Preview
BARVIE LAW, APC
Electronically FILED by
NICOLE BARVIE (State Bar # 282352) Superior Court of California,
550 West B Street, 4th Floor County of Los An: geles
4/23/2024 8:47 Al
San Diego, CA 92101-3598 David W. Slayton,
Telephone: 858.255.0928 Executive Officer/Clerk of Court,
By J. Covarrubias, Deputy Clerk
Facsimile: 858.357.8592
n icole@barvielaw.com
Attorney for ANABEL RAMIREZ AVILA
Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
ANABEL RAMIREZ AVILA, an individual, CaseNo. 245
T C¥10121
10 on behalf of herself, and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR:
11
Plaintiff, 1 UNFAIR COMPETITION IN
12 VIOLATION OF CAL. BUS. & PROF.
Vv CODE §§ 17200, et seq.;
13
FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME
BESA SCREEN _ PRINTING, INC., a
14 California Corporation, BESA, a California
WAGES IN VIOLATION OF CAL.
Corporation; ESTELA MALDONADO, an LAB. CODE §§ 510, ef seq.
15 individual, ANTONIO SANCHEZ, an FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM
Individual, GILBERTO SUASTEGUI WAGES IN VIOLATION OF CAL.
16 MALDONADO, an Individual, and DOES 1 LAB. CODE §§ 1194, 1197 & 1197.1;
through 50, Inclusive; FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED
17
MEAL PERIODS IN VIOLATION OF
Defendants.
18 CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 226.7 & 512
AND THE APPLICABLE IWC WAGE
19 ORDER;
FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED
20 REST PERIODS IN VIOLATION OF
CAL. LAB CODE §8§ 226.7 & 512
21
AND THE APPLICABLE IWC WAGE
22 ORDER;
FAILURE TO REIMBURSE
23 PLAINTIFF FOR REQUIRED
EXPENSES IN VIOLATION OF
24 CAL. LAB. CODE § 2802;
FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE
25
ITEMIZED STATEMENTS IN
26 VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE §§
226 and 226.2; and
27 FAILURE TO PAY WAGES WHEN
DUE IN VIOLATION OF CAL.
28 LABOR CODE §§ 201, 202 AND 203;
-l-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
9. Civil Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code
§2699, et seq., for violations of Labor
Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 212,
226(a), 226.3, 226.7, 510, 512, 558,
1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2802, and the
California Code of Regulations;
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff ANABEL AVILA RAMIREZ (“PLAINTIFF”) an individual, on behalf
of himself
and all other similarly situated current and former employees alleges on information and belief,
except for his own acts and knowledge which are based on personal knowledge, the following:
10
THE PARTIES
11
1 Defendant BESA SCREEN PRINTING, INC. (“DEFENDANT”) is a California
12
Corporation that at all relevant times mentioned herein conducted and continues to conduct
13
substantial business in the state of California, County of Los Angeles. Defendant provides mental
14
health and supportive services to children, transitional age youth, adults and families affected by
15
mental health disorders.
16
2 Defendant ESTELA MALDONADO, an individual, over the 18 years of age, and
17
residing in the County of Los Angeles, California. Ms. Maldonado is an “owner, director, officer,
18
or managing agent” of Besa Screen Printing as defined within Labor Code §558.1(b).
19
3 Defendant ANTONIO SANCHEZ, an Individual, over the 18 years of age, and
20
residing in the County of Los Angeles, California. Mr. Sanchez is an “owner, director, officer, or
21
managing agent” of Besa Screen Printing as defined within Labor Code §558.1(b).
22
4 Defendant GILBERTO SUASTEGUI MALDONADO, an Individual, over the 18
23
years of age, and residing in the County of Los Angeles, California. Mr. Maldonado is an “owner,
24
director, officer, or managing agent” of Besa Screen Printing as defined within Labor Code
25
§558.1(b).
26
5 The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, subsidiary,
27
partnership, associate or otherwise of Defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are presently
28
2-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
unknown to PLAINTIFF who therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names pursuant
to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 474. PLAINTIFF will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege
the true names and capacities of Does 1 through 50, inclusive, when they are ascertained.
PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and based upon that information and belief allege, that the
Defendants named in this Complaint, including DOES 1 through 50, inclusive (hereinafter
collectively with “DEFENDANTS”), are responsible in some manner for one or more of the
events and happenings that proximately caused the injuries and damages hereinafter alleged.
6 The agents, servants and/or employees of the DEFENDANT and each of them
acting on behalf
of the DEFENDANT acted within the course and scope of his/her, or its authority
10 as the agent, servant and/or employee of the DEFENDANTS, and personally participated in the
11 conduct alleged herein on behalf of the DEFENDANTS with respect to the conduct alleged
12 herein. Consequently, the acts of each of the DEFENDANTS are legally attributable to the other
13 and all DEFENDANTS are jointly and severally liable to PLAINTIFF and those similarly
14 situated, for the loss sustained as a proximate result of the conduct of the DEFENDANTS’ agents,
15 servants and/or employees.
16 7 DEFENDANTS were PLAINTIFF’s employers or persons acting on behalf of
17 PLAINTIFF’s employer, within the meaning of California Labor Code § 558, who violated or
18 caused to be violated, a section of Part 2, Chapter 1 of the California Labor Code or any provision
19 regulating hours and days of work in any order of the Industrial Welfare Commission and, as
20 such, are subject to civil penalties for each underpaid employee, as set forth in Labor Code § 558,
21 at all relevant times.
22 8 DEFENDANTS were PLAINTIFF’s employers or persons acting on behalf of
23 PLAINTIFF’s employer either individually or as an officer, agent, or employee of another person,
24 within the meaning of California Labor Code § 1197.1, who paid or caused to be paid to any
25 employee a wage less than the minimum fixed by California state law, and as such, are subject
26 to civil penalties for each underpaid employee.
27
28
3.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
9 PLAINTIFF was employed by DEFENDANTS as a non-exempt employee, paid on
an hourly basis and entitled to minimum wages, overtime pay, and legally compliant meal and
rest periods from July 2022 to present.
10. PLAINTIFF brings this Class Action under California Code of Civil Procedure §
382 on behalfof himself and on behalf
of all of DEFENDANTS current and former non-exempt
California employees (the “CALIFORNIA CLASS”) at any time during the period beginning
four years from the date of the filing of this Complaint and ending on a date determined by the
Court (the “CLASS PERIOD”).
11. The amount in controversy for the aggregate claim of CALIFORNIA CLASS
10 members is under five million dollars ($5,000,000.00). PLAINTIFF reserves the right to amend
11 the following class definitions before the Court determines whether class certification is
12 appropriate, or thereafter upon leave of Court.
13 12. PLAINTIFF brings this Class Action on behalf of himself and on behalf of the
14 CALIFORNIA CLASS in order to fully compensate the CALIFORNIA CLASS for their losses
15 incurred during the CLASS PERIOD caused by DEFENDANTS’ uniform policy and practice
16 which (1) failed to provide PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA CLASS with legally compliant
17 meal and rest periods or an additional hour of pay at the regular rate of compensation in lieu
18 thereof in violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7(c), 512(a) and the applicable
19 Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order, (2) failed to pay PLAINTIFF and the
20 CALIFORNIA CLASS for all hours worked in violation of, inter alia, California Labor Code
21 Sections 510, 1194, 1197, and 1197.1, failed to reimburse PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA
22 CLASS for required expenses in violation for California Labor Code Section 2802, and (3) failed
23 to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of California Labor Code Sections 226
24 and 226.2.
25 13. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit seeking monetary relief against Defendants on behalfof
26 themselves and all others similarly situated in California to recover, among other things, unpaid
27 wages and benefits, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses and penalties pursuant to Labor
28 Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204 ef seg., 210, 226(a), 226(a)(8), 226.7, 226.3, 227.3, 246 et seq., 510,
-4-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
512, 558, 1174, 1174.5, 1182.12, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2800, 2802, and 2698, ef
seq.
14. DEFENDANTS’ uniform policies and practices alleged herein were unlawful,
unfair and deceptive business practices whereby DEFENDANTS retained and continues to retain
wages due PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS.
15. PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS seek an
injunction enjoining such conduct by DEFENDANTS in the future, relief for the named
PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS who have been economically
injured by DEFENDANTS’ past and current unlawful conduct, and all other appropriate legal
10 and equitable relief.
11 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12 16. This Court has jurisdiction over this Action pursuant to California Code of Civil
13 Procedure, Section 410.10 and California Business & Professions Code, Section 17203. This
14 action is brought as a Class Action on behalf of PLAINTIFF and similarly situated employees of
15 DEFENDANTS pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382.
16 17. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure,
17 Sections 395 and 395.5, because PLAINTIFF worked in this County for DEFENDANTS, and
18 DEFENDANTS (i) currently maintain and at all relevant times, maintained offices and facilities
19 in this County and/or conducts substantial business in this County, and (ii) committed the
20 wrongful conduct herein alleged in this County against members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS.
21 THE CONDUCT
22 18. In violation of the applicable sections of the California Labor Code and the
23 requirements of the Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Order, DEFENDANTS as a
24 matter of company policy, practice and procedure, intentionally, knowingly and systematically
25 failed to provide legally compliant meal and rest periods, failed to accurately compensate
26 PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS for missed meal and rest
27 periods, failed to pay PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS for all
28 time worked, failed compensate PLAINTIFF for off-the-clock work, failed to reimburse
-5-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PLAINTIFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS for required expenses and failed to
issue to PLAINTIFF, and the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS with accurate itemized
wage statements showing, among other things, all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay
periods and the corresponding amount of time worked at each hourly rate. DEFENDANTS’
uniform policies and practices are intended to purposefully avoid the accurate and full payment
for all time worked as required by California law which allows DEFENDANTS to illegally profit
and gain an unfair advantage over competitors who comply with the law. To the extent equitable
tolling operates to toll claims by the CALIFORNIA CLASS against DEFENDANTS, the CLASS
PERIOD should be adjusted accordingly.
10 A. Meal Period Violations
11 19. Pursuant to the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, DEFENDANTS were
12 required to pay PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for all their time worked,
13 meaning the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer, including
14 all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work. From time-to-time during the CLASS
15 PERIOD, DEFENDANTS required PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS members to work
16 without paying them for all the time they were under DEFENDANTS’ control. Specifically, as
17 a result of, among other reasons, PLAINTIFF’s demanding work requirements, and
18 DEFENDANTS’ under staffing, from time-to-time, DEFENDANTS required PLAINTIFF to
19 work while clocked out during what was supposed to be PLAINTIFF’s off-duty meal break.
20 Additionally, PLAINTIFF was from time-to-time interrupted by work assignments while clocked
21 out for what should have been PLAINTIFF’s off-duty meal break. As a result, the PLAINTIFF
22 and other CALIFORNIA CLASS members forfeited minimum wage and overtime wages by
23 regularly working without their time being accurately recorded and without compensation at the
24 applicable minimum wage and overtime rates. DEFENDANTS’ uniform policy and practice not
25 to pay PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS members for all time worked is evidenced
26 by DEFENDANTS’ business records.
27 20. From time-to-time during the CLASS PERIOD, as a result of their rigorous work
28 schedules, and DEFENDANTS’ inadequate staffing practices, PLAINTIFF and other
-6-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
CALIFORNIA CLASS members were from time-to-time unable to take thirty (30) minute off
duty meal breaks and were not fully relieved of duty for their meal periods. PLAINTIFF and
other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS were required from time-to-time to perform work
as ordered by DEFENDANTS for more than five (5) hours during some shifts without receiving
a meal break. Further, DEFENDANTS from time-to-time failed to provide PLAINTIFF and
CALIFORNIA CLASS members with a second off-duty meal period for some workdays in which
these employees were required by DEFENDANTS to work ten (10) hours of work from time-to-
time. The nature of the work performed by the PLAINTIFF and the members of the
CALIFORNIA CLASS does not qualify for limited and narrowly construed “on-duty” meal
10 period exception. When they were provided with meal periods, PLAINTIFF and other
11 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were, from time to time, required to remain on the premises,
12 on duty and/or on call. PLAINTIFF and other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS therefore
13 forfeited meal breaks without additional compensation and in accordance with DEFENDANTS’
14 strict corporate policy and practice.
15 B. Rest Period Violations
16 21. From time-to-time during the CLASS PERIOD, PLAINTIFF and other
17 CALIFORNIA CLASS members were also required from time-to-time to work in excess of four
18 (4) hours without being provided ten (10) minute rest periods as a result of, among other reasons,
19 their rigorous work schedules, and DEFENDANTS?’ inadequate staffing. Further, for the same
20 reasons these employees were denied their first rest periods of at least ten (10) minutes for some
21 shifts worked of at least two (2) to four (4) hours from time-to-time, a first and second rest period
22 of at least ten (10) minutes for some shifts worked of between six (6) and eight (8) hours from
23 time-to-time, and a first, second, and third rest period of at least ten (10) minutes for some shifts
24 worked of ten (10) hours or more from time-to-time. PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA
25 CLASS members were also not provided with one-hour wages in lieu thereof. When they were
26 provided with rest periods, PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were, from
27 time to time, required to remain on the premises, on duty and/or on call. As a result of their
28 rigorous work schedules and DEFENDANTS’ inadequate staffing, PLAINTIFF and other
-7-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
CALIFORNIA CLASS members were from time-to-time denied their proper rest periods by
DEFENDANTS and DEFENDANTS’ managers.
C. Unreimbursed Business Expense:
22. DEFENDANTS as a matter of corporate policy, practice and procedure,
intentionally, knowingly and systematically failed to reimburse and indemnify PLAINTIFF and
the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS for required business expenses they incurred in direct
consequence of discharging their duties on behalf of DEFENDANTS. Under California Labor
Code Section 2802, employers are required to indemnify employees for all expenses incurred in
the course and scope of their employment. Cal. Lab. Code § 2802 expressly states that "an
10 employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred
11 by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her
12 obedience to the directions of the employer, even though unlawful, unless the employee, at the
13 time of obeying the directions, believed them to be unlawful."
14 23. From time-to-time during the CLASS PERIOD, PLAINTIFF and members of the
15 CALIFORNIA CLASS were required by DEFENDANTS to use their own personal cellular
16 phones, as a result of and in furtherance of their job duties as employees for DEFENDANTS.
17 Specifically, Plaintiff and members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS, used their personal cellular
18 phones to execute their job duties. But for the use of their personal cell phones, PLAINTIFF and
19 the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS could not complete their essential job duties.
20 Notwithstanding, DEFENDANTS did not reimburse or indemnify PLAINTIFF or the members
21 of the CALIFORNIA CLASS for the cost associated with the use of their personal cellular phones
22 for DEFENDANTS’ benefit. As a result, in the course of their employment with
23 DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS incurred
24 unreimbursed business expenses which included, but were not limited to, costs related to the use
25 of their personal cellular, all on behalf
of and for the benefit of DEFENDANTS.
26 D. Off-the-Clock Work Resulting in Minimum Wage and Overtime Violation
27 9 During the CLASS PERIOD, from time-to-time, DEFENDANTS failed and
28 continue to fail to accurately pay PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS
-8-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
for all hours worked. Specifically, DEFENDANT from time-to-time required PLAINTIFF and the
other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS to perform off-the-clock work. Notwithstanding,
from time-to-time DEFENDANTS failed to pay PLAINTIFF and other members of the
CALIFORNIA CLASS necessary wages for performing work at DEFENDANTS’ direction,
request and benefit, while off-the clock pre-shift, post-shift, and during meal periods. Further,
during the CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD, DEFENDANT required PLAINTIFF and other
CALIFORNIA CLASS Members to wait in line and submit to mandatory temperature checks for
COVID-19 screening and also complete a COVID -19 questionnaire regarding whether these
employees had any symptoms prior to clocking into DEFENDANT’s timekeeping systems for the
10 workday.
11 10. During the CLASS PERIOD, from time-to-time DEFENDANTS required
12 PLAINTIFF and other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS to perform pre-shift work, including
13 but not limited to, preparing for the shift, putting away supplies, to start his shift. Further, as
14 discussed supra, PLAINTIFF and other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS were from time to
15 time interrupted with work assignments during their off-duty meal periods without additional
16 compensation from DEFENDANTS.
17 11. DEFENDANTS directed and directly benefited from the uncompensated off-the-
18 clock work performed by PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS.
19 12. DEFENDANTS controlled the work schedules, duties, protocols, applications,
20 assignments and employment conditions of PLAINTIFF and the other members of the
21 CALIFORNIA CLASS.
22 13. DEFENDANTS were able to track the amount of time PLAINTIFF and the other
23 members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS spent working; however, DEFENDANTS failed to
24 document, track, or pay PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS all
25 wages earned and owed for all the work they performed, including off-the-clock work.
26 14. PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS were non-exempt
27 employees, subject to the requirements of the California Labor Code.
28
-9-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
15. DEFENDANTS’ policies and practices deprived PLAINTIFF and the other members
of the CALIFORNIA CLASS of all minimum, regular and overtime wages owed for the off-the-
clock work activities and their required meal periods. Because PLAINTIFF and the other members
of the CALIFORNIA CLASS typically worked over 40 hours in a workweek, and more than eight
(8) hours per day, DEFENDANTS’ policies and practices also deprived them of overtime pay.
16. DEFENDANTS knew or should have known that PLAINTIFF and the other
members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS off-the-clock work was compensable under the law.
17. As a result, PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS
forfeited wages due them for all hours worked at DEFENDANTS’ direction, control and benefit
10 for the time spent working off-the-clock pre-shift, and during meal periods. DEFENDANTS’
11 uniform policy and practice to not pay PLAINTIFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS
12 wages for all hours worked in accordance with applicable law is evidenced by DEFENDANTS’
13 business records.
14 E Wage Statement Violation:
15 18. California Labor Code Section 226 requires an employer to furnish its employees
16 an accurate itemized statement in writing showing (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked,
17 (3) the number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece-rate, (4) all deductions, (5) net
18 wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the name
19 of the employee and only the last four digits of the employee’s social security number or an
20 employee identification number other than a social security number, (8) the name and address of
21 the legal entity that is the employer and, (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay
22 period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee.
23 19. From time-to-time during the CLASS PERIOD, when PLAINTIFF and other
24 CALIFORNIA CLASS members missed meal and rest breaks, were paid inaccurate missed meal
25 and rest period premiums, or were not paid for all hours worked, DEFENDANTS also failed to
26 provide PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS with complete and
27 accurate wage statements which failed to show, among other things, all applicable hourly rates in
28
-10-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
effect during the pay period and the corresponding amount of time worked at each hourly rate,
orrect rates of pay for penalty payments or missed meal and rest periods.
20. In addition to the violations described above, DEFENDANTS, from time-to-time,
failed to provide PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA CLASS members with wage statements that
comply with Cal. Lab. Code § 226. As a result, DEFENDANTS issued PLAINTIFF and the other
members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS with wage statements that violate Cal. Lab. Code § 226.
Further, DEFENDANTS’ violations are knowing and intentional, were not isolated or due to an
unintentional
21. DEFENDANTS also failed to timely pay PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA
10 CLASS members in compliance of Cal. Lab. Code §204. DEFENDANTS’ violations are knowing
11 and intentional, were not isolated or due to an unintentional payroll error due to clerical or
12 inadvertent mistake.
13 F. Unlawful Rounding Violation:
14 22. During the CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD, DEFENDANT did not have in place
15 an immutable timekeeping system to accurately record and pay PLAINTIFF and other
16 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for the actual time these employees worked each day,
17 including overtime hours. Specifically, DEFENDANT had in place an unlawful rounding policy
18 and practice that resulted in PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members being
19 undercompensated for all of their time worked. As a result, DEFENDANT was able to and did
20 in fact unlawfully, and unilaterally round the time recorded in DEFENDANT’S timekeeping
21 system for PLAINTIFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS in order to avoid paying
22 these employees for all their time worked, including the applicable overtime compensation for
23 overtime worked. As a result, PLAINTIFF, and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members, from
24 time to time, forfeited compensation for their time worked by working without their time being
25 accurately recorded and without compensation at the applicable overtime rates.
26 23. Further, the mutability of DEFENDANT’S timekeeping system and unlawful
27 rounding policy and practice resulted in PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members’ time
28 being inaccurately recorded. As a result, from time to time, DEFENDANT’S unlawful rounding
-ll-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
policy and practice caused PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members to perform work as
ordered by DEFENDANT for more than five (5) hours during a shift without receiving an off-
duty meal break. Additionally, DEFENDANT’S unlawful rounding policy and practice caused
PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members to perform work as ordered by DEFENDANT
for more than ten (10) hours during a shift without receiving a second off-duty meal break.
G. Unlawful Deductions
24. DEFENDANTS, from time-to-time unlawfully deducted wages from PLAINTIFF
and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members’ pay without explanations and without authorization to do
so or notice to PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA CLASS Members. As a result, DEFENDANTS
10 violated Labor Code § 221.
11 25. Specifically, as to PLAINTIFF, PLAINTIFF was from time to time unable to take
12 off duty meal and rest breaks and was not fully relieved of duty for his rest and meal periods.
13 PLAINTIFF was required to perform work as ordered by DEFENDANT for more than five (5)
14 hours during a shift without receiving an off-duty meal break. Further, DEFENDANT failed to
15 provide PLAINTIFF with a second off-duty meal period each workday in which he was required
16 by DEFENDANT to work ten (10) hours of work. When DEFENDANT provided PLAINTIFF
17 with a rest break, they required PLAINTIFF to remain on-duty and on-call for the rest break.
18 DEFENDANT policy caused PLAINTIFF to remain on-call and on-duty during what was
19 supposed to be his off-duty meal periods. PLAINTIFF therefore forfeited meal and rest breaks
20 without additional compensation and in accordance with DEFENDANT’S strict corporate policy
21 and practice. Moreover, DEFENDANT also provided PLAINTIFF with paystubs that failed to
22 comply with Cal. Lab. Code § 226. Further, DEFENDANT also failed to reimburse PLAINTIFF
23 for required business expenses related to the personal expenses incurred for the use of his personal
24 cell phone.
25 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
26 26. PLAINTIFF brings the First through Eight Causes of Action as a class action
27 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 382 on behalf the CALIFORNIA CLASS,
28 defined supra, that worked for DEFENDANT in California at any time beginning four (4) years
-12-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
prior to the filing of this Complaint and ending on the date as determined by the Court (“CLASS
PERIOD”).
27. PLAINTIFF and the other CALIFORNIA CLASS members have uniformly been
deprived of wages and penalties from unpaid wages earned and due, including but not limited to
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid meal and rest period premiums,
illegal meal and rest period policies, failure to separately compensate rest periods, failure to
separately compensate, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to maintain
required records, and interest, statutory and civil penalties, attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses.
28. The members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all class members is
10 impractical.
11 29. Common questions of law and fact regarding DEFENDANT’S conduct, including
12 but not limited to, the off-the-clock work, unpaid meal and rest period premiums, failing to provide
13 legally compliant meal and rest periods, failing to reimburse business expenses, failure to provide
14 accurate itemized wage statements accurate, and failure ensure they are paid at least minimum
15 wage and overtime, exist as to all members of the class and predominate over any questions
16 affecting solely any individual members of the class. Among the questions of law and fact
17 common to the class are:
18 a. Whether DEFENDANTS maintained legally compliant meal
19 period policies and practices;
20 b. Whether DEFENDANTS maintained legally compliant rest
21 period policies and practices;
22 c Whether DEFENDANTS failed to pay PLAINTIFF and the
23 CALIFORNIA CLASS members accurate premium payments for
24 missed meal and rest periods;
25 d Whether DEFENDANTS failed to pay PLAINTIFF and the
26 CALIFORNIA CLASS members accurate overtime wages and sick
27 Pay;
28 e Whether DEFENDANTS failed to pay PLAINTIFF and the
-13-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
CALIFORNIA CLASS members at least minimum wage for all hours
worked;
f. Whether DEFENDANTS reimbursed PLAINTIFF and the
CALIFORNIA CLASS members for required business expenses;
g Whether DEFENDANTS issued legally compliant wage
statements;
h Whether DEFENDANTS committed an act of unfair
competition by systematically failing to record and pay PLAINTIFF
and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS for all time
10 worked;
11 1 Whether DEFENDANTS committed an act of unfair
12 competition by systematically failing to record all meal and rest
13 breaks missed by PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS
14 members, even though DEFENDANTS enjoyed the benefit of this
15 work, required employees to perform this work and permits or suffers
16 to permit this work;
17 J Whether DEFENDANTS committed an act of unfair
18 competition in violation of the UCL, by failing to provide the
19 PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS
20 with the legally required meal and rest periods.
21 30. PLAINTIFF is a member of the CALIFORNIA CLASS and suffered damages as a
22 result of DEFENDANTS’ conduct and actions alleged herein.
23 31. PLAINTIFF’s claims are typical of the claims of the class, and PLAINTIFF has the
24 same interests as the other members of the class.
25 32. PLAINTIFF will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the
26 CALIFORNIA CLASS members.
27 33. PLAINTIFF retained able class counsel with extensive experience in class action
28 litigation.
-14-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
34. Further, PLAINTIFF’s interests are coincident with, and not antagonistic to, the
interests of the other CALIFORNIA CLASS members.
35. There is a strong community of interest among PLAINTIFF and the members of the
CALIFORNIA CLASS to, infer alia, ensure that the combined assets of DEFENDANTS are
sufficient to adequately compensate the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS for the injuries
sustained;
36. The questions of law and fact common to the CALIFORNIA CLASS members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, including legal and factual
issues relating to liability and damages.
10 37. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
11 adjudication of this controversy because joinder of all class members in impractical. Moreover,
12 since the damages suffered by individual members of the class may be relatively small, the
13 expense and burden of individual litigation makes it practically impossible for the members of the
14 class individually to redress the wrongs done to them. Without class certification and
15 determination of declaratory, injunctive, statutory and other legal questions within the class
16 format, prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS will
17 create the risk of:
18 a. Inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of
19 the CALIFORNIA CLASS which would establish incompatible standards of
20 conduct for the parties opposing the CALIFORNIA CLASS; and/or,
21 b. Adjudication with respect to individual members of the CALIFORNIA
22 CLASS which would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests of the other
23 members not party to the adjudication or substantially impair or impeded their
24 ability to protect their interests.
25 38. Class treatment provides manageable judicial treatment calculated to bring an
26 efficient and rapid conclusion to all litigation of all wage and hour related claims arising out of
27 the conduct of DEFENDANTS.
28 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
-15-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
For Unlawful Business Practices
[Cal. Bus. And Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.]
(By PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA CLASS and Against All DEFENDANTS)
39. PLAINTIFF, and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS, reallege and
incorporate by this reference, as though fully set forth herein, the prior paragraphs of this
Complaint.
40. DEFENDANTS are “person{s]” as that term is defined under Cal. Bus. and Prof.
Code § 17021.
41. California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seg. (the “UCL”) defines
10 unfair competition as any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice. Section 17203
11 authorizes injunctive, declaratory, and/or other equitable relief with respect to unfair competition
12 as follows:
13 Any person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in
14 unfair competition may be enjoined in any court of competent
15 jurisdiction. The court may make such orders or judgments,
16 including the appointment of a receiver, as may be necessary to
17 prevent the use or employment by any person of any practice which
18 constitutes unfair competition, as defined in this chapter, or as may
19 be necessary to restore to any person in interest any money or
20 property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means
21 of such unfair competition.
22 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203.
23 42. By reason of this uniform conduct applicable to PLAINTIFF and all CALIFORNIA.
24 CLASS members, during the CLASS PERIOD, DEFENDANTS commit acts of unfair
25 competition in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§
26 17200, et seg. (the “UCL”), by engaging and continuing to engage in business practices which
27 violates California law, including but not limited to, the applicable Industrial Wage Order(s), the
28 California Code of Regulations and the California Labor Code including Sections 201, 202, 203,
-16-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
204 et seq. 210, 226(a), 226(a)(8), 226.3, 226.7, 227.3, 246 et seqg., 510, 512, 558, 1174, 1174.5,
1182.12, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2800, 2802 for which this Court should issue
declaratory and other equitable relief pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203 as may be
necessary to prevent and remedy the conduct held to constitute unfair competition, including
restitution of wages wrongfully withheld.
43. By the conduct alleged herein, DEFENDANTS’ practices were unlawful and unfair
in that these practices violated public policy, were immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous
or substantially injurious to employees, and were without valid justification or utility for which
this Court should issue equitable and injunctive relief pursuant to Section 17203 of the California
10 Business & Professions Code, including restitution of wages wrongfully withheld.
11 44, By the conduct alleged herein, DEFENDANTS’ practices were deceptive and
12 fraudulent in that DEFENDANTS’ uniform policy and practice failed to, inter alia, provide the
13 legally mandated meal and rest periods, the required accurate amount of compensation for missed
14 meal and rest periods, split shift premiums, overtime and minimum wages owed, provide accurate
15 itemized wage statements, due to a systematic business practice that cannot be justified, pursuant
16 to the applicable Cal. Lab. Code, and Industrial Welfare Commission requirements in violation of
17 Cal. Bus. Code §§ 17200, et seg., and for which this Court should issue injunctive and equitable
18 relief, pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203, including restitution of wages wrongfully
19 withheld.
20 45. By the conduct alleged herein, DEFENDANTS’ practices were also unlawful,
21 unfair and deceptive in that DEFENDANTS’ employment practices caused PLAINTIFF and the
22 other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS to be underpaid during their employment with
23 DEFENDANTS.
24 46. By the conduct alleged herein, DEFENDANTS’ practices were also unlawful,
25 unfair and deceptive in that DEFENDANTS’ uniform policies, practices and procedures failed to,
26 inter alia, provide the legally mandated meal and rest periods, the required accurate amount of
27 compensation for missed meal and rest periods, overtime and minimum wages owed, provide
28 accurate itemized wage statements, to PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA
-17-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
CLASS as required by Cal. Labor Code.
47. Therefore, PLAINTIFF demands on behalf of herself and on behalf of each
CALIFORNIA CLASS member, one (1) hour of pay for each workday in which an off-duty meal
period was not timely provided for each five (5) hours of work, and/or one (1) hour of pay for
each workday in which a second off-duty meal period was not timely provided for each ten (10)
hours of work.
48.
Preview
BARVIE LAW, APC Electronically FILED by NICOLE BARVIE (State Bar # 282352) Superior Court of California, 550 West B Street, 4th Floor County of Los An: geles 4/23/2024 8:47 Al San Diego, CA 92101-3598 David W. Slayton, Telephone: 858.255.0928 Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, By J. Covarrubias, Deputy Clerk Facsimile: 858.357.8592 n icole@barvielaw.com Attorney for ANABEL RAMIREZ AVILA Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ANABEL RAMIREZ AVILA, an individual, CaseNo. 245 T C¥10121 10 on behalf of herself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR: 11 Plaintiff, 1 UNFAIR COMPETITION IN 12 VIOLATION OF CAL. BUS. & PROF. Vv CODE §§ 17200, et seq.; 13 FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME BESA SCREEN _ PRINTING, INC., a 14 California Corporation, BESA, a California WAGES IN VIOLATION OF CAL. Corporation; ESTELA MALDONADO, an LAB. CODE §§ 510, ef seq. 15 individual, ANTONIO SANCHEZ, an FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM Individual, GILBERTO SUASTEGUI WAGES IN VIOLATION OF CAL. 16 MALDONADO, an Individual, and DOES 1 LAB. CODE §§ 1194, 1197 & 1197.1; through 50, Inclusive; FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED 17 MEAL PERIODS IN VIOLATION OF Defendants. 18 CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 226.7 & 512 AND THE APPLICABLE IWC WAGE 19 ORDER; FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED 20 REST PERIODS IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB CODE §8§ 226.7 & 512 21 AND THE APPLICABLE IWC WAGE 22 ORDER; FAILURE TO REIMBURSE 23 PLAINTIFF FOR REQUIRED EXPENSES IN VIOLATION OF 24 CAL. LAB. CODE § 2802; FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE 25 ITEMIZED STATEMENTS IN 26 VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 226 and 226.2; and 27 FAILURE TO PAY WAGES WHEN DUE IN VIOLATION OF CAL. 28 LABOR CODE §§ 201, 202 AND 203; -l- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 9. Civil Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code §2699, et seq., for violations of Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 212, 226(a), 226.3, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2802, and the California Code of Regulations; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff ANABEL AVILA RAMIREZ (“PLAINTIFF”) an individual, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated current and former employees alleges on information and belief, except for his own acts and knowledge which are based on personal knowledge, the following: 10 THE PARTIES 11 1 Defendant BESA SCREEN PRINTING, INC. (“DEFENDANT”) is a California 12 Corporation that at all relevant times mentioned herein conducted and continues to conduct 13 substantial business in the state of California, County of Los Angeles. Defendant provides mental 14 health and supportive services to children, transitional age youth, adults and families affected by 15 mental health disorders. 16 2 Defendant ESTELA MALDONADO, an individual, over the 18 years of age, and 17 residing in the County of Los Angeles, California. Ms. Maldonado is an “owner, director, officer, 18 or managing agent” of Besa Screen Printing as defined within Labor Code §558.1(b). 19 3 Defendant ANTONIO SANCHEZ, an Individual, over the 18 years of age, and 20 residing in the County of Los Angeles, California. Mr. Sanchez is an “owner, director, officer, or 21 managing agent” of Besa Screen Printing as defined within Labor Code §558.1(b). 22 4 Defendant GILBERTO SUASTEGUI MALDONADO, an Individual, over the 18 23 years of age, and residing in the County of Los Angeles, California. Mr. Maldonado is an “owner, 24 director, officer, or managing agent” of Besa Screen Printing as defined within Labor Code 25 §558.1(b). 26 5 The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, subsidiary, 27 partnership, associate or otherwise of Defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are presently 28 2- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT unknown to PLAINTIFF who therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 474. PLAINTIFF will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of Does 1 through 50, inclusive, when they are ascertained. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and based upon that information and belief allege, that the Defendants named in this Complaint, including DOES 1 through 50, inclusive (hereinafter collectively with “DEFENDANTS”), are responsible in some manner for one or more of the events and happenings that proximately caused the injuries and damages hereinafter alleged. 6 The agents, servants and/or employees of the DEFENDANT and each of them acting on behalf of the DEFENDANT acted within the course and scope of his/her, or its authority 10 as the agent, servant and/or employee of the DEFENDANTS, and personally participated in the 11 conduct alleged herein on behalf of the DEFENDANTS with respect to the conduct alleged 12 herein. Consequently, the acts of each of the DEFENDANTS are legally attributable to the other 13 and all DEFENDANTS are jointly and severally liable to PLAINTIFF and those similarly 14 situated, for the loss sustained as a proximate result of the conduct of the DEFENDANTS’ agents, 15 servants and/or employees. 16 7 DEFENDANTS were PLAINTIFF’s employers or persons acting on behalf of 17 PLAINTIFF’s employer, within the meaning of California Labor Code § 558, who violated or 18 caused to be violated, a section of Part 2, Chapter 1 of the California Labor Code or any provision 19 regulating hours and days of work in any order of the Industrial Welfare Commission and, as 20 such, are subject to civil penalties for each underpaid employee, as set forth in Labor Code § 558, 21 at all relevant times. 22 8 DEFENDANTS were PLAINTIFF’s employers or persons acting on behalf of 23 PLAINTIFF’s employer either individually or as an officer, agent, or employee of another person, 24 within the meaning of California Labor Code § 1197.1, who paid or caused to be paid to any 25 employee a wage less than the minimum fixed by California state law, and as such, are subject 26 to civil penalties for each underpaid employee. 27 28 3. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 9 PLAINTIFF was employed by DEFENDANTS as a non-exempt employee, paid on an hourly basis and entitled to minimum wages, overtime pay, and legally compliant meal and rest periods from July 2022 to present. 10. PLAINTIFF brings this Class Action under California Code of Civil Procedure § 382 on behalfof himself and on behalf of all of DEFENDANTS current and former non-exempt California employees (the “CALIFORNIA CLASS”) at any time during the period beginning four years from the date of the filing of this Complaint and ending on a date determined by the Court (the “CLASS PERIOD”). 11. The amount in controversy for the aggregate claim of CALIFORNIA CLASS 10 members is under five million dollars ($5,000,000.00). PLAINTIFF reserves the right to amend 11 the following class definitions before the Court determines whether class certification is 12 appropriate, or thereafter upon leave of Court. 13 12. PLAINTIFF brings this Class Action on behalf of himself and on behalf of the 14 CALIFORNIA CLASS in order to fully compensate the CALIFORNIA CLASS for their losses 15 incurred during the CLASS PERIOD caused by DEFENDANTS’ uniform policy and practice 16 which (1) failed to provide PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA CLASS with legally compliant 17 meal and rest periods or an additional hour of pay at the regular rate of compensation in lieu 18 thereof in violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7(c), 512(a) and the applicable 19 Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order, (2) failed to pay PLAINTIFF and the 20 CALIFORNIA CLASS for all hours worked in violation of, inter alia, California Labor Code 21 Sections 510, 1194, 1197, and 1197.1, failed to reimburse PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA 22 CLASS for required expenses in violation for California Labor Code Section 2802, and (3) failed 23 to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of California Labor Code Sections 226 24 and 226.2. 25 13. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit seeking monetary relief against Defendants on behalfof 26 themselves and all others similarly situated in California to recover, among other things, unpaid 27 wages and benefits, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses and penalties pursuant to Labor 28 Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204 ef seg., 210, 226(a), 226(a)(8), 226.7, 226.3, 227.3, 246 et seq., 510, -4- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 512, 558, 1174, 1174.5, 1182.12, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2800, 2802, and 2698, ef seq. 14. DEFENDANTS’ uniform policies and practices alleged herein were unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practices whereby DEFENDANTS retained and continues to retain wages due PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS. 15. PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS seek an injunction enjoining such conduct by DEFENDANTS in the future, relief for the named PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS who have been economically injured by DEFENDANTS’ past and current unlawful conduct, and all other appropriate legal 10 and equitable relief. 11 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 12 16. This Court has jurisdiction over this Action pursuant to California Code of Civil 13 Procedure, Section 410.10 and California Business & Professions Code, Section 17203. This 14 action is brought as a Class Action on behalf of PLAINTIFF and similarly situated employees of 15 DEFENDANTS pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382. 16 17. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, 17 Sections 395 and 395.5, because PLAINTIFF worked in this County for DEFENDANTS, and 18 DEFENDANTS (i) currently maintain and at all relevant times, maintained offices and facilities 19 in this County and/or conducts substantial business in this County, and (ii) committed the 20 wrongful conduct herein alleged in this County against members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS. 21 THE CONDUCT 22 18. In violation of the applicable sections of the California Labor Code and the 23 requirements of the Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Order, DEFENDANTS as a 24 matter of company policy, practice and procedure, intentionally, knowingly and systematically 25 failed to provide legally compliant meal and rest periods, failed to accurately compensate 26 PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS for missed meal and rest 27 periods, failed to pay PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS for all 28 time worked, failed compensate PLAINTIFF for off-the-clock work, failed to reimburse -5- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT PLAINTIFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS for required expenses and failed to issue to PLAINTIFF, and the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS with accurate itemized wage statements showing, among other things, all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay periods and the corresponding amount of time worked at each hourly rate. DEFENDANTS’ uniform policies and practices are intended to purposefully avoid the accurate and full payment for all time worked as required by California law which allows DEFENDANTS to illegally profit and gain an unfair advantage over competitors who comply with the law. To the extent equitable tolling operates to toll claims by the CALIFORNIA CLASS against DEFENDANTS, the CLASS PERIOD should be adjusted accordingly. 10 A. Meal Period Violations 11 19. Pursuant to the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, DEFENDANTS were 12 required to pay PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for all their time worked, 13 meaning the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer, including 14 all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work. From time-to-time during the CLASS 15 PERIOD, DEFENDANTS required PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS members to work 16 without paying them for all the time they were under DEFENDANTS’ control. Specifically, as 17 a result of, among other reasons, PLAINTIFF’s demanding work requirements, and 18 DEFENDANTS’ under staffing, from time-to-time, DEFENDANTS required PLAINTIFF to 19 work while clocked out during what was supposed to be PLAINTIFF’s off-duty meal break. 20 Additionally, PLAINTIFF was from time-to-time interrupted by work assignments while clocked 21 out for what should have been PLAINTIFF’s off-duty meal break. As a result, the PLAINTIFF 22 and other CALIFORNIA CLASS members forfeited minimum wage and overtime wages by 23 regularly working without their time being accurately recorded and without compensation at the 24 applicable minimum wage and overtime rates. DEFENDANTS’ uniform policy and practice not 25 to pay PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS members for all time worked is evidenced 26 by DEFENDANTS’ business records. 27 20. From time-to-time during the CLASS PERIOD, as a result of their rigorous work 28 schedules, and DEFENDANTS’ inadequate staffing practices, PLAINTIFF and other -6- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CALIFORNIA CLASS members were from time-to-time unable to take thirty (30) minute off duty meal breaks and were not fully relieved of duty for their meal periods. PLAINTIFF and other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS were required from time-to-time to perform work as ordered by DEFENDANTS for more than five (5) hours during some shifts without receiving a meal break. Further, DEFENDANTS from time-to-time failed to provide PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS members with a second off-duty meal period for some workdays in which these employees were required by DEFENDANTS to work ten (10) hours of work from time-to- time. The nature of the work performed by the PLAINTIFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS does not qualify for limited and narrowly construed “on-duty” meal 10 period exception. When they were provided with meal periods, PLAINTIFF and other 11 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were, from time to time, required to remain on the premises, 12 on duty and/or on call. PLAINTIFF and other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS therefore 13 forfeited meal breaks without additional compensation and in accordance with DEFENDANTS’ 14 strict corporate policy and practice. 15 B. Rest Period Violations 16 21. From time-to-time during the CLASS PERIOD, PLAINTIFF and other 17 CALIFORNIA CLASS members were also required from time-to-time to work in excess of four 18 (4) hours without being provided ten (10) minute rest periods as a result of, among other reasons, 19 their rigorous work schedules, and DEFENDANTS?’ inadequate staffing. Further, for the same 20 reasons these employees were denied their first rest periods of at least ten (10) minutes for some 21 shifts worked of at least two (2) to four (4) hours from time-to-time, a first and second rest period 22 of at least ten (10) minutes for some shifts worked of between six (6) and eight (8) hours from 23 time-to-time, and a first, second, and third rest period of at least ten (10) minutes for some shifts 24 worked of ten (10) hours or more from time-to-time. PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA 25 CLASS members were also not provided with one-hour wages in lieu thereof. When they were 26 provided with rest periods, PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were, from 27 time to time, required to remain on the premises, on duty and/or on call. As a result of their 28 rigorous work schedules and DEFENDANTS’ inadequate staffing, PLAINTIFF and other -7- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CALIFORNIA CLASS members were from time-to-time denied their proper rest periods by DEFENDANTS and DEFENDANTS’ managers. C. Unreimbursed Business Expense: 22. DEFENDANTS as a matter of corporate policy, practice and procedure, intentionally, knowingly and systematically failed to reimburse and indemnify PLAINTIFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS for required business expenses they incurred in direct consequence of discharging their duties on behalf of DEFENDANTS. Under California Labor Code Section 2802, employers are required to indemnify employees for all expenses incurred in the course and scope of their employment. Cal. Lab. Code § 2802 expressly states that "an 10 employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred 11 by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her 12 obedience to the directions of the employer, even though unlawful, unless the employee, at the 13 time of obeying the directions, believed them to be unlawful." 14 23. From time-to-time during the CLASS PERIOD, PLAINTIFF and members of the 15 CALIFORNIA CLASS were required by DEFENDANTS to use their own personal cellular 16 phones, as a result of and in furtherance of their job duties as employees for DEFENDANTS. 17 Specifically, Plaintiff and members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS, used their personal cellular 18 phones to execute their job duties. But for the use of their personal cell phones, PLAINTIFF and 19 the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS could not complete their essential job duties. 20 Notwithstanding, DEFENDANTS did not reimburse or indemnify PLAINTIFF or the members 21 of the CALIFORNIA CLASS for the cost associated with the use of their personal cellular phones 22 for DEFENDANTS’ benefit. As a result, in the course of their employment with 23 DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS incurred 24 unreimbursed business expenses which included, but were not limited to, costs related to the use 25 of their personal cellular, all on behalf of and for the benefit of DEFENDANTS. 26 D. Off-the-Clock Work Resulting in Minimum Wage and Overtime Violation 27 9 During the CLASS PERIOD, from time-to-time, DEFENDANTS failed and 28 continue to fail to accurately pay PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS -8- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT for all hours worked. Specifically, DEFENDANT from time-to-time required PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS to perform off-the-clock work. Notwithstanding, from time-to-time DEFENDANTS failed to pay PLAINTIFF and other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS necessary wages for performing work at DEFENDANTS’ direction, request and benefit, while off-the clock pre-shift, post-shift, and during meal periods. Further, during the CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD, DEFENDANT required PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members to wait in line and submit to mandatory temperature checks for COVID-19 screening and also complete a COVID -19 questionnaire regarding whether these employees had any symptoms prior to clocking into DEFENDANT’s timekeeping systems for the 10 workday. 11 10. During the CLASS PERIOD, from time-to-time DEFENDANTS required 12 PLAINTIFF and other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS to perform pre-shift work, including 13 but not limited to, preparing for the shift, putting away supplies, to start his shift. Further, as 14 discussed supra, PLAINTIFF and other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS were from time to 15 time interrupted with work assignments during their off-duty meal periods without additional 16 compensation from DEFENDANTS. 17 11. DEFENDANTS directed and directly benefited from the uncompensated off-the- 18 clock work performed by PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS. 19 12. DEFENDANTS controlled the work schedules, duties, protocols, applications, 20 assignments and employment conditions of PLAINTIFF and the other members of the 21 CALIFORNIA CLASS. 22 13. DEFENDANTS were able to track the amount of time PLAINTIFF and the other 23 members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS spent working; however, DEFENDANTS failed to 24 document, track, or pay PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS all 25 wages earned and owed for all the work they performed, including off-the-clock work. 26 14. PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS were non-exempt 27 employees, subject to the requirements of the California Labor Code. 28 -9- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 15. DEFENDANTS’ policies and practices deprived PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS of all minimum, regular and overtime wages owed for the off-the- clock work activities and their required meal periods. Because PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS typically worked over 40 hours in a workweek, and more than eight (8) hours per day, DEFENDANTS’ policies and practices also deprived them of overtime pay. 16. DEFENDANTS knew or should have known that PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS off-the-clock work was compensable under the law. 17. As a result, PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS forfeited wages due them for all hours worked at DEFENDANTS’ direction, control and benefit 10 for the time spent working off-the-clock pre-shift, and during meal periods. DEFENDANTS’ 11 uniform policy and practice to not pay PLAINTIFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS 12 wages for all hours worked in accordance with applicable law is evidenced by DEFENDANTS’ 13 business records. 14 E Wage Statement Violation: 15 18. California Labor Code Section 226 requires an employer to furnish its employees 16 an accurate itemized statement in writing showing (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked, 17 (3) the number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece-rate, (4) all deductions, (5) net 18 wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the name 19 of the employee and only the last four digits of the employee’s social security number or an 20 employee identification number other than a social security number, (8) the name and address of 21 the legal entity that is the employer and, (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay 22 period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee. 23 19. From time-to-time during the CLASS PERIOD, when PLAINTIFF and other 24 CALIFORNIA CLASS members missed meal and rest breaks, were paid inaccurate missed meal 25 and rest period premiums, or were not paid for all hours worked, DEFENDANTS also failed to 26 provide PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS with complete and 27 accurate wage statements which failed to show, among other things, all applicable hourly rates in 28 -10- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT effect during the pay period and the corresponding amount of time worked at each hourly rate, orrect rates of pay for penalty payments or missed meal and rest periods. 20. In addition to the violations described above, DEFENDANTS, from time-to-time, failed to provide PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA CLASS members with wage statements that comply with Cal. Lab. Code § 226. As a result, DEFENDANTS issued PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS with wage statements that violate Cal. Lab. Code § 226. Further, DEFENDANTS’ violations are knowing and intentional, were not isolated or due to an unintentional 21. DEFENDANTS also failed to timely pay PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA 10 CLASS members in compliance of Cal. Lab. Code §204. DEFENDANTS’ violations are knowing 11 and intentional, were not isolated or due to an unintentional payroll error due to clerical or 12 inadvertent mistake. 13 F. Unlawful Rounding Violation: 14 22. During the CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD, DEFENDANT did not have in place 15 an immutable timekeeping system to accurately record and pay PLAINTIFF and other 16 CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for the actual time these employees worked each day, 17 including overtime hours. Specifically, DEFENDANT had in place an unlawful rounding policy 18 and practice that resulted in PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members being 19 undercompensated for all of their time worked. As a result, DEFENDANT was able to and did 20 in fact unlawfully, and unilaterally round the time recorded in DEFENDANT’S timekeeping 21 system for PLAINTIFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS in order to avoid paying 22 these employees for all their time worked, including the applicable overtime compensation for 23 overtime worked. As a result, PLAINTIFF, and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members, from 24 time to time, forfeited compensation for their time worked by working without their time being 25 accurately recorded and without compensation at the applicable overtime rates. 26 23. Further, the mutability of DEFENDANT’S timekeeping system and unlawful 27 rounding policy and practice resulted in PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members’ time 28 being inaccurately recorded. As a result, from time to time, DEFENDANT’S unlawful rounding -ll- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT policy and practice caused PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members to perform work as ordered by DEFENDANT for more than five (5) hours during a shift without receiving an off- duty meal break. Additionally, DEFENDANT’S unlawful rounding policy and practice caused PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members to perform work as ordered by DEFENDANT for more than ten (10) hours during a shift without receiving a second off-duty meal break. G. Unlawful Deductions 24. DEFENDANTS, from time-to-time unlawfully deducted wages from PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members’ pay without explanations and without authorization to do so or notice to PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA CLASS Members. As a result, DEFENDANTS 10 violated Labor Code § 221. 11 25. Specifically, as to PLAINTIFF, PLAINTIFF was from time to time unable to take 12 off duty meal and rest breaks and was not fully relieved of duty for his rest and meal periods. 13 PLAINTIFF was required to perform work as ordered by DEFENDANT for more than five (5) 14 hours during a shift without receiving an off-duty meal break. Further, DEFENDANT failed to 15 provide PLAINTIFF with a second off-duty meal period each workday in which he was required 16 by DEFENDANT to work ten (10) hours of work. When DEFENDANT provided PLAINTIFF 17 with a rest break, they required PLAINTIFF to remain on-duty and on-call for the rest break. 18 DEFENDANT policy caused PLAINTIFF to remain on-call and on-duty during what was 19 supposed to be his off-duty meal periods. PLAINTIFF therefore forfeited meal and rest breaks 20 without additional compensation and in accordance with DEFENDANT’S strict corporate policy 21 and practice. Moreover, DEFENDANT also provided PLAINTIFF with paystubs that failed to 22 comply with Cal. Lab. Code § 226. Further, DEFENDANT also failed to reimburse PLAINTIFF 23 for required business expenses related to the personal expenses incurred for the use of his personal 24 cell phone. 25 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 26 26. PLAINTIFF brings the First through Eight Causes of Action as a class action 27 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 382 on behalf the CALIFORNIA CLASS, 28 defined supra, that worked for DEFENDANT in California at any time beginning four (4) years -12- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT prior to the filing of this Complaint and ending on the date as determined by the Court (“CLASS PERIOD”). 27. PLAINTIFF and the other CALIFORNIA CLASS members have uniformly been deprived of wages and penalties from unpaid wages earned and due, including but not limited to unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid meal and rest period premiums, illegal meal and rest period policies, failure to separately compensate rest periods, failure to separately compensate, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to maintain required records, and interest, statutory and civil penalties, attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses. 28. The members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all class members is 10 impractical. 11 29. Common questions of law and fact regarding DEFENDANT’S conduct, including 12 but not limited to, the off-the-clock work, unpaid meal and rest period premiums, failing to provide 13 legally compliant meal and rest periods, failing to reimburse business expenses, failure to provide 14 accurate itemized wage statements accurate, and failure ensure they are paid at least minimum 15 wage and overtime, exist as to all members of the class and predominate over any questions 16 affecting solely any individual members of the class. Among the questions of law and fact 17 common to the class are: 18 a. Whether DEFENDANTS maintained legally compliant meal 19 period policies and practices; 20 b. Whether DEFENDANTS maintained legally compliant rest 21 period policies and practices; 22 c Whether DEFENDANTS failed to pay PLAINTIFF and the 23 CALIFORNIA CLASS members accurate premium payments for 24 missed meal and rest periods; 25 d Whether DEFENDANTS failed to pay PLAINTIFF and the 26 CALIFORNIA CLASS members accurate overtime wages and sick 27 Pay; 28 e Whether DEFENDANTS failed to pay PLAINTIFF and the -13- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CALIFORNIA CLASS members at least minimum wage for all hours worked; f. Whether DEFENDANTS reimbursed PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA CLASS members for required business expenses; g Whether DEFENDANTS issued legally compliant wage statements; h Whether DEFENDANTS committed an act of unfair competition by systematically failing to record and pay PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS for all time 10 worked; 11 1 Whether DEFENDANTS committed an act of unfair 12 competition by systematically failing to record all meal and rest 13 breaks missed by PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS 14 members, even though DEFENDANTS enjoyed the benefit of this 15 work, required employees to perform this work and permits or suffers 16 to permit this work; 17 J Whether DEFENDANTS committed an act of unfair 18 competition in violation of the UCL, by failing to provide the 19 PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS 20 with the legally required meal and rest periods. 21 30. PLAINTIFF is a member of the CALIFORNIA CLASS and suffered damages as a 22 result of DEFENDANTS’ conduct and actions alleged herein. 23 31. PLAINTIFF’s claims are typical of the claims of the class, and PLAINTIFF has the 24 same interests as the other members of the class. 25 32. PLAINTIFF will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the 26 CALIFORNIA CLASS members. 27 33. PLAINTIFF retained able class counsel with extensive experience in class action 28 litigation. -14- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 34. Further, PLAINTIFF’s interests are coincident with, and not antagonistic to, the interests of the other CALIFORNIA CLASS members. 35. There is a strong community of interest among PLAINTIFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS to, infer alia, ensure that the combined assets of DEFENDANTS are sufficient to adequately compensate the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS for the injuries sustained; 36. The questions of law and fact common to the CALIFORNIA CLASS members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, including legal and factual issues relating to liability and damages. 10 37. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient 11 adjudication of this controversy because joinder of all class members in impractical. Moreover, 12 since the damages suffered by individual members of the class may be relatively small, the 13 expense and burden of individual litigation makes it practically impossible for the members of the 14 class individually to redress the wrongs done to them. Without class certification and 15 determination of declaratory, injunctive, statutory and other legal questions within the class 16 format, prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS will 17 create the risk of: 18 a. Inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of 19 the CALIFORNIA CLASS which would establish incompatible standards of 20 conduct for the parties opposing the CALIFORNIA CLASS; and/or, 21 b. Adjudication with respect to individual members of the CALIFORNIA 22 CLASS which would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests of the other 23 members not party to the adjudication or substantially impair or impeded their 24 ability to protect their interests. 25 38. Class treatment provides manageable judicial treatment calculated to bring an 26 efficient and rapid conclusion to all litigation of all wage and hour related claims arising out of 27 the conduct of DEFENDANTS. 28 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION -15- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT For Unlawful Business Practices [Cal. Bus. And Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.] (By PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA CLASS and Against All DEFENDANTS) 39. PLAINTIFF, and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS, reallege and incorporate by this reference, as though fully set forth herein, the prior paragraphs of this Complaint. 40. DEFENDANTS are “person{s]” as that term is defined under Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code § 17021. 41. California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seg. (the “UCL”) defines 10 unfair competition as any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice. Section 17203 11 authorizes injunctive, declaratory, and/or other equitable relief with respect to unfair competition 12 as follows: 13 Any person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in 14 unfair competition may be enjoined in any court of competent 15 jurisdiction. The court may make such orders or judgments, 16 including the appointment of a receiver, as may be necessary to 17 prevent the use or employment by any person of any practice which 18 constitutes unfair competition, as defined in this chapter, or as may 19 be necessary to restore to any person in interest any money or 20 property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means 21 of such unfair competition. 22 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203. 23 42. By reason of this uniform conduct applicable to PLAINTIFF and all CALIFORNIA. 24 CLASS members, during the CLASS PERIOD, DEFENDANTS commit acts of unfair 25 competition in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 26 17200, et seg. (the “UCL”), by engaging and continuing to engage in business practices which 27 violates California law, including but not limited to, the applicable Industrial Wage Order(s), the 28 California Code of Regulations and the California Labor Code including Sections 201, 202, 203, -16- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 204 et seq. 210, 226(a), 226(a)(8), 226.3, 226.7, 227.3, 246 et seqg., 510, 512, 558, 1174, 1174.5, 1182.12, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2800, 2802 for which this Court should issue declaratory and other equitable relief pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203 as may be necessary to prevent and remedy the conduct held to constitute unfair competition, including restitution of wages wrongfully withheld. 43. By the conduct alleged herein, DEFENDANTS’ practices were unlawful and unfair in that these practices violated public policy, were immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to employees, and were without valid justification or utility for which this Court should issue equitable and injunctive relief pursuant to Section 17203 of the California 10 Business & Professions Code, including restitution of wages wrongfully withheld. 11 44, By the conduct alleged herein, DEFENDANTS’ practices were deceptive and 12 fraudulent in that DEFENDANTS’ uniform policy and practice failed to, inter alia, provide the 13 legally mandated meal and rest periods, the required accurate amount of compensation for missed 14 meal and rest periods, split shift premiums, overtime and minimum wages owed, provide accurate 15 itemized wage statements, due to a systematic business practice that cannot be justified, pursuant 16 to the applicable Cal. Lab. Code, and Industrial Welfare Commission requirements in violation of 17 Cal. Bus. Code §§ 17200, et seg., and for which this Court should issue injunctive and equitable 18 relief, pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203, including restitution of wages wrongfully 19 withheld. 20 45. By the conduct alleged herein, DEFENDANTS’ practices were also unlawful, 21 unfair and deceptive in that DEFENDANTS’ employment practices caused PLAINTIFF and the 22 other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS to be underpaid during their employment with 23 DEFENDANTS. 24 46. By the conduct alleged herein, DEFENDANTS’ practices were also unlawful, 25 unfair and deceptive in that DEFENDANTS’ uniform policies, practices and procedures failed to, 26 inter alia, provide the legally mandated meal and rest periods, the required accurate amount of 27 compensation for missed meal and rest periods, overtime and minimum wages owed, provide 28 accurate itemized wage statements, to PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA -17- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CLASS as required by Cal. Labor Code. 47. Therefore, PLAINTIFF demands on behalf of herself and on behalf of each CALIFORNIA CLASS member, one (1) hour of pay for each workday in which an off-duty meal period was not timely provided for each five (5) hours of work, and/or one (1) hour of pay for each workday in which a second off-duty meal period was not timely provided for each ten (10) hours of work. 48.