refuses to receive the payment when
25 fully tendered to him or her, including any penalty then accrued under this
Preview
CIV-130 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY STATE BAR NUMBER: 349176 FOR COURT USE ONLY NAME: Caroline Hill FIRM NAME: Mallison & Martinez STREET ADDRESS: 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730 CITY: OAkaland STATE: CA ZIP CODE: 94612 TELEPHONE NO.: (510) 832-9999 FAX NO.: (510) 832-1101 EMAIL ADDRESS: enotices@themmlawfirm.com; chill@themmlawfirm.com ATTORNEY FOR (name): Albino Guzman, Barbarino Ramirez, Guillermo Ramirez, Arturo Cruz, Ruben Martinez, and Leonel Martinez SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Monterey STREET ADDRESS: 1200 Aguajito Road MAILING ADDRESS: 1200 Aguajito Road CITY AND ZIP CODE: Monterey BRANCH NAME: Monterey Courthouse PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Albino Guzman, et al. DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Central Cali Farm Labor, et al. NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER CASE NUMBER: 23CV002860 (Check one): ✖ UNLIMITED CASE LIMITED CASE (Amount demanded (Amount demanded was exceeded $35,000) $35,000 or less) TO ALL PARTIES : 1. A judgment, decree, or order was entered in this action on (date): January 29th, 2024 2. A copy of the judgment, decree, or order is attached to this notice. Date: 03/05/2024 Caroline Hill (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF ✖ ATTORNEY PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY) (SIGNATURE) Page 1 of 2 Form Approved for Optional Use Judicial Council of California NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER www.courts.ca.gov CIV-130 [Rev. January 1, 2024] CIV-130 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: CASE NUMBER: DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER (NOTE: You cannot serve the Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order if you are a party in the action. The person who served the notice must complete this proof of service.) 1. I am at least 18 years old and not a party to this action. I am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing took place, and my residence or business address is (specify): 2. I served a copy of the Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order by enclosing it in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid and (check one): a. deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service. b. placed the sealed envelope for collection and processing for mailing, following this business's usual practices, with which I am readily familiar. On the same day correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service. 3. The Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order was mailed: a. on (date): b. from (city and state): 4. The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows: a. Name of person served: c. Name of person served: Street address: Street address: City: City: State and zip code: State and zip code: b. Name of person served: d. Name of person served: Street address: Street address: City: City: State and zip code: State and zip code: Names and addresses of additional persons served are attached. (You may use form POS-030(P).) 5. Number of pages attached: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT) (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT) Page 2 of 2 CIV-130 [Rev. January 1, 2024] NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER ction and privacy, please press the Clear This Form button after you have printed Print thisthe form. form Save this form Clear this form STAN S. MALLISON (Bar No. 184191) 1 StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com ELECTRONICALLY FILED BY HECTOR R. MARTINEZ (Bar N0. 206336) Superior Court of California, 2 HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com County of Monterey GONZALO QUEZADA (Bar No. 338386) On 01/31/2024 3 GQuezada@TheMMLawFirm.com By Deputy: Cerna, Brenda CAROLINE L. HILL (Bar No. 349176) 4 CHill@ TheMMLawFirm.com MALLISON & MARTINEZ 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730 56789 Oakland, California 94612-3547 Telephone: (510) 832-9999 Facsimile: (510) 832-1101 Attorneys for Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and on behalf of those similarly situated JENNIFER E. DOUGLAS (Bar N0. 172770) 10 MELISSA CULP GRANILLO (Bar No. 265159) DICKENSON PEATMAN & FOGARTY, P.C. 11 1500 First Street, Suite 200 12 Napa, CA 94559 Telephone: (707) 261-7000 13 Facsimile: (707) 340-7239 Email: jdouglas@dpf-law.com 14 mgranillo@dpflaw.com 15 GERARDO HERNANDEZ (Bar No. 292809) 16 ghernandez@littler.com EMILIO A. RODRIGUEZ (Bar No. 340877) 17 earodriguez@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 18 5200 North Palm Avenue Suite 302 19 Fresno, California 93704 20 Telephone: (559) 244-7500 Facsimile: (559) 244-7525 21 Attorneys for Defendants 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 28 STIPULATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY 3 Case No. 23CV002860 4 ALBINO GUZMAN, BARBARINO RAMIREZ, GUILLERMO RAMIREZ, STIPULATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED [m 56789 ARTURO CRUZ, RUBEN MARTINEZ, and LEONEL MARTINEZ, on behalf of COMPLAINT; ORDER themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, The Honorable Carrie M. Panetta VS. 10 CENTRAL CALI FARM LABOR, a California Corporation; AGUILAR FARMING 11 INC., a California Corporation; J LOHR VINEYARDS, INC., a California Corporation; 12 CAGLIERO RANCHES, INC., a California 13 Corporation; FILBERTO AGUILAR PEREZ, an individual, and JOSE ANTONIO 14 AGUILAR, an individual; and DOES 1 through 20, 15 Defendants. 16 17 It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between Plaintiffs Albino Guzman, Barbarino 18 Ramirez, Guillermo Ramirez, Arturo Cruz, Ruben Martinez, and Leonel Martinez (the "Plaintiffs") 19 and defendants Central Cali Farm Labor, Aguilar Farming, Inc., J Lohr Vineyards, Inc., Cagliero 20 Ranches, Inc., Filberto Aguilar Perez, Jose Antonio Aguilar (the "Defendants"), sometimes referred 21 to as "the Parties," the following: 22 RECITALS 23 WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed this wage and hour case on September 1, 2023. Plaintiffs are 24 individuals who were employed as non-exempt employees in Monterey County, California for 25 Defendant Central Cali and/or Aguilar Farming Inc providing labor for Defendant J Lohr Vineyards, 26 Inc. and/or Defendant Cagliero Ranches, Inc., and does 1-50 during the class period. 27 2 28 STIPULATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 WHEREAS, Defendant J Lohr Vineyards, Inc. timely filed an Answer on November 9, 2 2023. Defendant Cagliero Ranches timely filed an Answer on November 14, 2023. Defendants 3 Central Cali Farm Labor, Aguilar Farming, Inc., Filberto Aguilar Perez, and Jose Aguilar timely 4 filed Answers on November 29, 2023. WHEREAS, Plaintiffs realized an inadvertent error involving the time period worked for 56789 four of the five plaintiffs in Plaintiffs' Complaint. The Complaint provides the time period worked for all Plaintiffs as "on or around December 2019 to January 2020." This is incorrect. Plaintiff Albino Guzman was employed on or around December 2019 to January 2020. The remaining Plaintiffs were employed on or around December 2022 to January 2023. These errors were inadvertent. 10 WHEREAS, the Parties met and conferred in preparation for the Initial Case Management 11 Conference scheduled on January 9, 2024. Plaintiff's counsel subsequently informed counsel for 12 Defendants of these errors. Plaintiff's counsel provided proposed amendments in the form hereto 13 attached as Exhibit 1, First Amended Complaint (Redline). 14 WHEREAS, to conserve judicial resources and costs to the Parties, the Parties stipulate that 15 Plaintiffs may have leave to file their First Amended Complaint in the form hereto attached as 16 Exhibit 2, First Amended Complaint. 17 WHEREAS, to promote efficiency and conserve judicial resources, the Parties stipulate that 18 Plaintiff' s First Amended Complaint be deemed filed as of the date this Stipulation for Leave to File 19 Plaintiff' s First Amended Complaint and [Proposed] Order is signed by the Court. 20 WHEREAS, the Parties further stipulate that service of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint 21 will be effective as of the date of Plaintiffs' service upon Defendants of Notice of Entry of Order on 22 this Stipulation for Leave to File Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. 23 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 3 28 STIPULATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 STIPULATION 2 THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the undersigned parties, 3 through their respective counsel, as follows: 4 l. The Parties stipulate that to conserve judicial resources and costs to the Parties, that Plaintiffs may have leave to file their First Amended Complaint in the form as hereto attached as 56789 Exhibit 2, First Amended Complaint. 2. The Parties further stipulate that to promote efficiency and conserve judicial resources, the Parties stipulate that Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint be deemed filed as of the date this Stipulation for Leave to File Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and [Proposed] Order is 10 signed by the Court. 11 3. The Parties further stipulate that service of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint will 12 be effective as of the date of Plaintiffs' service upon Defendants of Notice of Entry of Order on this 13 Stipulation for Leave to File Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. 14 4. The Parties further stipulate that Defendants' time to file a responsive pleading to 15 Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint will follow per California Code of Civil Procedure following 16 service of the Notice of Entry of this Order. 17 18 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 19 DATED: January 12, 2024 MALLISON & MARTINEZ 20 21 By 22 sail Mauison Hector Martinez 23 Gonzalo Quezada Caroline L. Hill 24 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 25 26 27 4 28 STIPULATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 DATED: January 12, 2024 2 DICKENSON PEATMAN & FOGARTY, P.C. 3 By; /s/Melissa C. Granillo 4 Jennifer E. Douglas Melissa Culp Granillo 56789 Attorneys for Defendants J. Lohr Vineyards & Cagliero Ranches, Inc. DATED: January 12, 2024 10 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 11 By: /s/Emi1io A. Rodriguez Gerardo Hernandez 12 Emilio A. Rodriguez 13 Attorneys for Defendants 14 Central Cali Farm Labor, Inc. Aguilar Farming, Inc. 15 Filberto Aguilar Perez Jose Antonio Aguilar 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 5 28 STIPULATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 m1 ORDER 2 Upon consideration of the foregoing stipulation and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED 3 THAT: 4 1. That Plaintiffs are hereby granted leave of Court to file their First Amended Complaint attached to the Stipulation as Exhibit 2, First Amended Complaint. 56789 2 The Clerk of the Court shall file the First Amended Complaint, attached to the Stipulation as Exhibit 2, as of the date of this Order; 3 Service of the First Amended Complaint will be deemed effective upon Plaintiffs' service of Notice of Entry of this Order upon Defendants. 10 4 A Defendants' time in which to file a responsive pleading to Plaintiffs' First Amended 11 Complaint will follow per the California Code of Civil Procedure following service of 12 the Notice of Entry of this Order. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. WMM 15 16 Dated: 1/29/2024 17 HON. CirfiRIflZT fiANETTA JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 6 28 STIPULATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT EXHIBIT 2 1 STAN S. MALLISON (Bar No. 184191) StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com 2 HECTOR R. MARTINEZ (Bar No. 206336) HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com 3 GONZALO QUEZADA (Bar No. 338386) GQuezada@TheMMLawFirm.com 4 MALLISON & MARTINEZ 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730 Oakland, California 94612-3547 5 Telephone: (510) 832-9999 Facsimile: (510) 832-1101 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY 11 ALBINO GUZMAN, BARBARINO Case No. 23CV002860 RAMIREZ, GUILLERMO RAMIREZ, 12 ARTURO CRUZ, RUBEN MARTINEZ, and PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED LEONEL MARTINEZ, individually and on CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR: 13 behalf of a class of similarly situated 1. Failure to Pay Minimum Wages (LC individuals and the State of California, §§ 1194, 1194.2 1197(A)) 14 2. Waiting Time Penalty (LC §§ 201, 15 Plaintiffs, 202, 203) 3. Wage Statement and Record Keeping 16 vs. Violations (LC §§ 226, 1174 et al); 17 4. Violation of UCL (Bus. & Prof. Code CENTRAL CALI FARM LABOR a §§ 17200 et seq.); and 18 California Corporation; AGUILAR FARMING INC., a California Corporation, J LOHR VINEYARDS, INC., a California NON-CLASS COMPLAINT FOR: 19 Corporation, CAGLIERO RANCHES, INC., a 5. Penalties Under LC 2699 et seq. 20 California Corporation, FILBERTO AGUILAR PEREZ, an individual, JOSE DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 21 ANTONIO AGUILAR, an individual; and 22 DOES 1 through 50, 23 Defendants. 24 25 26 27 28 1 PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND PAGA COMPLAINT- DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 1. Plaintiffs ALBINO GUZMAN, BARBARINO RAMIREZ, GUILLERMO 3 RAMIREZ, ARTURO CRUZ, RUBEN MARTINEZ, and LEONEL MARTINEZ, (collectively 4 “PLAINTIFFS”) bring this action against CENTRAL CALI FARM LABOR., AGUILAR 5 FARMING INC., J LOHR VINEYARDS, INC., CAGLIERO RANCHES, INC., FILBERTO 6 AGUILAR PEREZ, an individual; JOSE ANTONIO AGUILAR, an individual, and DOES 1 7 through 50 (collectively “DEFENDANTS”) for failure to provide accurate wage statements, 8 failure to reimburse employees for necessary business expenditures, and violation of unfair 9 competition law. 10 2. The allegations in this complaint are made on the basis of PLAINTIFFS’ personal 11 knowledge, and on information and belief based on a reasonable investigation under the 12 circumstances. 13 3. As a result of the violations described herein, PLAINTIFFS bring this class action 14 on behalf of a Class of non-exempt workers employed by DEFENDANTS in California. 15 4. PLAINTIFFS’ California Private Attorney General Act, Labor Code §§ 2698 et 16 seq. (“PAGA”) claim is brought as an enforcement action on behalf of the state for penalties and 17 other remedies on behalf of the State of California and current and former employees as 18 expressly permitted by that statute. All PAGA administrative requirements will have been met 19 for this purpose prior to service of the instant amended complaint. 20 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 21 5. This case is subject to the jurisdiction of this court pursuant to the California 22 Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, and California Code of Civil Procedure. 23 DEFENDANTS are entities, partnerships, businesses and persons who reside and/or conduct 24 business in the State of California. 25 6. Venue is proper in this judicial district because DEFENDANTS conduct business 26 in Monterey County, California. In addition, venue in Monterey County is proper because many 27 of DEFENDANTS’ alleged violations arose in Monterey County. 28 -2- PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND PAGA COMPLAINT- DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 PARTIES 2 Plaintiff 3 7. PLAINTIFFS are individuals residing in California who were employed by 4 Defendant CENTRAL CALI as non-exempt employees in Monterey County, California. 5 PLAINTIFFS worked for Defendant CENTRAL CALI and/or Defendant AGUILAR FARMING 6 INC providing labor for Defendant J LOHR VINEYARDS, INC. and/or Defendant CAGLIERO 7 RANCHES, INC., and DOES 1-50 (collectively DEFENDANTS) during the class period. 8 PLAINTIFFS were directly or jointly employed by DEFENDANTS within all times relevant and 9 were denied proper compensation for all hours worked, and proper rest and meal periods. 10 PLAINTIFFS have suffered injuries in fact and loss of property as a result of DEFENDANTS’ 11 conduct described in this Complaint and are aggrieved employees. 12 8. Plaintiff ALBINO GUZMAN is an individual residing in Monterey County. 13 During the relevant time period, Plaintiff ALBINO GUZMAN was directly or jointly employed 14 by DEFENDANTS as a non-exempt employee at several growers in Monterey, California. 15 Plaintiff ALBINO GUZMAN was employed from approximately December 2019 to on or about 16 January 2020. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff ALBINO GUZMAN was an aggrieved 17 employee who was subjected to the violations and unlawful policies described herein. 18 9. Plaintiff BARBARINO RAMIREZ is an individual and a resident of Monterey 19 County. During the class period, Plaintiff BARBARINO RAMIREZ was directly or jointly 20 employed by DEFENDANTS as a non-exempt employee at several growers in Monterey, 21 California. Plaintiff BARBARINO RAMIREZ was employed from approximately December 22 2022 to on or about January 2023. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff BARBARINO 23 RAMIREZ was an aggrieved employee who was subjected to the violations and unlawful 24 policies described herein. 25 10. Plaintiff GUILLERMO RAMIREZ is an individual residing in Monterey County. 26 During the relevant time period, Plaintiff GUILLERMO RAMIREZ was directly or jointly 27 employed by DEFENDANTS as a non-exempt employee at several growers in Monterey, 28 -3- PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND PAGA COMPLAINT- DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 California. Plaintiff GUILLERMO RAMIREZ was employed from approximately December 2 2022 to on or about January 2023. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff GUILLERMO 3 RAMIREZ was an aggrieved employee who was subjected to the violations and unlawful 4 policies described herein. 5 11. Plaintiff LEONEL MARTINEZ is an individual and a resident of Monterey 6 County. During the class period, Plaintiff LEONEL MARTINEZ was directed or jointly 7 employed by DEFENDANTS as a non-exempt employee at several growers in Monterey, 8 California. Plaintiff LEONEL MARTINEZ was employed from approximately December 2022 9 to on or about January 2023. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff LEONEL MARTINEZ was an 10 aggrieved employee who was subjected to the violations and unlawful policies described herein. 11 12. Plaintiff ARTURO CRUZ is an individual and a resident of Monterey County. 12 During the class period, Plaintiff ARTURO CRUZ was directly or jointly employed by 13 DEFENDANTS as a non-exempt employee at several growers in Monterey, California. Plaintiff 14 ARTURO CRUZ was employed from approximately December 2021 to on or about January 15 2023. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff ARTURO CRUZ was an aggrieved employee who 16 was subjected to the violations and unlawful policies described herein. 17 13. Plaintiff RUBEN MARTINEZ is an individual and a resident of Monterey 18 County. During the class period, Plaintiff RUBEN MARTINEZ was directly or jointly employed 19 by DEFENDANTS as a non-exempt employee at several growers in Monterey, California. 20 Plaintiff RUBEN MARTINEZ was employed from approximately December 2022 to on or about 21 January 2023. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff RUBEN MARTINEZ was an aggrieved 22 employee who was subjected to the violations and unlawful policies described herein. 23 14. On information and belief, PLAINTIFFS, purported Class members, and other 24 current and former employees of DEFENDANTS were regularly subjected to, or had personal 25 knowledge of, the violations described in this Complaint and/or the allegations contained herein 26 made on information and belief based upon investigation of counsel. Each member of the 27 28 -4- PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND PAGA COMPLAINT- DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 purported class and other current or former employees of DEFENDANTS are therefore 2 witnesses to the allegations of this Complaint. 3 4 Defendants 5 15. The following allegations as to DEFENDANTS are made on information and 6 belief, and are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further 7 investigation or discovery. 8 16. At all times relevant, Defendant CENTRAL CALI is a California Corporation 9 located in King City, California. Defendant CENTRAL CALI is a farm labor contractor that 10 employs agricultural workers to work for growers in California, including in and around 11 Monterey County. At the core of Defendant CENTRAL CALI violations are: failing to pay piece 12 rate workers at least minimum wage for all hours worked, waiting time penalties, failing to 13 provide accurate wage statements, unfair competition, and penalties. 14 17. At all times relevant, Defendant FILBERTO AGUILAR PEREZ (“PEREZ”) was, 15 on information and belief, the Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, and Chief Financial Officer of 16 Defendant CENTRAL CALI during the relevant time period and was in charge of making major 17 corporate decisions and managing the operations of the corporation during the relevant time 18 period. As such, he was on notice, whether actual or constructive, of all of the violations 19 described above, and failed to prevent or address them. PEREZ controlled and caused the 20 violations at issue here either by making illegal policies, implementing illegal policies, or failing 21 to correct illegal policies. Defendant PEREZ is therefore liable as a person acting on behalf of 22 Defendant CENTRAL CALI under Labor Code §§ 558, 558.1. Plaintiff further alleges that 23 Defendant PEREZ is liable under PAGA and Labor Code §§ 558, 558.1, 1197.1, 2699(f) and 18 24 as a “person” who violated or caused to be violated the Labor Code and Wage Orders listed in 25 this complaint, by exercising control over and involvement in the creation and/or implementation 26 of the wage and hour practices and policies that are the subject matter of this complaint. 27 28 -5- PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND PAGA COMPLAINT- DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 18. At all times relevant, Defendant AGUILAR FARMING is a California 2 Corporation located in King City, California. Defendant AGUILAR FARMING is a farm labor 3 contractor that employs agricultural workers to work for growers in California, including in and 4 around Monterey County. At the core of Defendant AGUILAR FARMING violations are: failing 5 to pay piece rate workers at least minimum wage for all hours worked, waiting time penalties, 6 failing to provide accurate wage statements, unfair competition, and penalties. 7 19. At all times relevant, Defendant JOSE ANTONIO AGUILAR (“JOSE”) was, on 8 information and belief, the Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, and Chief Financial Officer of 9 Defendant AGUILAR FARMING during the relevant time period and was in charge of making 10 major corporate decisions and managing the operations of the corporation during the relevant 11 time period. As such, he was on notice, whether actual or constructive, of all of the violations 12 described above, and failed to prevent or address them. JOSE controlled and caused the 13 violations at issue here either by making illegal policies, implementing illegal policies, or failing 14 to correct illegal policies. Defendant JOSE is therefore liable as a person acting on behalf of 15 Defendant AGUILAR FARMING under Labor Code §§ 558, 558.1. PLAINTIFFS further 16 alleges that Defendant JOSE is liable under PAGA and Labor Code §§ 558, 558.1, 1197.1, 17 2699(f) and 18 as a “person” who violated or caused to be violated the Labor Code and Wage 18 Orders listed in this complaint, by exercising control over and involvement in the creation and/or 19 implementation of the wage and hour practices and policies that are the subject matter of this 20 complaint. 21 20. At all times relevant, J LOHR VINEYARDS, INC., (“J LOHR”) owned, 22 controlled, or operated a business or establishment who contracted with Defendant CENTRAL 23 CALI and/or AGUILAR FARMING to obtain workers and shares civil responsibility and civil 24 liability as a client employer of Defendant CENTRAL CALI and/or AGUILAR FARMING for 25 the payment of wages to PLAINTIFFS under California Labor Code § 2810.3(b)(1). 26 21. At all times relevant, CAGLIERO RANCHES, INC., (“CAGLIERO”) owned, 27 controlled, or operated a business or establishment in San Luis Obispo County who contracted 28 -6- PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND PAGA COMPLAINT- DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 with Defendant CENTRAL CALI and/or AGUILAR FARMING to obtain workers and shares 2 civil responsibility and civil liability as a client employer of Defendant CENTRAL CALI and/or 3 AGUILAR FARMING for the payment of wages to PLAINTIFFS under California Labor Code 4 § 2810.3(b)(1). 5 22. PLAINTIFFS have complied with the notice requirement of Labor Code § 6 2810.3(d) which requires that employers be notified of violations of Labor Code § 2810.3(b) by 7 mailing notice via certified mail to Defendants J LHOR and CAGLIERO on May 17, 2023. 8 23. The true names and capacities of defendants named as DOE 1 through DOE 50, 9 inclusive, are presently unknown to PLAINTIFFS. PLAINTIFFS will amend this complaint, 10 setting forth the true names and capacities of these fictitious defendants when they are 11 ascertained. PLAINTIFFS is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that each of the 12 fictitious defendants has participated in the acts alleged in this complaint to have been done by 13 the named DEFENDANTS. 14 24. Defendants were employers or joint employers of PLAINTIFFS, are liable as 15 employers under California Labor Code § 558, 558.1, and/or are liable for penalties under PAGA 16 as persons acting on behalf of the employer who caused violations under California Labor Code 17 § 558(a). 18 25. On information and belief, PLAINTIFFS further assert that the damages herein 19 alleged were actually and proximately caused by each DEFENDANTS’ conduct. 20 21 III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 22 26. For at least four years prior to the filing of this action and through to the present 23 (liability period for the UCL cause of action), DEFENDANTS have maintained and enforced 24 against PLAINTIFFS and the Class the following unlawful practices and policies in violation of 25 California wage and hour laws, including but not limited to: 26 a. failing to pay minimum wages to PLAINTIFFS and the Class by providing piece- 27 rate workers less than minimum wage for all hours worked. 28 -7- PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND PAGA COMPLAINT- DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 b. failing to provide Class members, including PLAINTIFFS, with accurate itemized 2 wage statements in violation of California law and public policy; 3 c. failing to pay to Class members, including PLAINTIFFS, all wages owed as 4 detailed above upon separation from employment – whether voluntary or not – in 5 violation of California law and policy; 6 d. engaging in unfair competition in violation of the UCL, Bus. & Prof. §§17200 et 7 seq., as a result of failing to pay wages owed and generate and maintain accurate 8 records as described above. 9 27. At all times relevant, DEFENDANTS paid PLAINTIFFS and other similarly 10 situated employees by “piece rate.” 11 28. On information and belief, DEFENDANTS were on notice of the improprieties 12 alleged herein by their employees, and intentionally refused to rectify their unlawful policies. By 13 their conduct, DEFENDANTS make clear that they were and/or are intentionally and 14 maliciously subverting California labor laws, resulting in loss of property to PLAINTIFFS and 15 other current or former employees of DEFENDANTS that occurs as a result of DEFENDANTS’ 16 unlawful policies. DEFENDANTS’ failure to reimburse employees for out-of-pocket expenses, 17 and failure to provide compliant wage statements to employees in addition to the other violations 18 alleged above, during all relevant times herein was intentional, willful, and deliberate. 19 29. PLAINTIFFS, on behalf of themselves and all other non-exempt employees 20 employed by, or formerly employed by DEFENDANTS, bring this action pursuant to California 21 Labor Code §§ 226, 1174, 2802, 2699 et seq., and Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq. 22 seeking statutory penalties, liquidated damages, declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief, 23 reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, interest, restitution, and disgorgement of all profits 24 or benefits retained by DEFENDANTS as a result of their failure to comply with the above laws. 25 30. DEFENDANTS have failed to comply with California Labor Code § 226(a) by 26 failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements to PLAINTIFFS and the members of the 27 28 -8- PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND PAGA COMPLAINT- DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 proposed class. PLAINTIFFS and Class Members are therefore entitled to statutory penalties not 2 to exceed $4,000 for each employee pursuant to Labor Code § 226(e). 3 4 IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 5 31. PLAINTIFFS bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others pursuant to 6 Section 382 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, on the basis that there is a well-defined 7 community of interest in the litigation and the proposed class is easily ascertainable. 8 PLAINTIFFS seek to represent the following Class: 9 All non-exempt workers employed by DEFENDANTS at any time 10 between four years prior to the filing of the original complaint in 11 this action and the final disposition of this action. 12 32. On information and belief, the injury and loss of money to Class Members is 13 substantial and exceeds the minimum jurisdiction of this Court. PLAINTIFFS and the Class were 14 regularly subjected to the policy violations described in this Complaint. On information and 15 belief, the legal and factual issues are common to the Class and affect all Class Members. 16 PLAINTIFFS reserve the right to amend or modify the class description with greater specificity 17 or further division into subclasses, as well as to limit the class or subclasses to particular issues, 18 as warranted. 19 A. NUMEROSITY 20 33. The potential members of the Class as defined are so numerous that joinder of all 21 of them is impracticable. While the precise number of Class Members has not been determined at 22 this time, PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that the Class is comprised of more than 100 23 individuals. 24 34. On information and belief, PLAINTIFFS allege that Defendant CENTRAL CALI 25 and/or Defendant AGUILAR FARMING’S employment records will provide information as to 26 the number and locations of Class Members. 27 B. COMMONALITY & PREDOMINANCE 28 -9- PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND PAGA COMPLAINT- DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 35. There are questions of law and fact that are common to the Class and predominate 2 over individualized questions. These common questions of law and fact include, without 3 limitation: 4 a. Whether DEFENDANTS violated Labor Code §§ 1194, 1194.2, 1197(A), 226, the 5 applicable IWC Wage Order, and/or public policy by maintaining a policy or practice 6 of failing to pay piece rate workers at least minimum wage for all hours worked; 7 b. Whether DEFENDANTS violated the Labor Code, the applicable IWC Wage Order, 8 and/or public policy by enforcing a policy or practice of refusing to indemnify non- 9 exempt employees for necessary business expenses; 10 c. Whether DEFENDANTS violated Sections 17200, et seq. of the Business and 11 Professions Code by the actions alleged in this complaint; 12 d. Whether PLAINTIFFS and other Class Members are entitled to damages, restitution, 13 statutory penalties, declaratory, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees, 14 interest, and costs, and other relief pursuant to the California Labor Code and Wage 15 Orders, and Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. 16 36. There are no individualized factual or legal issues for the court to resolve other 17 than the application of a formula to calculate each Class Members' damages. 18 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 19 FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES Labor Code §§1194, 1194.2 1197(a) & applicable IWC Wage Order 20 (PLAINTIFFS BARBARINO RAMIREZ, GUILLERMO RAMIREZ, ARTURO CRUZ, RUBEN MARTINEZ AND LEONEL MARTINEZ) 21 (AGAINST ALL Defendants) 22 37. PLAINTIFFS incorporate all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth 23 herein. 24 38. California Labor Code §1197, which is entitled “Pay of Less Than Minimum 25 Wage,” states: 26 The minimum wage for employees fixed by the commission is the minimum wage to be paid to employees, and the payment of a less wage 27 than the minimum so fixed is unlawful. 28 -10- PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND PAGA COMPLAINT- DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 39. The applicable minimum wage fixed by the commission in the Industrial Welfare 2 Commission (“IWC”) Wage Orders was set at six dollars and seventy-five cents ($6.75) per hour 3 for all hours worked effective January 1, 2002 but has since been amended for farm workers. 4 Effective January 1, 2017, the minimum wage for employers with 26 or more farm workers was 5 $10.50 per hour, and the minimum wage effective January 1, 2018 was $11.00 per hour, then 6 effective January 1, 2019 the minimum wage was $12.00 per hour. The minimum wage for farm 7 workers is $15.00 per hour effective January 1, 2022. 8 40. California Labor Code § 226.1 does not limit or alter minimum wage or overtime 9 compensation requirements, or the obligation to compensate employees for all hours worked 10 under any other status or local ordinance for employees who are compensated on a piece-rate 11 basis for any work performed during a pay period. 12 41. DEFENDANTS have failed to pay minimum wages for all hours worked. During 13 various times through the relevant time period, DEFENDANTS supervisors and managers 14 routinely either sent PLAINTIFFS and similarly situated employees home early and were not 15 allowed to finish or were unable to complete the required number of piece-rate units in the time 16 allotted to earn at least minimum wage for the workday. As a result of these practices, and 17 among others, DEFENDANTS have not paid piece rate workers at least the minimum wage for 18 all hours worked during the relevant time period. This violation of California minimum wage 19 law was substantial and a main feature of DEFENDANTS’ employment practices. 20 42. The Minimum Wage provisions of California Labor Code are enforceable by 21 private civil action pursuant to California Labor Code §1194(a), which states: Notwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage, any employee 22 receiving less than the legal minimum wage or the legal overtime compensation applicable to the employee is entitled to recover in a civil 23 action the unpaid balance of the full amount of this minimum wage or overtime compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable attorney’s 24 fees and costs of suit. 25 43. As such, PLAINTIFFS and the Class may bring this action for minimum wages, 26 interest, costs of suit and attorney’s fees pursuant to California Labor Code § 1194(a). 27 28 -11- PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND PAGA COMPLAINT- DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 44. As described in California Labor Code § 1194.2, any such action incorporate the 2 applicable wage order of the California Labor Commission. 3 45. California Labor Code § 1194.2 provides that: In any action under Section 1194 … to recover wages because of the 4 payment of a wage less than the minimum wages fixed by an order of the commission, an employee shall be entitled to recover liquidated damages in 5 an amount equal to the wages unlawfully unpaid and interest thereon. 6 46. As described herein, this is an action under California Labor Code § 1194 to 7 recover wages on account of DEFENDANTS’ failure to pay minimum wages as described in 8 California Labor Code §§1197, 1194(a), 1194.2 and applicable IWC Wage Order. Therefore, 9 PLAINTIFFSs and the Class are also entitled to recover liquidated damages in an amount equal 10 to the wages unlawfully unpaid and interest thereon. 11 47. Under Labor Code § 558.1, any natural person who is an owner, director, officer, 12 or managing agent of an employer, acting on behalf of the employer, who violates or causes to 13 be violated any provision regulating minimum wages or hours and days of work in any order of 14 the Industrial Welfare Commission, or violates, or causes to be violated, Labor Code §§ 203, 15 226, 226.7, 1193.6, 1194, or 2802, may be held liable as the employer for such violation. 16 Therefore, Defendant PEREZ and JOSE are liable for the violations herein alleged. 17 48. Under California Labor Code § 2810.3, a client employer shall share with a labor 18 contractor all civil legal responsibility and civil liability for the payment of wages for all workers 19 supplied by that labor contractor. Therefore, Defendant J LOHR and CAGLIERO are liable for 20 the violations herein alleged, regardless of the extent to which Defendant CENTRAL CALI 21 and/or AGUILAR FARMING may have created such violations. 22 49. Wherefore, PLAINTIFFS and the Class request relief as described herein and 23 below. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 24 WAITING TIME PENALTY CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §§201, 202 & 203 25 (PLAINTIFFS BARBARINO RAMIREZ, GUILLERMO RAMIREZ, ARTURO CRUZ, RUBEN MARTINEZ AND LEONEL MARTINEZ) 26 (AGAINST ALL Defendants) 27 28 -12- PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND PAGA COMPLAINT- DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 50. PLAINTIFFS incorporate all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth 2 herein. 3 51. California Labor Code §§201 and 202 provide for immediate payment of all 4 wages owed at termination of employment. 5 52. As described above, DEFENDANTS failed to pay minimum wage for all hours 6 worked as a result of DEFENDANTS supervisors and managers routinely either sending 7 PLAINTIFFS and similarly situated employees home early and were not allowed to finish or 8 were unable to complete the required number of piece-rate units in the time allotted to earn at 9 least minimum wage for the workday. This failure to pay piece rate workers at least minimum 10 wages for all hours worked resulted in DEFENDANTS failure to pay for all wages earned at the 11 time of termination or resignation. Defendant willfully refused to pay in accordance with the law 12 because it constituted and intentional failure to perform the required act. 13 53. DEFENDANTS have violated California Labor Code §§201 and/or 202 by failing 14 to pay PLAINTIFFS and a substantial portion of the Class all the wages owed to them, because 15 when PLAINTIFFS and a substantial portion of the Class left their employment with 16 DEFENDANTS or were seasonally laid off, DEFENDANTS did not pay them the wages owed 17 for pay rest and recovery period and other nonproductive time separate from any piece-rate 18 compensation, missed meal periods or for unreimbursed expenses. This failure to pay wages 19 owed was willful and, as such, DEFENDANTS are liable for penalties under §203 of the Labor 20 Code. 21 54. California Labor Code §203 states: If an employer willfully fails to pay, without abatement or reduction, in 22 accordance with Sections 201, 201.5, 202, and 205.5, any wages of an employee who is discharged or who quits, the wages of the employee shall 23 continue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or until an action therefore is commenced; but the wages shall not continue for 24 more than 30 days. An employee who secretes or absents himself or herself to avoid payment to him or her, or who refuses to receive the payment when 25 fully tendered to him or her, including any penalty then accrued under this