Preview
1 BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687)
2 Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975)
Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066)
3 Nicholas J. De Blouw (State Bar #280922)
Christine T. Levu (State Bar #288271)
4 christine@bamlawca.com
2255 Calle Clara
5 La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858)551-1223
6 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
Website: www.bamlawca.com
7
Attorneys for Plaintiff
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10
RUBEN ALMADER, an individual, on behalf Case No. ____________________
11 of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR:
12
1. UNFAIR COMPETITION IN VIOLATION
13 OF CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200, et
Plaintiff, seq.;
14 2. FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES
vs. IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE §§
15 1194, 1197 & 1197.1;
HUNT CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., a 3. FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES
16 Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE § 510;
inclusive, 4. FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED
17 MEAL PERIODS IN VIOLATION OF CAL.
LAB. CODE §§ 226.7 & 512 AND THE
18 APPLICABLE IWC WAGE ORDER;
Defendants. 5. FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED
19 REST PERIODS IN VIOLATION OF CAL.
LAB. CODE §§ 226.7 & 512 AND THE
20 APPLICABLE IWC WAGE ORDER;
6. FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE
21 ITEMIZED STATEMENTS IN VIOLATION
OF CAL. LAB. CODE § 226;
22 7. FAILURE TO REIMBURSE EMPLOYEES
FOR REQUIRED EXPENSES IN
23 VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE § 2802;
8. FAILURE TO PROVIDE WAGES WHEN DUE
24 IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 201,
202 AND 203; and,
25 9. FAILURE TO PAY SICK PAY WAGES IN
VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB CODE §§201-203,
26 233, 246.
27 DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
28
1
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Ruben Almader (“PLAINTIFF”), an individual, on behalf of himself and all other
2 similarly situated current and former employees alleges on information and belief, except for
3 his own acts and knowledge which are based on personal knowledge, the following.
4
5 THE PARTIES
6 1. Hunt Construction Group, Inc. (“DEFENDANT”) is a Corporation that at all
7 relevant times mentioned herein conducted and continues to conduct substantial business in
8 California.
9 2. DEFENDANT is an engineering and designing firm that provides services in
10 California.
11 3. PLAINTIFF was employed by DEFENDANT in California from July of 2020 to
12 April of 2024 and was at all times classified by DEFENDANT as a non-exempt employee, paid
13 on an hourly basis, and entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods and payment of
14 minimum and overtime wages due for all time worked.
15 4. PLAINTIFF brings this Class Action on behalf of himself and a California class,
16 defined as all individuals who are or previously were employed by DEFENDANT in California,
17 including any employees staffed with DEFENDANT by a third party, and classified as non-
18 exempt employees (the “CALIFORNIA CLASS”) at any time during the period beginning four
19 (4) years prior to the filing of this Complaint and ending on the date as determined by the Court
20 (the “CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD”). The amount in controversy for the aggregate claim
21 of CALIFORNIA CLASS Members is under five million dollars ($5,000,000.00).
22 5. PLAINTIFF brings this Class Action on behalf of himself and a
23 CALIFORNIA CLASS in order to fully compensate the CALIFORNIA CLASS for their
24 losses incurred during the CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD caused by DEFENDANT’s
25 policy and practice which failed to lawfully compensate these employees. DEFENDANT’s
26 policy and practice alleged herein was an unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practice
27 whereby DEFENDANT retained and continues to retain wages due PLAINTIFF and the
28 other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS. PLAINTIFF and the other members of the
2
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 CALIFORNIA CLASS seek an injunction enjoining such conduct by DEFENDANT in the
2 future, relief for the named PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA
3 CLASS who have been economically injured by DEFENDANT’s past and current unlawful
4 conduct, and all other appropriate legal and equitable relief.
5 6. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, subsidiary,
6 partnership, associate or otherwise of defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are
7 presently unknown to PLAINTIFF who therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious
8 names pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 474. PLAINTIFF will seek leave to amend this
9 Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of Does 1 through 50, inclusive, when
10 they are ascertained. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and based upon that information
11 and belief alleges, that the Defendants named in this Complaint, including DOES 1 through
12 50, inclusive, are responsible in some manner for one or more of the events and happenings
13 that proximately caused the injuries and damages hereinafter alleged.
14 7. The agents, servants and/or employees of the Defendants and each of them
15 acting on behalf of the Defendants acted within the course and scope of his, her or its
16 authority as the agent, servant and/or employee of the Defendants, and personally
17 participated in the conduct alleged herein on behalf of the Defendants with respect to the
18 conduct alleged herein. Consequently, the acts of each Defendant are legally attributable to
19 the other Defendants and all Defendants are jointly and severally liable to PLAINTIFF and
20 the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS, for the loss sustained as a proximate result
21 of the conduct of the Defendants’ agents, servants and/or employees.
22
23 THE CONDUCT
24 8. Pursuant to the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, DEFENDANT
25 was required to pay PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for all their time
26 worked, meaning the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an
27 employer, including all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work.
28 DEFENDANT requires PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members to work without
3
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 paying them for all the time they are under DEFENDANT’s control. Among other things,
2 DEFENDANT requires PLAINTIFF to work while clocked out during what is supposed to
3 be PLAINTIFF’s off-duty meal break. PLAINTIFF was from time to time interrupted by
4 work assignments while clocked out for what should have been PLAINTIFF’s off-duty meal
5 break. DEFENDANT, as a matter of established company policy and procedure, administers
6 a uniform practice of rounding the actual time worked and recorded by PLAINTIFF and
7 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members, always to the benefit of DEFENDANT, so that during the
8 course of their employment, PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members are paid less
9 than they would have been paid had they been paid for actual recorded time rather than
10 “rounded” time. Additionally, DEFENDANT engages in the practice of requiring
11 PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members to perform work off the clock in that
12 DEFENDANT, as a condition of employment, required these employees to submit to
13 mandatory temperature checks and symptom questionnaires for COVID-19 screening prior
14 to clocking into DEFENDANT’s timekeeping system for the workday. As a result,
15 PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members forfeit minimum wage, overtime
16 wage compensation, and off-duty meal breaks by working without their time being correctly
17 recorded and without compensation at the applicable rates. DEFENDANT’s policy and
18 practice not to pay PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for all time
19 worked, is evidenced by DEFENDANT’s business records.
20 9. State and federal law provides that employees must be paid overtime and meal
21 and rest break premiums at one-and-one-half times their “regular rate of pay.” PLAINTIFF
22 and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members are compensated at an hourly rate plus incentive
23 pay that is tied to specific elements of an employee’s performance.
24 10. The second component of PLAINTIFF’s and other CALIFORNIA CLASS
25 Members’ compensation is DEFENDANT’s non-discretionary incentive program that paid
26 PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members incentive wages based on their
27 performance for DEFENDANT. The non-discretionary incentive program provided all
28 employees paid on an hourly basis with incentive compensation when the employees met the
4
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 various performance goals set by DEFENDANT. However, when calculating the regular
2 rate of pay in order to pay overtime and meal and rest break premiums to PLAINTIFF and
3 other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members, DEFENDANT failed to include the incentive
4 compensation as part of the employees’ “regular rate of pay” for purposes of calculating
5 overtime pay and meal and rest break premium pay. Management and supervisors described
6 the incentive program to potential and new employees as part of the compensation package.
7 As a matter of law, the incentive compensation received by PLAINTIFF and other
8 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members must be included in the “regular rate of pay.” The failure
9 to do so has resulted in a underpayment of overtime compensation and meal and rest break
10 premiums to PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members by DEFENDANT.
11 11. As a result of their rigorous work schedules, PLAINTIFF and other
12 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were from time to time unable to take thirty (30) minute
13 off duty meal breaks and were not fully relieved of duty for their meal periods. PLAINTIFF
14 and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were required from time to time to perform
15 work as ordered by DEFENDANT for more than five (5) hours during some shifts without
16 receiving a meal break. Further, DEFENDANT from time to time failed to provide
17 PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members with a second off-duty meal period for
18 some workdays in which these employees were required by DEFENDANT to work ten (10)
19 hours of work. DEFENDANT also engaged in the practice of rounding the meal period
20 times to avoid paying penalties to PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members.
21 PLAINTIFF and other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS therefore forfeit meal breaks
22 without additional compensation and in accordance with DEFENDANT’s corporate policy
23 and practice.
24 12. During the CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD, PLAINTIFF and other
25 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were also required from time to time to work in excess of
26 four (4) hours without being provided ten (10) minute rest periods. Further, these employees
27 were denied their first rest periods of at least ten (10) minutes for some shifts worked of at
28 least two (2) to four (4) hours from time to time, a first and second rest period of at least ten
5
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 (10) minutes for some shifts worked of between six (6) and eight (8) hours from time to
2 time, and a first, second and third rest period of at least ten (10) minutes for some shifts
3 worked of ten (10) hours or more from time to time. PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA
4 CLASS Members were also not provided with one hour wages in lieu thereof. Additionally,
5 the applicable California Wage Order requires employers to provide employees with off-
6 duty rest periods, which the California Supreme Court defined as time during which an
7 employee is relieved from all work related duties and free from employer control. In so
8 doing, the Court held that the requirement under California law that employers authorize and
9 permit all employees to take rest period means that employers must relieve employees of all
10 duties and relinquish control over how employees spend their time which includes control
11 over the locations where employees may take their rest period. Employers cannot impose
12 controls that prohibit an employee from taking a walk - five minutes out, five minutes back.
13 Here, DEFENDANT’s policy restricted PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS
14 Members from unconstrained walks and is unlawful based on DEFENDANT’s rule which
15 states PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members cannot leave the work
16 premises during their rest period.
17 13. During the CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD, DEFENDANT failed to
18 accurately record and pay PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for the
19 actual amount of time these employees worked. Pursuant to the Industrial Welfare
20 Commission Wage Orders, DEFENDANT was required to pay PLAINTIFF and other
21 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for all time worked, meaning the time during which an
22 employee was subject to the control of an employer, including all the time the employee was
23 permitted or suffered to permit this work. DEFENDANT required these employees to work
24 off the clock without paying them for all the time they were under DEFENDANT’s control.
25 As such, DEFENDANT knew or should have known that PLAINTIFF and the other
26 members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS were under compensated for all time worked. As a
27 result, PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members forfeited time worked by
28 working without their time being accurately recorded and without compensation at the
6
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 applicable minimum wage and overtime wage rates. To the extent that the time worked off
2 the clock does not qualify for overtime premium payment, DEFENDANT fails to pay
3 minimum wages for the time worked off-the-clock in violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194,
4 1197, and 1197.1.
5 14. From time to time, DEFENDANT also failed to provide PLAINTIFF and the
6 other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS with complete and accurate wage statements
7 which failed to show, among other things, the correct gross and net wages earned. Cal. Lab.
8 Code § 226 provides that every employer shall furnish each of his or her employees with an
9 accurate itemized wage statement in writing showing, among other things, gross wages
10 earned and all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding
11 amount of time worked at each hourly rate. PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS
12 Members were paid on an hourly basis. As such, the wage statements should reflect all
13 applicable hourly rates during the pay period and the total hours worked, and the applicable
14 pay period in which the wages were earned pursuant to California Labor Code Section
15 226(a). The wage statements DEFENDANT provided to PLAINTIFF and other
16 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members failed to identify such information. More specifically, the
17 wage statements failed to identify the accurate total hours worked each pay period. When
18 the hours shown on the wage statements were added up, they did not equal the actual total
19 hours worked during the pay period in violation of Cal. Lab. Code 226(a)(2). Aside, from
20 the violations listed above in this paragraph, DEFENDANT failed to issue to PLAINTIFF
21 an itemized wage statement that lists all the requirements under California Labor Code 226
22 et seq. As a result, DEFENDANT from time to time provided PLAINTIFF and the other
23 members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS with wage statements which violated Cal. Lab. Code
24 § 226.
25
15. DEFENDANT underpaid sick pay wages to PLAINTIFF and other
26
CALIFORNIA CLASS Members by failing to pay such wages at the regular rate of pay in
27
violation of Cal. Lab. Code Section 246. Specifically, PLAINTIFF and other non-exempt
28
7
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 employees earn non-discretionary remuneration. Rather than pay sick pay at the regular rate
2 of pay, DEFENDANT underpaid sick pay to PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS
3 Members at their base rates of pay.
4 16. Cal. Lab. Code Section 246(l)(2) requires that paid sick time for nonexempt
5 employees be calculated by dividing the employee’s total wages, not including overtime
6 premium pay, by the employee’s total hours worked in the full pay periods of the prior 90
7 days of employment.
8 17. DEFENDANT violated Cal. Lab. Code Section 246 by failing to pay sick pay
9 at the regular rate of pay. PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members routinely
10 earned non-discretionary incentive wages which increased their regular rate of pay.
11 However, when sick pay was paid, it was paid at the base rate of pay for PLAINTIFF and
12 members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS, as opposed to the correct, higher regular rate of pay,
13 as required under Cal. Lab. Code Section 246.
14 18. As a pattern and practice, DEFENDANT regularly failed to pay PLAINTIFF
15 and other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS their correct wages and accordingly owe
16 waiting time penalties pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code Section 203. Further, PLAINTIFF is
17 informed and believes and based thereon alleges that such failure to pay sick pay at regular
18 rate was willful, such that PLAINTIFF and members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS whose
19 employment has separated are entitled to waiting time penalties pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code
20 Sections 201-203.
21 19. Pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code Section 221, “It shall be unlawful for any employer
22 to collect or receive from an employee any part of wages theretofore paid by said employer
23 to said employee.” DEFENDANT failed to pay all compensation due to PLAINTIFF and
24 other CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members, made unlawful deductions from
25 compensation payable to PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members,
26 failed to disclose all aspects of the deductions from compensation payable to PLAINTIFF
27 and CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members, and thereby failed to pay these
28 employees all wages due at each applicable pay period and upon termination. PLAINTIFF
8
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 and members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS seek recovery of all illegal
2 deductions from wages according to proof, related penalties, interest, attorney fees and costs.
3 20. DEFENDANT intentionally and knowingly failed to reimburse and indemnify
4 PLAINTIFF and the other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for required business expenses
5 incurred by the PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members in direct
6 consequence of discharging their duties on behalf of DEFENDANT. Under California
7 Labor Code Section 2802, employers are required to indemnify employees for all expenses
8 incurred in the course and scope of their employment. Cal. Lab. Code § 2802 expressly
9 states that "an employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures
10 or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her
11 duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of the employer, even though unlawful,
12 unless the employee, at the time of obeying the directions, believed them to be unlawful."
13 21. In the course of their employment PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA
14 CLASS Members as a business expense, were required by DEFENDANT to use their own
15 personal cellular phones as a result of and in furtherance of their job duties as employees for
16 DEFENDANT but are not reimbursed or indemnified by DEFENDANT for the cost
17 associated with the use of their personal cellular phones for DEFENDANT’s benefit.
18 Specifically, PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were required by
19 DEFENDANT to use their personal cellular phones. As a result, in the course of their
20 employment with DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF and other members of the CALIFORNIA
21 CLASS incurred unreimbursed business expenses which included, but were not limited to,
22 costs related to the use of their personal cellular phones all on behalf of and for the benefit
23 of DEFENDANT.
24 22. In violation of the applicable sections of the California Labor Code and the
25 requirements of the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Order,
26 DEFENDANT as a matter of company policy, practice and procedure, intentionally,
27 knowingly and systematically failed to provide PLAINTIFF and the other Aggrieved
28
9
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Employees suitable seating when the nature of these employees’ work reasonably permitted
2 sitting.
3 23. DEFENDANT knew or should have known that PLAINTIFF and other
4 Aggrieved Employees were entitled to suitable seating and/or were entitled to sit when it did
5 not interfere with the performance of their duties, and that DEFENDANT did not provide
6 suitable seating and/or did not allow them to sit when it did not interfere with the
7 performance of their duties.
8 24. By reason of this conduct applicable to PLAINTIFF and all Aggrieved
9 Employees, DEFENDANT violated California Labor Code Section 1198 and California
10 Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 11070(14) (Failure to Provide Seating), Wage Order
11 4-2001, Section 14 by failing to provide suitable seats. PLAINTIFF seeks penalties on
12 behalf of PLAINTIFF and other Aggrieved Employees as provided herein. Providing
13 suitable seating is the DEFENDANT’s burden. As a result of DEFENDANT’s intentional
14 disregard of the obligation to meet this burden, DEFENDANT violated the California Labor
15 Code and regulations promulgated thereunder as herein alleged.
16 25. Specifically as to PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT failed to provide all the legally
17 required off-duty meal and rest breaks to PLAINTIFF as required by the applicable Wage
18 Order and Labor Code and failed to pay PLAINTIFF all minimum and overtime wages due
19 to PLAINTIFF. DEFENDANT did not have a policy or practice which provided timely off-
20 duty meal and rest breaks to PLAINTIFF and also failed to compensate PLAINTIFF for
21 PLAINTIFF’s missed meal and rest breaks. The nature of the work performed by the
22 PLAINTIFF did not prevent PLAINTIFF from being relieved of all of PLAINTIFF’s duties
23 for the legally required off-duty meal periods. As a result, DEFENDANT’s failure to
24 provide PLAINTIFF with the legally required meal periods is evidenced by DEFENDANT’s
25 business records. The amount in controversy for PLAINTIFF individually does not exceed
26 the sum or value of $75,000.
27 ///
28 ///
10
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2
26. This Court has jurisdiction over this Action pursuant to California Code of
3
Civil Procedure, Section 410.10 and California Business & Professions Code, Section
4
17203. This action is brought as a Class Action on behalf of PLAINTIFF and similarly
5
situated employees of DEFENDANT pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382.
6
27. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure,
7
Sections 395 and 395.5, because PLAINTIFF worked in this County for DEFENDANT and
8
DEFENDANT (i) currently maintains and at all relevant times maintained offices and
9
facilities in this County and/or conducts substantial business in this County, and (ii)
10
committed the wrongful conduct herein alleged in this County against members of the
11
CALIFORNIA CLASS.
12
13
THE CALIFORNIA CLASS
14
28. PLAINTIFF brings the First Cause of Action for Unfair, Unlawful and
15
Deceptive Business Practices pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (the
16
"UCL") as a Class Action, pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382, on behalf of a
17
California class, defined as all individuals who are or previously were employed by
18
DEFENDANT in California, including any employees staffed with DEFENDANT by a third
19
party, and classified as non-exempt employees (the “CALIFORNIA CLASS”) at any time
20
during the period beginning four (4) years prior to the filing of this Complaint and ending on
21
the date as determined by the Court (the “CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD”). The amount
22
in controversy for the aggregate claim of CALIFORNIA CLASS Members is under five
23
million dollars ($5,000,000.00).
24
29. To the extent equitable tolling operates to toll claims by the CALIFORNIA
25
CLASS against DEFENDANT, the CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD should be adjusted
26
accordingly.
27
28
11
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 30. DEFENDANT, as a matter of company policy, practice and procedure, and in
2 violation of the applicable Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage
3 Order requirements, and the applicable provisions of California law, intentionally,
4 knowingly, and wilfully, engaged in a practice whereby DEFENDANT failed to record all
5 meal and rest breaks missed by PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members,
6 even though DEFENDANT enjoyed the benefit of this work, required employees to perform
7 this work and permits or suffers to permit this work.
8 31. DEFENDANT has the legal burden to establish that each and every
9 CALIFORNIA CLASS Member was paid accurately for all meal and rest breaks missed as
10 required by California laws. The DEFENDANT, however, as a matter of policy and
11 procedure failed to have in place during the CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD and still fails
12 to have in place a policy or practice to ensure that each and every CALIFORNIA CLASS
13 Member is paid as required by law. This common business practice is applicable to each
14 and every CALIFORNIA CLASS Member can be adjudicated on a class-wide basis as
15 unlawful, unfair, and/or deceptive under Cal. Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.
16 (the “UCL”) as causation, damages, and reliance are not elements of this claim.
17 32. The CALIFORNIA CLASS, is so numerous that joinder of all CALIFORNIA
18 CLASS Members is impracticable.
19 33. DEFENDANT violated the rights of the CALIFORNIA CLASS under
20 California law by:
21 (a) Committing an act of unfair competition in violation of , Cal. Bus. &
22 Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (the "UCL"), by unlawfully, unfairly
23 and/or deceptively having in place company policies, practices and
24 procedures that failed to record and pay PLAINTIFF and the other
25 members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS for all time worked, including
26 minimum wages owed and overtime wages owed for work performed
27 by these employees; and,
28
12
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 (b) Committing an act of unfair competition in violation of the UCL, by
2 failing to provide the PLAINTIFF and the other members of the
3 CALIFORNIA CLASS with the legally required meal and rest periods.
4 34. This Class Action meets the statutory prerequisites for the maintenance of a
5 Class Action as set forth in Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382, in that:
6 (a) The persons who comprise the CALIFORNIA CLASS are so numerous
7 that the joinder of all such persons is impracticable and the disposition
8 of their claims as a class will benefit the parties and the Court;
9 (b) Nearly all factual, legal, statutory, declaratory and injunctive relief
10 issues that are raised in this Complaint are common to the
11 CALIFORNIA CLASS will apply to every member of the
12 CALIFORNIA CLASS;
13 (c) The claims of the representative PLAINTIFF are typical of the claims
14 of each member of the CALIFORNIA CLASS. PLAINTIFF, like all
15 the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS, was classified as a
16 non-exempt employee paid on an hourly basis who was subjected to the
17 DEFENDANT’s deceptive practice and policy which failed to provide
18 the legally required meal and rest periods to the CALIFORNIA CLASS
19 and thereby underpaid compensation to PLAINTIFF and
20 CALIFORNIA CLASS. PLAINTIFF sustained economic injury as a
21 result of DEFENDANT’s employment practices. PLAINTIFF and the
22 members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS were and are similarly or
23 identically harmed by the same unlawful, deceptive and unfair
24 misconduct engaged in by DEFENDANT; and,
25 (d) The representative PLAINTIFF will fairly and adequately represent and
26 protect the interest of the CALIFORNIA CLASS, and has retained
27 counsel who are competent and experienced in Class Action litigation.
28 There are no material conflicts between the claims of the representative
13
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 PLAINTIFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS that would
2 make class certification inappropriate. Counsel for the CALIFORNIA
3 CLASS will vigorously assert the claims of all CALIFORNIA CLASS
4 Members.
5 35. In addition to meeting the statutory prerequisites to a Class Action, this action
6 is properly maintained as a Class Action pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382, in that:
7 (a) Without class certification and determination of declaratory, injunctive,
8 statutory and other legal questions within the class format, prosecution
9 of separate actions by individual members of the CALIFORNIA
10 CLASS will create the risk of:
11 1) Inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual
12 members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS which would establish
13 incompatible standards of conduct for the parties opposing the
14 CALIFORNIA CLASS; and/or,
15 2) Adjudication with respect to individual members of the
16 CALIFORNIA CLASS which would as a practical matter be
17 dispositive of interests of the other members not party to the
18 adjudication or substantially impair or impede their ability to
19 protect their interests.
20 (b) The parties opposing the CALIFORNIA CLASS have acted or refused
21 to act on grounds generally applicable to the CALIFORNIA CLASS,
22 making appropriate class-wide relief with respect to the CALIFORNIA
23 CLASS as a whole in that DEFENDANT failed to pay all wages due to
24 members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS as required by law;
25 1) With respect to the First Cause of Action, the final relief on
26 behalf of the CALIFORNIA CLASS sought does not relate
27 exclusively to restitution because through this claim
28 PLAINTIFF seeks declaratory relief holding that the
14
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 DEFENDANT’s policy and practices constitute unfair
2 competition, along with declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and
3 incidental equitable relief as may be necessary to prevent and
4 remedy the conduct declared to constitute unfair competition;
5 (c) Common questions of law and fact exist as to the members of the
6 CALIFORNIA CLASS, with respect to the practices and violations of
7 California law as listed above, and predominate over any question
8 affecting only individual CALIFORNIA CLASS Members, and a Class
9 Action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
10 adjudication of the controversy, including consideration of:
11 1) The interests of the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS in
12 individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate
13 actions in that the substantial expense of individual actions will
14 be avoided to recover the relatively small amount of economic
15 losses sustained by the individual CALIFORNIA CLASS
16 Members when compared to the substantial expense and burden
17 of individual prosecution of this litigation;
18 2) Class certification will obviate the need for unduly duplicative
19 litigation that would create the risk of:
20 A. Inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to
21 individual members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS, which
22 would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the
23 DEFENDANT; and/or,
24 B. Adjudications with respect to individual members of the
25 CALIFORNIA CLASS would as a practical matter be
26 dispositive of the interests of the other members not
27 parties to the adjudication or substantially impair or
28 impede their ability to protect their interests;
15
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 3) In the context of wage litigation because a substantial number of
2 individual CALIFORNIA CLASS Members will avoid asserting
3 their legal rights out of fear of retaliation by DEFENDANT,
4 which may adversely affect an individual’s job with
5 DEFENDANT or with a subsequent employer, the Class Action
6 is the only means to assert their claims through a representative;
7 and,
8 4) A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair
9 and efficient adjudication of this litigation because class
10 treatment will obviate the need for unduly and unnecessary
11 duplicative litigation that is likely to result in the absence of
12 certification of this action pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §
13 382.
14 36. This Court should permit this action to be maintained as a Class Action
15 pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382 because:
16 (a) The questions of law and fact common to the CALIFORNIA CLASS
17 predominate over any question affecting only individual CALIFORNIA
18 CLASS Members because the DEFENDANT’s employment practices
19 are applied with respect to the CALIFORNIA CLASS;
20 (b) A Class Action is superior to any other available method for the fair
21 and efficient adjudication of the claims of the members of the
22 CALIFORNIA CLASS because in the context of employment litigation
23 a substantial number of individual CALIFORNIA CLASS Members
24 will avoid asserting their rights individually out of fear of retaliation or
25 adverse impact on their employment;
26 (c) The members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS are so numerous that it is
27 impractical to bring all members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS before
28 the Court;
16
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 (d) PLAINTIFF, and the other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members, will not
2 be able to obtain effective and economic legal redress unless the action
3 is maintained as a Class Action;
4 (e) There is a community of interest in obtaining appropriate legal and
5 equitable relief for the acts of unfair competition, statutory violations
6 and other improprieties, and in obtaining adequate compensation for
7 the damages and injuries which DEFENDANT’s actions have inflicted
8 upon the CALIFORNIA CLASS;
9 (f) There is a community of interest in ensuring that the combined assets of
10 DEFENDANT are sufficient to adequately compensate the members of
11 the CALIFORNIA CLASS for the injuries sustained;
12 (g) DEFENDANT has acted or refused to act on grounds generally
13 applicable to the CALIFORNIA CLASS, thereby making final class-
14 wide relief appropriate with respect to the CALIFORNIA CLASS as a
15 whole;
16 (h) The members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS are readily ascertainable
17 from the business records of DEFENDANT; and,
18 (i) Class treatment provides manageable judicial treatment calculated to
19 bring a efficient and rapid conclusion to all litigation of all wage and
20 hour related claims arising out of the conduct of DEFENDANT as to
21 the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS.
22 37. DEFENDANT maintains records from which the Court can ascertain and
23 identify by job title each of DEFENDANT’s employees who have been intentionally
24 subjected to DEFENDANT’s company policy, practices and procedures as herein alleged.
25 PLAINTIFF will seek leave to amend the Complaint to include any additional job titles of
26 similarly situated employees when they have been identified.
27 ///
28 ///
17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 THE CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS
2 38. PLAINTIFF further brings the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh,
3 Eighth and Ninth causes Action on behalf of a California sub-class, defined as all members
4 of the CALIFORNIA CLASS who are or previously were employed by DEFENDANT in
5 California, including any employees staffed with DEFENDANT by a third party, and
6 classified as non exempt employees (the “CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS”) at any
7 time during the period three (3) years prior to the filing of the complaint and ending on the
8 date as determined by the Court (the “CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS PERIOD”)
9 pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382. The amount in controversy for the aggregate
10 claim of CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members is under five million dollars
11 ($5,000,000.00).
12 39. DEFENDANT, in violation of the applicable Labor Code, Industrial Welfare
13 Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order requirements, and the applicable provisions of California
14 law, intentionally, knowingly, and wilfully, engaged in a practice whereby DEFENDANT
15 failed to correctly calculate compensation for the time worked by PLAINTIFF and the other
16 members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS and reporting time wages owed to
17 these employees, even though DEFENDANT enjoyed the benefit of this work, required
18 employees to perform this work and permitted or suffered to permit this work.
19 DEFENDANT has denied these CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members wages to
20 which these employees are entitled in order to unfairly cheat the competition and unlawfully
21 profit. To the extent equitable tolling operates to toll claims by the CALIFORNIA LABOR
22 SUB-CLASS against DEFENDANT, the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS PERIOD
23 should be adjusted accordingly.
24 40. DEFENDANT maintains records from which the Court can ascertain and
25 identify by name and job title, each of DEFENDANT’s employees who have been
26 intentionally subjected to DEFENDANT’s company policy, practices and procedures as
27 herein alleged. PLAINTIFF will seek leave to amend the complaint to include any
28 additional job titles of similarly situated employees when they have been identified.
18
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 41. The CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS is so numerous that joinder of all
2 CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members is impracticable.
3 42. Common questions of law and fact exist as to members of the CALIFORNIA
4 LABOR SUB-CLASS, including, but not limited, to the following:
5 (a) Whether DEFENDANT unlawfully failed to correctly calculate and pay
6 compensation due to members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-
7 CLASS for missed meal and rest breaks in violation of the California
8 Labor Code and California regulations and the applicable California
9 Wage Order;
10 (b) Whether DEFENDANT failed to provide the PLAINTIFF and the other
11 members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS with accurate
12 itemized wage statements;
13 (c) Whether DEFENDANT has engaged in unfair competition by the
14 above-listed conduct;
15 (d) The proper measure of damages and penalties owed to the members of
16 the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS; and,
17 (e) Whether DEFENDANT’s conduct was willful.
18 43. DEFENDANT violated the rights of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-
19 CLASS under California law by:
20 (a) Violating Cal. Lab. Code § 510, by failing to correctly pay the
21 PLAINTIFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-
22 CLASS all wages due for overtime worked, for which DEFENDANT is
23 liable pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code § 1194;
24 (b) Violating Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1197 & 1197.1 et seq., by failing to
25 accurately pay PLAINTIFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA
26 LABOR SUB-CLASS the correct minimum wage pay for which
27 DEFENDANT is liable pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194 and 1197;
28
19
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 (c) Violating Cal. Lab. Code § 226, by failing to provide PLAINTIFF and
2 the members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS with an
3 accurate itemized statement in writing showing the corresponding
4 correct amount of wages earned by the employee;
5 (d) Violating Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7 and 512, by failing to provide
6 PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR
7 SUB-CLASS with all legally required off-duty, uninterrupted thirty
8 (30) minute meal breaks and the legally required off-duty rest breaks;
9 (e) Violating Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201, 202 and/or 203, which provides that
10 when an employee is discharged or quits from employment, the
11 employer must pay the employee all wages due without abatement, by
12 failing to tender full payment and/or restitution of wages owed or in the
13 manner required by California law to the members of the
14 CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS who have terminated their
15 employment; and,
16 (f) Violating Cal. Lab. Code § 2802 by failing to reimburse PLAINTIFF
17 and the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS members with necessary
18 expenses incurred in the discharge of their job duties.
19 44. This Class Action meets the statutory prerequisites for the maintenance of a
20 Class Action as set forth in Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382, in that:
21 (a) The persons who comprise the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS
22 are so numerous that the joinder of all CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-
23 CLASS Members is impracticable and the disposition of their claims as
24 a class will benefit the parties and the Court;
25 (b) Nearly all factual, legal, statutory, declaratory and injunctive relief
26 issues that are raised in this Complaint are common to the
27 CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS and will apply to every member
28 of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS;
20
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 (c) The claims of the representative PLAINTIFF are typical of the claims
2 of each member of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS.
3 PLAINTIFF, like all the other members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR
4 SUB-CLASS, was a non-exempt employee paid on an hourly basis who
5 was subjected to the DEFENDANT’s practice and policy which failed
6 to pay
Preview
1 BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687) 2 Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975) Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066) 3 Nicholas J. De Blouw (State Bar #280922) Christine T. Levu (State Bar #288271) 4 christine@bamlawca.com 2255 Calle Clara 5 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858)551-1223 6 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 Website: www.bamlawca.com 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 10 RUBEN ALMADER, an individual, on behalf Case No. ____________________ 11 of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR: 12 1. UNFAIR COMPETITION IN VIOLATION 13 OF CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200, et Plaintiff, seq.; 14 2. FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES vs. IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 15 1194, 1197 & 1197.1; HUNT CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., a 3. FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES 16 Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE § 510; inclusive, 4. FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED 17 MEAL PERIODS IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 226.7 & 512 AND THE 18 APPLICABLE IWC WAGE ORDER; Defendants. 5. FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED 19 REST PERIODS IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 226.7 & 512 AND THE 20 APPLICABLE IWC WAGE ORDER; 6. FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE 21 ITEMIZED STATEMENTS IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE § 226; 22 7. FAILURE TO REIMBURSE EMPLOYEES FOR REQUIRED EXPENSES IN 23 VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE § 2802; 8. FAILURE TO PROVIDE WAGES WHEN DUE 24 IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 201, 202 AND 203; and, 25 9. FAILURE TO PAY SICK PAY WAGES IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB CODE §§201-203, 26 233, 246. 27 DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL 28 1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 Ruben Almader (“PLAINTIFF”), an individual, on behalf of himself and all other 2 similarly situated current and former employees alleges on information and belief, except for 3 his own acts and knowledge which are based on personal knowledge, the following. 4 5 THE PARTIES 6 1. Hunt Construction Group, Inc. (“DEFENDANT”) is a Corporation that at all 7 relevant times mentioned herein conducted and continues to conduct substantial business in 8 California. 9 2. DEFENDANT is an engineering and designing firm that provides services in 10 California. 11 3. PLAINTIFF was employed by DEFENDANT in California from July of 2020 to 12 April of 2024 and was at all times classified by DEFENDANT as a non-exempt employee, paid 13 on an hourly basis, and entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods and payment of 14 minimum and overtime wages due for all time worked. 15 4. PLAINTIFF brings this Class Action on behalf of himself and a California class, 16 defined as all individuals who are or previously were employed by DEFENDANT in California, 17 including any employees staffed with DEFENDANT by a third party, and classified as non- 18 exempt employees (the “CALIFORNIA CLASS”) at any time during the period beginning four 19 (4) years prior to the filing of this Complaint and ending on the date as determined by the Court 20 (the “CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD”). The amount in controversy for the aggregate claim 21 of CALIFORNIA CLASS Members is under five million dollars ($5,000,000.00). 22 5. PLAINTIFF brings this Class Action on behalf of himself and a 23 CALIFORNIA CLASS in order to fully compensate the CALIFORNIA CLASS for their 24 losses incurred during the CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD caused by DEFENDANT’s 25 policy and practice which failed to lawfully compensate these employees. DEFENDANT’s 26 policy and practice alleged herein was an unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practice 27 whereby DEFENDANT retained and continues to retain wages due PLAINTIFF and the 28 other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS. PLAINTIFF and the other members of the 2 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 CALIFORNIA CLASS seek an injunction enjoining such conduct by DEFENDANT in the 2 future, relief for the named PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA 3 CLASS who have been economically injured by DEFENDANT’s past and current unlawful 4 conduct, and all other appropriate legal and equitable relief. 5 6. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, subsidiary, 6 partnership, associate or otherwise of defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are 7 presently unknown to PLAINTIFF who therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious 8 names pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 474. PLAINTIFF will seek leave to amend this 9 Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of Does 1 through 50, inclusive, when 10 they are ascertained. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and based upon that information 11 and belief alleges, that the Defendants named in this Complaint, including DOES 1 through 12 50, inclusive, are responsible in some manner for one or more of the events and happenings 13 that proximately caused the injuries and damages hereinafter alleged. 14 7. The agents, servants and/or employees of the Defendants and each of them 15 acting on behalf of the Defendants acted within the course and scope of his, her or its 16 authority as the agent, servant and/or employee of the Defendants, and personally 17 participated in the conduct alleged herein on behalf of the Defendants with respect to the 18 conduct alleged herein. Consequently, the acts of each Defendant are legally attributable to 19 the other Defendants and all Defendants are jointly and severally liable to PLAINTIFF and 20 the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS, for the loss sustained as a proximate result 21 of the conduct of the Defendants’ agents, servants and/or employees. 22 23 THE CONDUCT 24 8. Pursuant to the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, DEFENDANT 25 was required to pay PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for all their time 26 worked, meaning the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an 27 employer, including all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work. 28 DEFENDANT requires PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members to work without 3 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 paying them for all the time they are under DEFENDANT’s control. Among other things, 2 DEFENDANT requires PLAINTIFF to work while clocked out during what is supposed to 3 be PLAINTIFF’s off-duty meal break. PLAINTIFF was from time to time interrupted by 4 work assignments while clocked out for what should have been PLAINTIFF’s off-duty meal 5 break. DEFENDANT, as a matter of established company policy and procedure, administers 6 a uniform practice of rounding the actual time worked and recorded by PLAINTIFF and 7 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members, always to the benefit of DEFENDANT, so that during the 8 course of their employment, PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members are paid less 9 than they would have been paid had they been paid for actual recorded time rather than 10 “rounded” time. Additionally, DEFENDANT engages in the practice of requiring 11 PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members to perform work off the clock in that 12 DEFENDANT, as a condition of employment, required these employees to submit to 13 mandatory temperature checks and symptom questionnaires for COVID-19 screening prior 14 to clocking into DEFENDANT’s timekeeping system for the workday. As a result, 15 PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members forfeit minimum wage, overtime 16 wage compensation, and off-duty meal breaks by working without their time being correctly 17 recorded and without compensation at the applicable rates. DEFENDANT’s policy and 18 practice not to pay PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for all time 19 worked, is evidenced by DEFENDANT’s business records. 20 9. State and federal law provides that employees must be paid overtime and meal 21 and rest break premiums at one-and-one-half times their “regular rate of pay.” PLAINTIFF 22 and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members are compensated at an hourly rate plus incentive 23 pay that is tied to specific elements of an employee’s performance. 24 10. The second component of PLAINTIFF’s and other CALIFORNIA CLASS 25 Members’ compensation is DEFENDANT’s non-discretionary incentive program that paid 26 PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members incentive wages based on their 27 performance for DEFENDANT. The non-discretionary incentive program provided all 28 employees paid on an hourly basis with incentive compensation when the employees met the 4 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 various performance goals set by DEFENDANT. However, when calculating the regular 2 rate of pay in order to pay overtime and meal and rest break premiums to PLAINTIFF and 3 other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members, DEFENDANT failed to include the incentive 4 compensation as part of the employees’ “regular rate of pay” for purposes of calculating 5 overtime pay and meal and rest break premium pay. Management and supervisors described 6 the incentive program to potential and new employees as part of the compensation package. 7 As a matter of law, the incentive compensation received by PLAINTIFF and other 8 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members must be included in the “regular rate of pay.” The failure 9 to do so has resulted in a underpayment of overtime compensation and meal and rest break 10 premiums to PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members by DEFENDANT. 11 11. As a result of their rigorous work schedules, PLAINTIFF and other 12 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were from time to time unable to take thirty (30) minute 13 off duty meal breaks and were not fully relieved of duty for their meal periods. PLAINTIFF 14 and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were required from time to time to perform 15 work as ordered by DEFENDANT for more than five (5) hours during some shifts without 16 receiving a meal break. Further, DEFENDANT from time to time failed to provide 17 PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members with a second off-duty meal period for 18 some workdays in which these employees were required by DEFENDANT to work ten (10) 19 hours of work. DEFENDANT also engaged in the practice of rounding the meal period 20 times to avoid paying penalties to PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members. 21 PLAINTIFF and other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS therefore forfeit meal breaks 22 without additional compensation and in accordance with DEFENDANT’s corporate policy 23 and practice. 24 12. During the CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD, PLAINTIFF and other 25 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were also required from time to time to work in excess of 26 four (4) hours without being provided ten (10) minute rest periods. Further, these employees 27 were denied their first rest periods of at least ten (10) minutes for some shifts worked of at 28 least two (2) to four (4) hours from time to time, a first and second rest period of at least ten 5 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 (10) minutes for some shifts worked of between six (6) and eight (8) hours from time to 2 time, and a first, second and third rest period of at least ten (10) minutes for some shifts 3 worked of ten (10) hours or more from time to time. PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA 4 CLASS Members were also not provided with one hour wages in lieu thereof. Additionally, 5 the applicable California Wage Order requires employers to provide employees with off- 6 duty rest periods, which the California Supreme Court defined as time during which an 7 employee is relieved from all work related duties and free from employer control. In so 8 doing, the Court held that the requirement under California law that employers authorize and 9 permit all employees to take rest period means that employers must relieve employees of all 10 duties and relinquish control over how employees spend their time which includes control 11 over the locations where employees may take their rest period. Employers cannot impose 12 controls that prohibit an employee from taking a walk - five minutes out, five minutes back. 13 Here, DEFENDANT’s policy restricted PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS 14 Members from unconstrained walks and is unlawful based on DEFENDANT’s rule which 15 states PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members cannot leave the work 16 premises during their rest period. 17 13. During the CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD, DEFENDANT failed to 18 accurately record and pay PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for the 19 actual amount of time these employees worked. Pursuant to the Industrial Welfare 20 Commission Wage Orders, DEFENDANT was required to pay PLAINTIFF and other 21 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for all time worked, meaning the time during which an 22 employee was subject to the control of an employer, including all the time the employee was 23 permitted or suffered to permit this work. DEFENDANT required these employees to work 24 off the clock without paying them for all the time they were under DEFENDANT’s control. 25 As such, DEFENDANT knew or should have known that PLAINTIFF and the other 26 members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS were under compensated for all time worked. As a 27 result, PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members forfeited time worked by 28 working without their time being accurately recorded and without compensation at the 6 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 applicable minimum wage and overtime wage rates. To the extent that the time worked off 2 the clock does not qualify for overtime premium payment, DEFENDANT fails to pay 3 minimum wages for the time worked off-the-clock in violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 4 1197, and 1197.1. 5 14. From time to time, DEFENDANT also failed to provide PLAINTIFF and the 6 other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS with complete and accurate wage statements 7 which failed to show, among other things, the correct gross and net wages earned. Cal. Lab. 8 Code § 226 provides that every employer shall furnish each of his or her employees with an 9 accurate itemized wage statement in writing showing, among other things, gross wages 10 earned and all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding 11 amount of time worked at each hourly rate. PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS 12 Members were paid on an hourly basis. As such, the wage statements should reflect all 13 applicable hourly rates during the pay period and the total hours worked, and the applicable 14 pay period in which the wages were earned pursuant to California Labor Code Section 15 226(a). The wage statements DEFENDANT provided to PLAINTIFF and other 16 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members failed to identify such information. More specifically, the 17 wage statements failed to identify the accurate total hours worked each pay period. When 18 the hours shown on the wage statements were added up, they did not equal the actual total 19 hours worked during the pay period in violation of Cal. Lab. Code 226(a)(2). Aside, from 20 the violations listed above in this paragraph, DEFENDANT failed to issue to PLAINTIFF 21 an itemized wage statement that lists all the requirements under California Labor Code 226 22 et seq. As a result, DEFENDANT from time to time provided PLAINTIFF and the other 23 members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS with wage statements which violated Cal. Lab. Code 24 § 226. 25 15. DEFENDANT underpaid sick pay wages to PLAINTIFF and other 26 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members by failing to pay such wages at the regular rate of pay in 27 violation of Cal. Lab. Code Section 246. Specifically, PLAINTIFF and other non-exempt 28 7 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 employees earn non-discretionary remuneration. Rather than pay sick pay at the regular rate 2 of pay, DEFENDANT underpaid sick pay to PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS 3 Members at their base rates of pay. 4 16. Cal. Lab. Code Section 246(l)(2) requires that paid sick time for nonexempt 5 employees be calculated by dividing the employee’s total wages, not including overtime 6 premium pay, by the employee’s total hours worked in the full pay periods of the prior 90 7 days of employment. 8 17. DEFENDANT violated Cal. Lab. Code Section 246 by failing to pay sick pay 9 at the regular rate of pay. PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members routinely 10 earned non-discretionary incentive wages which increased their regular rate of pay. 11 However, when sick pay was paid, it was paid at the base rate of pay for PLAINTIFF and 12 members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS, as opposed to the correct, higher regular rate of pay, 13 as required under Cal. Lab. Code Section 246. 14 18. As a pattern and practice, DEFENDANT regularly failed to pay PLAINTIFF 15 and other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS their correct wages and accordingly owe 16 waiting time penalties pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code Section 203. Further, PLAINTIFF is 17 informed and believes and based thereon alleges that such failure to pay sick pay at regular 18 rate was willful, such that PLAINTIFF and members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS whose 19 employment has separated are entitled to waiting time penalties pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code 20 Sections 201-203. 21 19. Pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code Section 221, “It shall be unlawful for any employer 22 to collect or receive from an employee any part of wages theretofore paid by said employer 23 to said employee.” DEFENDANT failed to pay all compensation due to PLAINTIFF and 24 other CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members, made unlawful deductions from 25 compensation payable to PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members, 26 failed to disclose all aspects of the deductions from compensation payable to PLAINTIFF 27 and CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members, and thereby failed to pay these 28 employees all wages due at each applicable pay period and upon termination. PLAINTIFF 8 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 and members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS seek recovery of all illegal 2 deductions from wages according to proof, related penalties, interest, attorney fees and costs. 3 20. DEFENDANT intentionally and knowingly failed to reimburse and indemnify 4 PLAINTIFF and the other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for required business expenses 5 incurred by the PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members in direct 6 consequence of discharging their duties on behalf of DEFENDANT. Under California 7 Labor Code Section 2802, employers are required to indemnify employees for all expenses 8 incurred in the course and scope of their employment. Cal. Lab. Code § 2802 expressly 9 states that "an employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures 10 or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her 11 duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of the employer, even though unlawful, 12 unless the employee, at the time of obeying the directions, believed them to be unlawful." 13 21. In the course of their employment PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA 14 CLASS Members as a business expense, were required by DEFENDANT to use their own 15 personal cellular phones as a result of and in furtherance of their job duties as employees for 16 DEFENDANT but are not reimbursed or indemnified by DEFENDANT for the cost 17 associated with the use of their personal cellular phones for DEFENDANT’s benefit. 18 Specifically, PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were required by 19 DEFENDANT to use their personal cellular phones. As a result, in the course of their 20 employment with DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF and other members of the CALIFORNIA 21 CLASS incurred unreimbursed business expenses which included, but were not limited to, 22 costs related to the use of their personal cellular phones all on behalf of and for the benefit 23 of DEFENDANT. 24 22. In violation of the applicable sections of the California Labor Code and the 25 requirements of the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Order, 26 DEFENDANT as a matter of company policy, practice and procedure, intentionally, 27 knowingly and systematically failed to provide PLAINTIFF and the other Aggrieved 28 9 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 Employees suitable seating when the nature of these employees’ work reasonably permitted 2 sitting. 3 23. DEFENDANT knew or should have known that PLAINTIFF and other 4 Aggrieved Employees were entitled to suitable seating and/or were entitled to sit when it did 5 not interfere with the performance of their duties, and that DEFENDANT did not provide 6 suitable seating and/or did not allow them to sit when it did not interfere with the 7 performance of their duties. 8 24. By reason of this conduct applicable to PLAINTIFF and all Aggrieved 9 Employees, DEFENDANT violated California Labor Code Section 1198 and California 10 Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 11070(14) (Failure to Provide Seating), Wage Order 11 4-2001, Section 14 by failing to provide suitable seats. PLAINTIFF seeks penalties on 12 behalf of PLAINTIFF and other Aggrieved Employees as provided herein. Providing 13 suitable seating is the DEFENDANT’s burden. As a result of DEFENDANT’s intentional 14 disregard of the obligation to meet this burden, DEFENDANT violated the California Labor 15 Code and regulations promulgated thereunder as herein alleged. 16 25. Specifically as to PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT failed to provide all the legally 17 required off-duty meal and rest breaks to PLAINTIFF as required by the applicable Wage 18 Order and Labor Code and failed to pay PLAINTIFF all minimum and overtime wages due 19 to PLAINTIFF. DEFENDANT did not have a policy or practice which provided timely off- 20 duty meal and rest breaks to PLAINTIFF and also failed to compensate PLAINTIFF for 21 PLAINTIFF’s missed meal and rest breaks. The nature of the work performed by the 22 PLAINTIFF did not prevent PLAINTIFF from being relieved of all of PLAINTIFF’s duties 23 for the legally required off-duty meal periods. As a result, DEFENDANT’s failure to 24 provide PLAINTIFF with the legally required meal periods is evidenced by DEFENDANT’s 25 business records. The amount in controversy for PLAINTIFF individually does not exceed 26 the sum or value of $75,000. 27 /// 28 /// 10 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2 26. This Court has jurisdiction over this Action pursuant to California Code of 3 Civil Procedure, Section 410.10 and California Business & Professions Code, Section 4 17203. This action is brought as a Class Action on behalf of PLAINTIFF and similarly 5 situated employees of DEFENDANT pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382. 6 27. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, 7 Sections 395 and 395.5, because PLAINTIFF worked in this County for DEFENDANT and 8 DEFENDANT (i) currently maintains and at all relevant times maintained offices and 9 facilities in this County and/or conducts substantial business in this County, and (ii) 10 committed the wrongful conduct herein alleged in this County against members of the 11 CALIFORNIA CLASS. 12 13 THE CALIFORNIA CLASS 14 28. PLAINTIFF brings the First Cause of Action for Unfair, Unlawful and 15 Deceptive Business Practices pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (the 16 "UCL") as a Class Action, pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382, on behalf of a 17 California class, defined as all individuals who are or previously were employed by 18 DEFENDANT in California, including any employees staffed with DEFENDANT by a third 19 party, and classified as non-exempt employees (the “CALIFORNIA CLASS”) at any time 20 during the period beginning four (4) years prior to the filing of this Complaint and ending on 21 the date as determined by the Court (the “CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD”). The amount 22 in controversy for the aggregate claim of CALIFORNIA CLASS Members is under five 23 million dollars ($5,000,000.00). 24 29. To the extent equitable tolling operates to toll claims by the CALIFORNIA 25 CLASS against DEFENDANT, the CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD should be adjusted 26 accordingly. 27 28 11 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 30. DEFENDANT, as a matter of company policy, practice and procedure, and in 2 violation of the applicable Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage 3 Order requirements, and the applicable provisions of California law, intentionally, 4 knowingly, and wilfully, engaged in a practice whereby DEFENDANT failed to record all 5 meal and rest breaks missed by PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members, 6 even though DEFENDANT enjoyed the benefit of this work, required employees to perform 7 this work and permits or suffers to permit this work. 8 31. DEFENDANT has the legal burden to establish that each and every 9 CALIFORNIA CLASS Member was paid accurately for all meal and rest breaks missed as 10 required by California laws. The DEFENDANT, however, as a matter of policy and 11 procedure failed to have in place during the CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD and still fails 12 to have in place a policy or practice to ensure that each and every CALIFORNIA CLASS 13 Member is paid as required by law. This common business practice is applicable to each 14 and every CALIFORNIA CLASS Member can be adjudicated on a class-wide basis as 15 unlawful, unfair, and/or deceptive under Cal. Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. 16 (the “UCL”) as causation, damages, and reliance are not elements of this claim. 17 32. The CALIFORNIA CLASS, is so numerous that joinder of all CALIFORNIA 18 CLASS Members is impracticable. 19 33. DEFENDANT violated the rights of the CALIFORNIA CLASS under 20 California law by: 21 (a) Committing an act of unfair competition in violation of , Cal. Bus. & 22 Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (the "UCL"), by unlawfully, unfairly 23 and/or deceptively having in place company policies, practices and 24 procedures that failed to record and pay PLAINTIFF and the other 25 members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS for all time worked, including 26 minimum wages owed and overtime wages owed for work performed 27 by these employees; and, 28 12 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 (b) Committing an act of unfair competition in violation of the UCL, by 2 failing to provide the PLAINTIFF and the other members of the 3 CALIFORNIA CLASS with the legally required meal and rest periods. 4 34. This Class Action meets the statutory prerequisites for the maintenance of a 5 Class Action as set forth in Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382, in that: 6 (a) The persons who comprise the CALIFORNIA CLASS are so numerous 7 that the joinder of all such persons is impracticable and the disposition 8 of their claims as a class will benefit the parties and the Court; 9 (b) Nearly all factual, legal, statutory, declaratory and injunctive relief 10 issues that are raised in this Complaint are common to the 11 CALIFORNIA CLASS will apply to every member of the 12 CALIFORNIA CLASS; 13 (c) The claims of the representative PLAINTIFF are typical of the claims 14 of each member of the CALIFORNIA CLASS. PLAINTIFF, like all 15 the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS, was classified as a 16 non-exempt employee paid on an hourly basis who was subjected to the 17 DEFENDANT’s deceptive practice and policy which failed to provide 18 the legally required meal and rest periods to the CALIFORNIA CLASS 19 and thereby underpaid compensation to PLAINTIFF and 20 CALIFORNIA CLASS. PLAINTIFF sustained economic injury as a 21 result of DEFENDANT’s employment practices. PLAINTIFF and the 22 members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS were and are similarly or 23 identically harmed by the same unlawful, deceptive and unfair 24 misconduct engaged in by DEFENDANT; and, 25 (d) The representative PLAINTIFF will fairly and adequately represent and 26 protect the interest of the CALIFORNIA CLASS, and has retained 27 counsel who are competent and experienced in Class Action litigation. 28 There are no material conflicts between the claims of the representative 13 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 PLAINTIFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS that would 2 make class certification inappropriate. Counsel for the CALIFORNIA 3 CLASS will vigorously assert the claims of all CALIFORNIA CLASS 4 Members. 5 35. In addition to meeting the statutory prerequisites to a Class Action, this action 6 is properly maintained as a Class Action pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382, in that: 7 (a) Without class certification and determination of declaratory, injunctive, 8 statutory and other legal questions within the class format, prosecution 9 of separate actions by individual members of the CALIFORNIA 10 CLASS will create the risk of: 11 1) Inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual 12 members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS which would establish 13 incompatible standards of conduct for the parties opposing the 14 CALIFORNIA CLASS; and/or, 15 2) Adjudication with respect to individual members of the 16 CALIFORNIA CLASS which would as a practical matter be 17 dispositive of interests of the other members not party to the 18 adjudication or substantially impair or impede their ability to 19 protect their interests. 20 (b) The parties opposing the CALIFORNIA CLASS have acted or refused 21 to act on grounds generally applicable to the CALIFORNIA CLASS, 22 making appropriate class-wide relief with respect to the CALIFORNIA 23 CLASS as a whole in that DEFENDANT failed to pay all wages due to 24 members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS as required by law; 25 1) With respect to the First Cause of Action, the final relief on 26 behalf of the CALIFORNIA CLASS sought does not relate 27 exclusively to restitution because through this claim 28 PLAINTIFF seeks declaratory relief holding that the 14 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 DEFENDANT’s policy and practices constitute unfair 2 competition, along with declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and 3 incidental equitable relief as may be necessary to prevent and 4 remedy the conduct declared to constitute unfair competition; 5 (c) Common questions of law and fact exist as to the members of the 6 CALIFORNIA CLASS, with respect to the practices and violations of 7 California law as listed above, and predominate over any question 8 affecting only individual CALIFORNIA CLASS Members, and a Class 9 Action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient 10 adjudication of the controversy, including consideration of: 11 1) The interests of the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS in 12 individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate 13 actions in that the substantial expense of individual actions will 14 be avoided to recover the relatively small amount of economic 15 losses sustained by the individual CALIFORNIA CLASS 16 Members when compared to the substantial expense and burden 17 of individual prosecution of this litigation; 18 2) Class certification will obviate the need for unduly duplicative 19 litigation that would create the risk of: 20 A. Inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to 21 individual members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS, which 22 would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the 23 DEFENDANT; and/or, 24 B. Adjudications with respect to individual members of the 25 CALIFORNIA CLASS would as a practical matter be 26 dispositive of the interests of the other members not 27 parties to the adjudication or substantially impair or 28 impede their ability to protect their interests; 15 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 3) In the context of wage litigation because a substantial number of 2 individual CALIFORNIA CLASS Members will avoid asserting 3 their legal rights out of fear of retaliation by DEFENDANT, 4 which may adversely affect an individual’s job with 5 DEFENDANT or with a subsequent employer, the Class Action 6 is the only means to assert their claims through a representative; 7 and, 8 4) A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair 9 and efficient adjudication of this litigation because class 10 treatment will obviate the need for unduly and unnecessary 11 duplicative litigation that is likely to result in the absence of 12 certification of this action pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 13 382. 14 36. This Court should permit this action to be maintained as a Class Action 15 pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382 because: 16 (a) The questions of law and fact common to the CALIFORNIA CLASS 17 predominate over any question affecting only individual CALIFORNIA 18 CLASS Members because the DEFENDANT’s employment practices 19 are applied with respect to the CALIFORNIA CLASS; 20 (b) A Class Action is superior to any other available method for the fair 21 and efficient adjudication of the claims of the members of the 22 CALIFORNIA CLASS because in the context of employment litigation 23 a substantial number of individual CALIFORNIA CLASS Members 24 will avoid asserting their rights individually out of fear of retaliation or 25 adverse impact on their employment; 26 (c) The members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS are so numerous that it is 27 impractical to bring all members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS before 28 the Court; 16 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 (d) PLAINTIFF, and the other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members, will not 2 be able to obtain effective and economic legal redress unless the action 3 is maintained as a Class Action; 4 (e) There is a community of interest in obtaining appropriate legal and 5 equitable relief for the acts of unfair competition, statutory violations 6 and other improprieties, and in obtaining adequate compensation for 7 the damages and injuries which DEFENDANT’s actions have inflicted 8 upon the CALIFORNIA CLASS; 9 (f) There is a community of interest in ensuring that the combined assets of 10 DEFENDANT are sufficient to adequately compensate the members of 11 the CALIFORNIA CLASS for the injuries sustained; 12 (g) DEFENDANT has acted or refused to act on grounds generally 13 applicable to the CALIFORNIA CLASS, thereby making final class- 14 wide relief appropriate with respect to the CALIFORNIA CLASS as a 15 whole; 16 (h) The members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS are readily ascertainable 17 from the business records of DEFENDANT; and, 18 (i) Class treatment provides manageable judicial treatment calculated to 19 bring a efficient and rapid conclusion to all litigation of all wage and 20 hour related claims arising out of the conduct of DEFENDANT as to 21 the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS. 22 37. DEFENDANT maintains records from which the Court can ascertain and 23 identify by job title each of DEFENDANT’s employees who have been intentionally 24 subjected to DEFENDANT’s company policy, practices and procedures as herein alleged. 25 PLAINTIFF will seek leave to amend the Complaint to include any additional job titles of 26 similarly situated employees when they have been identified. 27 /// 28 /// 17 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 THE CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS 2 38. PLAINTIFF further brings the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, 3 Eighth and Ninth causes Action on behalf of a California sub-class, defined as all members 4 of the CALIFORNIA CLASS who are or previously were employed by DEFENDANT in 5 California, including any employees staffed with DEFENDANT by a third party, and 6 classified as non exempt employees (the “CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS”) at any 7 time during the period three (3) years prior to the filing of the complaint and ending on the 8 date as determined by the Court (the “CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS PERIOD”) 9 pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382. The amount in controversy for the aggregate 10 claim of CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members is under five million dollars 11 ($5,000,000.00). 12 39. DEFENDANT, in violation of the applicable Labor Code, Industrial Welfare 13 Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order requirements, and the applicable provisions of California 14 law, intentionally, knowingly, and wilfully, engaged in a practice whereby DEFENDANT 15 failed to correctly calculate compensation for the time worked by PLAINTIFF and the other 16 members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS and reporting time wages owed to 17 these employees, even though DEFENDANT enjoyed the benefit of this work, required 18 employees to perform this work and permitted or suffered to permit this work. 19 DEFENDANT has denied these CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members wages to 20 which these employees are entitled in order to unfairly cheat the competition and unlawfully 21 profit. To the extent equitable tolling operates to toll claims by the CALIFORNIA LABOR 22 SUB-CLASS against DEFENDANT, the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS PERIOD 23 should be adjusted accordingly. 24 40. DEFENDANT maintains records from which the Court can ascertain and 25 identify by name and job title, each of DEFENDANT’s employees who have been 26 intentionally subjected to DEFENDANT’s company policy, practices and procedures as 27 herein alleged. PLAINTIFF will seek leave to amend the complaint to include any 28 additional job titles of similarly situated employees when they have been identified. 18 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 41. The CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS is so numerous that joinder of all 2 CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members is impracticable. 3 42. Common questions of law and fact exist as to members of the CALIFORNIA 4 LABOR SUB-CLASS, including, but not limited, to the following: 5 (a) Whether DEFENDANT unlawfully failed to correctly calculate and pay 6 compensation due to members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB- 7 CLASS for missed meal and rest breaks in violation of the California 8 Labor Code and California regulations and the applicable California 9 Wage Order; 10 (b) Whether DEFENDANT failed to provide the PLAINTIFF and the other 11 members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS with accurate 12 itemized wage statements; 13 (c) Whether DEFENDANT has engaged in unfair competition by the 14 above-listed conduct; 15 (d) The proper measure of damages and penalties owed to the members of 16 the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS; and, 17 (e) Whether DEFENDANT’s conduct was willful. 18 43. DEFENDANT violated the rights of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB- 19 CLASS under California law by: 20 (a) Violating Cal. Lab. Code § 510, by failing to correctly pay the 21 PLAINTIFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB- 22 CLASS all wages due for overtime worked, for which DEFENDANT is 23 liable pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code § 1194; 24 (b) Violating Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1197 & 1197.1 et seq., by failing to 25 accurately pay PLAINTIFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA 26 LABOR SUB-CLASS the correct minimum wage pay for which 27 DEFENDANT is liable pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194 and 1197; 28 19 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 (c) Violating Cal. Lab. Code § 226, by failing to provide PLAINTIFF and 2 the members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS with an 3 accurate itemized statement in writing showing the corresponding 4 correct amount of wages earned by the employee; 5 (d) Violating Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7 and 512, by failing to provide 6 PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR 7 SUB-CLASS with all legally required off-duty, uninterrupted thirty 8 (30) minute meal breaks and the legally required off-duty rest breaks; 9 (e) Violating Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201, 202 and/or 203, which provides that 10 when an employee is discharged or quits from employment, the 11 employer must pay the employee all wages due without abatement, by 12 failing to tender full payment and/or restitution of wages owed or in the 13 manner required by California law to the members of the 14 CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS who have terminated their 15 employment; and, 16 (f) Violating Cal. Lab. Code § 2802 by failing to reimburse PLAINTIFF 17 and the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS members with necessary 18 expenses incurred in the discharge of their job duties. 19 44. This Class Action meets the statutory prerequisites for the maintenance of a 20 Class Action as set forth in Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382, in that: 21 (a) The persons who comprise the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS 22 are so numerous that the joinder of all CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB- 23 CLASS Members is impracticable and the disposition of their claims as 24 a class will benefit the parties and the Court; 25 (b) Nearly all factual, legal, statutory, declaratory and injunctive relief 26 issues that are raised in this Complaint are common to the 27 CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS and will apply to every member 28 of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS; 20 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 (c) The claims of the representative PLAINTIFF are typical of the claims 2 of each member of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS. 3 PLAINTIFF, like all the other members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR 4 SUB-CLASS, was a non-exempt employee paid on an hourly basis who 5 was subjected to the DEFENDANT’s practice and policy which failed 6 to pay