Preview
1
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
2 James R. Hawkins, Esq. (#192925)
Gregory Mauro, Esq. (#222239)
3 Michael Calvo, Esq. (#314986)
Lauren Falk, Esq. (#316893)
4 Ava Issary, Esq. (#342252)
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
5 Irvine, CA 92618
Tel.: (949) 387-7200
6 Fax: (949) 387-6676
Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
7 Email: Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Email: Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com
8 Email: Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Email: Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com
9
Attorneys for Plaintiff MAUREEN LANCEFIELD MORGAN-BALDWIN,
10 on behalf of the general public as private attorney general.
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
12
13 MAUREEN LANCEFIELD MORGAN- CASE NO.:
BALDWIN, on behalf of the general public as
14 private attorney general, PROPOSED PAGA REPRESENTATIVE
ACTION COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO
15 THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL
Plaintiff, ACT (Labor Code §§ 2698 et seq).
16
v.
17
18 ALAMITOS RIDGE HEALTHCARE, LLC;
OCEAN RIDGE POST ACUTE; REGENCY
19 OAKS CARE CENTER; MEK LONG
BEACH, LLC; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
20
Defendants.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROPOSED PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiff MAUREEN LANCEFIELD MORGAN-BALDWIN (“Plaintiff”), on behalf the
2 general public and all non-exempt aggrieved employees, acting on behalf of the California
3 Attorney General as private attorney general, asserts claims against ALAMITOS RIDGE
4 HEALTHCARE, LLC; OCEAN RIDGE POST ACUTE; REGENCY OAKS CARE CENTER;
5 MEK LONG BEACH, LLC; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, (collectively “Defendants”) as follows:
6 I. INTRODUCTION
7 1. This is a representative action for recovery of penalties under the Private Attorneys
8 General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), Cal. Lab. Code sections 2698 et seq. PAGA permits “aggrieved
9 employees” to bring a lawsuit as a representative action on behalf of the general public as private
10 attorney general and all other current and former aggrieved employees, to recover civil penalties
11 and address an employer’s violations of the California Labor Code.
12 2. In this case, Defendants violated various provisions of the California Labor Code.
13 As set forth below, Defendants implemented policies and practices which led to Defendant’s:
14 (a) failure to pay wages including overtime; (b) failure to provide meal periods for every work
15 period exceeding more than five (5) or ten (10) hours per day and failure to pay an additional
16 hour’s of pay or accurately pay an additional hour’s of pay in lieu of providing a meal period; (c)
17 failure to provide rest breaks for every four hours or major fraction thereof worked and failure to
18 pay an additional hour’s of pay or accurately pay an additional hour’s of pay in lieu of providing a
19 rest period; (d) failing to pay timely wages required by Labor Code § 203; (e) failing to provide
20 accurate itemized wage statements; (f) failing to indemnify necessary business expenses; and
21 (g) failing to pay vested vacation pay at separation. As a result, Plaintiff seeks penalties under
22 Labor Code 2698, et seq. on behalf of the general public as private attorney general and all other
23 aggrieved employees.
24 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
25 3. The California Superior Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to
26 California Constitution Article VI, Section 10, which grants the Superior Court “original
27 jurisdiction in all cases except those given by statute to other trial courts.” The statutes under
28 which this action is brought do not give jurisdiction to any other court.
-1-
PROPOSED PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
1 4. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendants because, upon information and belief,
2 each Defendant either has sufficient minimum contacts in California, or otherwise intentionally
3 avails itself of the California market so as to render the exercise of jurisdiction over it by the
4 California Courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
5 5. Venue as to each Defendant is proper in this judicial district pursuant to Code of
6 Civil Procedure section 395. Defendants are doing business throughout California, including but
7 not limited to Los Angeles County, and each Defendant is within the jurisdiction of this Court for
8 service of process purposes. The unlawful acts alleged herein have a direct effect on Plaintiff and
9 all other aggrieved employees within the State of California. Defendants employ numerous
10 aggrieved employees in in the State of California.
11 6. On information and belief, Defendants have conducted business within the State of
12 California during the purported liability period and continue to conduct business throughout the
13 State of California. The unlawful acts alleged herein have had a direct effect on Plaintiff, and the
14 similarly situated non-exempt aggrieved employees within California.
15 7. The California Superior Court also has jurisdiction in this matter because on
16 information and belief there are no federal questions at issue, as the issues herein are based solely
17 on California statutes and law, including the California Labor Code, the IWC Wage Orders, the
18 California Code of Civil Procedure, the California Civil Code, and the California Business and
19 Professions Code.
20 8. On information and belief, during the statutory liability period and continuing to
21 the present (“liability period”), Defendant consistently maintained and enforced against
22 Defendant’s Non-Exempt aggrieved Employees, among others, the following unlawful practices
23 and policies, in violation of California state wage and hour laws: (a) failure to pay wages including
24 overtime; (b) failure to provide meal periods for every work period exceeding more than five (5)
25 or ten (10) hours per day and failure to pay an additional hour’s of pay or accurately pay an
26 additional hour’s of pay in lieu of providing a meal period; (c) failure to provide rest breaks for
27 every four hours or major fraction thereof worked and failure to pay an additional hour’s of pay or
28 accurately pay an additional hour’s of pay in lieu of providing a rest period; (d) failing to pay
-2-
PROPOSED PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
1 timely wages required by Labor Code § 203; (e) failing to provide accurate itemized wage
2 statements; (f) failing to indemnify necessary business expenses; and (g) failing to pay vested
3 vacation pay at separation.
4 9. Plaintiff on behalf of the general public as private attorney general and all other
5 aggrieved employees bring this action pursuant to Labor Code 2698, et seq. for violations
6 enumerated under 2699.5 as follows: sections 201-203, 510, 512, 558, 226, 226.3, 226.7, 227.3,
7 246, 1174, 1174.5, 1175, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2802, and seeking penalties, interest,
8 attorneys’ fees and costs.
9 III. PARTIES
10 A. Plaintiff
11 10. Plaintiff, MAUREEN LANCEFIELD MORGAN-BALDWIN was, at all times
12 relevant to this action, a resident of California. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in
13 approximately August 2, 2022 as a Non-Exempt Employee with the title of Charge Nurse and
14 worked during the liability period for Defendants until Plaintiff’s separation from Defendants’
15 employ in approximately August 4, 2023. Plaintiff’s duties included but were not limited to:
16 caring for patients and carrying out doctor’s orders.
17 11. As Defendant’s employee, Plaintiff, and all other aggrieved employees were
18 regularly required to and subsequently suffered:
19 a) perform work subject to the control of the employer without being compensated all
20 wages including overtime and minimum wages, all in violation of California labor laws,
21 regulations, and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order (“IWC”);
22 b) work without being permitted or authorized a minimum ten-minute rest period for
23 every four hours or major fraction thereof worked and not compensated one (1) hour of pay at his
24 regular rate of compensation for each workday that a rest period was not provided, all in
25 violation of California labor laws, regulations, and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
26 Orders (“IWC”);
27 c) work in excess of five and ten hours per day without being provided meal periods
28 and not compensated one (1) hour of pay at the regular rate of compensation for each workday that
-3-
PROPOSED PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
1 a meal period was not provided, all in violation of California labor laws, regulations, and the
2 Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders (“IWC”);
3 d) not provided accurate itemized wage statements;
4 e) not timely paid wages;
5 f) not paid vested vacation pay at the time of separation;
6 g) not reimbursed necessary business expenses; and
7 h) conducting and engaging in unfair business practices.
8 12. On information and belief, Defendants willfully failed to pay all earned wages in
9 the form regular wages, minimum wages, overtime wages, vacation pay, and meal and rest period
10 premium wages to its Non-Exempt Employees and Aggrieved Employees; nor have Defendants
11 returned to Plaintiff or Aggrieved Employees, upon or after separation from employment with
12 Defendants, all wages earned and owing. Plaintiff seeks penalties under Labor Code 2698, et seq.
13 on behalf of the general public as private attorney general and all other aggrieved employees.
14 B. Defendants
15 13. Defendants ALAMITOS RIDGE HEALTHCARE, LLC, OCEAN RIDGE POST
16 ACUTE, REGENCY OAKS CARE CENTER, and MEK LONG BEACH, LLC operate as
17 nursing home businesses. Plaintiff estimates there are in excess of 100 Non-Exempt Employees
18 who work or have worked for Defendants over the last year.
19 14. Other than identified herein, Plaintiff is unaware of the true names, capacities,
20 relationships and extent of participation in the conduct alleged herein, of the defendants sued as
21 DOES 1 through 50, but is informed and believes and thereon alleges that said defendants are
22 legally responsible for the wrongful conduct alleged herein and therefore sues these defendants by
23 such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint when their true names and capacities are
24 ascertained.
25 15. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each Defendant, directly
26 or indirectly, or through agents or other persons, employed Plaintiff and other Aggrieved
27 Employees, and exercised control over their wages, hours, and working conditions. Plaintiff is
28 informed and believes and thereon alleges that each defendant acted in all respects pertinent to this
-4-
PROPOSED PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
1 action as the agent of the other defendants, carried out a joint scheme, business plan or policy in
2 all respects pertinent hereto, and the acts of each defendant are legally attributable to the other
3 defendants.
4 IV. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
5 16. At all times set forth herein, Defendants employed Plaintiff and other persons in the
6 capacity of non-exempt positions, however titled, throughout the state of California.
7 17. Plaintiff is informed and believes Aggrieved Employees have at all times pertinent
8 hereto been Non-Exempt within the meaning of the California Labor Code and the implementing
9 rules and regulations of the IWC California Wage Orders.
10 18. Defendants continue to employ Non-Exempt Employees, however titled, in
11 California and implement a uniform set of policies and practices to all non-exempt employees, as
12 they were all engaged in the job duties related to Defendants’ nursing home businesses.
13 19. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants are and
14 were advised by skilled lawyers and other professionals, employees, and advisors with knowledge
15 of the requirements of California’s wage and employment laws.
16 20. Plaintiff is informed and believes that during the relevant time frame, all Aggrieved
17 Employees are citizens of the state of California.
18 21. During the relevant time frame, Defendants compensated Plaintiff and Aggrieved
19 Employees based upon an hourly rate.
20 22. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with an uninterrupted duty-free meal period
21 as required by law.
22 23. Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees were regularly required to work shifts in
23 excess of five hours without being provided a lawful meal period and over ten hours in a day
24 without being provided a second lawful meal period as required by law.
25 24. Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees missed meal breaks several times a week and
26 had late meal breaks. Meal breaks were interrupted daily and lasted for less than the 30 minutes
27 required by law. Defendants failed to pay premium wages for missed, short or late meal breaks.
28 25. Defendants also unlawfully deducted a full 30-minutes of time for meal periods no
-5-
PROPOSED PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
1 matter if a Labor Code compliant meal period was provided to Plaintiff and Aggrieved
2 Employees. Resulting in an underpayment of minimum and overtime wages.
3 26. Indeed, during the relevant time, as a consequence of Defendants’ staffing and
4 scheduling practices, work demands, and Defendants’ policies and practices, Defendants
5 frequently failed to provide Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees timely, legally compliant
6 uninterrupted 30-minute meal periods on shifts over five hours as required by law.
7 27. Similarly, as a consequence of Defendants’ staffing and scheduling practices, work
8 demands, and Defendants’ policies and practices, Defendants frequently failed to provide Plaintiff
9 and the Aggrieved Employees legally compliant second meal periods on shifts over ten hours as
10 required by law.
11 28. On information and belief, Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees did not waive their
12 rights to meal periods under the law.
13 29. Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees were not provided with valid lawful on-duty
14 meal periods.
15 30. Despite the above-mentioned meal period violations, Defendants failed to
16 compensate Plaintiff, and on information and belief, failed to compensate Aggrieved Employees,
17 one additional hour of pay at their regular rate as required by California law when meal periods
18 were not timely or lawfully provided in a compliant manner.
19 31. Plaintiff are informed and believe, and thereon alleges, that Defendants know,
20 should know, knew, and/or should have known that Plaintiff and the other Aggrieved Employees
21 were entitled to receive premium wages based on their regular rate of pay under Labor Code
22 §226.7 but were not receiving such compensation.
23 32. In addition, during the relevant time frame, Plaintiff and the Non-Exempt
24 Employees were systematically not authorized and permitted to take one net ten-minute paid, rest
25 period for every four hours worked or major fraction thereof, including third rest breaks which is a
26 violation of the Labor Code and IWC wage order.
27 33. Defendants maintained and enforced scheduling practices, policies, and imposed
28 work demands that frequently required Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees to forego their lawful,
-6-
PROPOSED PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
1 paid rest periods of a net ten minutes for every four hours worked or major fraction thereof. Such
2 requisite rest periods were not timely authorized and permitted as a result of Defendants’ failure to
3 provide relief for Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees to take their lawfully required breaks.
4 Further, Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees were prohibited from leaving the premises during rest
5 breaks.
6 34. Despite the above-mentioned rest period violations, Defendants did not compensate
7 Plaintiff, and on information and belief, did not pay Aggrieved Employees one additional hour of
8 pay at their regular rate as required by California law, including Labor Code section 226.7 and the
9 applicable IWC wage order, for each day on which lawful rest periods were not authorized and
10 permitted.
11 35. On information and belief, during the relevant time frame, Defendants failed to
12 adequately pay overtime to Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees when they were forced to work 12
13 hours per day, for three (3) days in a week. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff overtime for her
14 additional hours worked.
15 36. On information and belief, Defendants also required Plaintiff and Aggrieved
16 Employees to work off-the-clock. For instance, Plaintiff, and on information and belief Aggrieved
17 Employees would need to wait in order for the time clock to become available so they could clock
18 in and out for meal breaks and their shifts.
19 37. Defendants also failed to compensate Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees for off
20 the-clock work conducting pre-shift activities for COVID-19 screenings. The screenings consisted
21 of temperature checks and a swab test, which were done prior to Plaintiff and Aggrieve Employees
22 clocking in for their shifts.
23 38. On information and belief, during the relevant time frame, Defendants failed to
24 adequately reimburse Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees for business expenditures incurred for
25 the use required tools and equipment. Plaintiff was forced to bring some of her own tools to work
26 such as scissors, blood pressure cuffs, stethoscopes, and pulse oximeters. Such business
27 expenditures incurred were incurred in direct consequence of Plaintiff’s and Aggrieved
28 Employees’ duties pursuant to Labor Code § 2802. Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees were
-7-
PROPOSED PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
1 forced to pay for tools out-of-pocket and Defendants failed to reimburse employees for these
2 necessary business expenses.
3 39. Further, Defendants also failed to reimburse Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees for
4 mileage for the use of their personal vehicles. Plaintiff was forced to drive to the health
5 department and was not reimbursed for mileage spent.
6 40. Defendants also failed to provide accurate, lawful itemized wage statements to
7 Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees in part because of the above specified violations. In
8 addition, upon information and belief, Defendants omitted an accurate itemization of total hours
9 worked, including premiums due and owing for meal and rest period violations, overtime pay,
10 gross pay and net pay figures from Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees’ wage statements. In
11 addition, upon information and belief, Defendants omitted an accurate itemization of the
12 premiums due and owing for meal and rest period violations from Plaintiff and the Aggrieved
13 Employees’ wage statements.
14 41. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein
15 mentioned, Defendants knew that at the time of termination of employment (or within 72 hours
16 thereof for resignations without prior notice as the case may be) they had a duty to accurately
17 compensate Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees for all wages owed including minimum wages,
18 meal and rest period premiums, and that Defendants had the financial ability to pay such
19 compensation, but willfully, knowingly, recklessly, and/or intentionally failed to do so in part
20 because of the above-specified violations.
21 42. Plaintiff did not receive her accrued PTO upon her separation from Defendant’s
22 employ. Plaintiff was removed from the schedule and never formally terminated or separated from
23 the Company. Plaintiff did not receive her final wages nor her accrued PTO.
24 43. Upon information and belief, Defendants knew and or should have known that it is
25 improper to implement policies and commit unlawful acts such as:
26 (a) requiring employees to work four (4) hours or a major fraction thereof without
27 being provided a minimum ten (10) minute rest period and without compensating the employees
28 with one (1) hour of pay at the employees’ regular rate of compensation for each workday that a
-8-
PROPOSED PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
1 rest period was not provided;
2 (b) requiring employees to work in excess of five (5) hours or ten (10) hours per day
3 without being provided an uninterrupted thirty minute meal period and/or a second meal period,
4 and without compensating employees with one (1) hour of pay at the regular rate of compensation
5 for each workday that such a meal period was not provided;
6 (c) failing to pay overtime and minimum wages;
7 (d) failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements;
8 (e) failing to timely pay Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees;
9 (f) failing to pay vested vacation pay;
10 (g) failing to reimburse necessary business expenses; and
11 (h) conducting and engaging in unfair business practices.
12 44. In addition to the violations above, and on information and belief, Defendants knew
13 they had a duty to compensate Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees for the allegations asserted
14 herein, and that Defendants had the financial ability to pay such compensation, but willfully,
15 knowingly, recklessly, and/or intentionally failed to do so.
16 Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees they seek to represent are covered by, and Defendants
17 are required to comply with, applicable California Labor Codes, Industrial Welfare Commission
18 Occupational Wage Orders (hereinafter “IWC Wage Orders”) and corresponding applicable
19 provisions of California Code of Regulations, Title 8, section 11000 et seq.
20 REPRESENTATIVE CLAIMS
21 THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT- LABOR CODE §§ 2698 et seq.
22 45. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges each and every allegation
23 contained above, as though fully set forth herein.
24 46. On March 13, 2024, Plaintiff complied with notice requirements pursuant to Labor
25 Code section 2699.3. A copy of the letter sent to the LWDA is attached hereto as Exhibit A,
26 indicating that the LWDA and Defendants were put on notice of the claims alleged here and that
27 the notice requirement has been satisfied. Sixty-five days have passed and the LWDA has not
28 indicated intent to investigate the claims. Therefore, Plaintiff may proceed with this action in a
-9-
PROPOSED PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
1 representative capacity. The substance and violations set forth in this Complaint of which the
2 LWDA was provided timely notice, Plaintiff has also sent a copy of this PAGA Representative
3 Action Complaint to the LWDA.
4 47. Plaintiff is an aggrieved employee as defined in Labor Code Section 2699(a).
5 Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of all current and former California Non-Exempt
6 Employees of Defendants.
7 48. Pursuant to Labor Code section 2699(a) Plaintiff seek to recover civil penalties for
8 which Defendants are liable due to numerous Labor Code violations as set forth in this Complaint,
9 including without limitation Labor Code section 201-203, 510, 512, 558, 226, 226.3, 226.7, 227.3,
10 246, 1174, 1174.5, 1175, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2802, and 2698 et seq., applicable IWC Wage
11 Orders and California Code of Regulations, Title 8, section 11000 et seq.
12 49. At all times relevant, Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees regularly
13 performed non-exempt work in excess of 50% of the time, and thus, were subject to the meal and
14 rest break requirements of the applicable IWC wage order and the Labor Code.
15 50. Defendants violated Labor Code section 200, 558, 1194, 1197, by failing to
16 accurately pay at least minimum wages due as a result of Defendants’ requiring Plaintiff and
17 aggrieved Employees to work off-the-clock as outlined above.
18 51. Defendants violated Labor Code section 510, and 1194 by failing to accurately pay
19 overtime wages owed as discussed above due to Defendants’ failure to incorporate bonuses and
20 other forms of remuneration as described above into the regular rate of pay for overtime
21 calculation purposes. Defendants further failed to accurately pay overtime wages due to
22 Defendants’ requiring Plaintiff and aggrieved Employees to work off-the-clock as outlined above.
23 Therefore, Defendants violated section 510, and 1194 by not compensating its Non-Exempt
24 Employees for work performed in excess of eight hours (8) in a day or forty hours in a work week
25 (40). Section 510 of the Labor Code codifies the right to overtime compensation at the rate of one
26 and one-half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a day
27 or forty (40) hours in a work week and to overtime compensation twice the regular rate of pay for
28 hours worked in excess of twelve (12) hours in a day or in excess of eight (8) hours in a day on the
- 10 -
PROPOSED PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
1 seventh day of work in a particular work week.
2 52. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees
3 uninterrupted duty-free meal periods of not less than thirty (30) minutes. Defendants implemented
4 and enforced policies of on duty meal period practices which required employees to work during
5 their meal periods, to forego their meal periods, and/or to return to work from meal periods prior
6 to thirty (30) uninterrupted minutes. As a proximate result of the aforementioned violations,
7 Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees have been damaged in an amount according to proof at
8 time of trial.
9 53. Plaintiff, and on information and belief, all aggrieved employees, were
10 systematically not permitted or authorized to take ten-minute rest periods for every four hours
11 worked or major fraction thereof, which is a violation of the Labor Code and IWC wage order.
12 Plaintiff and on information and belief, aggrieved employees, were not compensated with one
13 hour of wages for every day in which a rest period was missed or untimely as a result of
14 Defendants’ policies, practices, or work demands. By failing to authorize and permit a ten-minute
15 rest period for every four hours or major fraction thereof worked per day by its Non-Exempt
16 Employees, and by failing to provide compensation for such non-provided or shortened rest
17 periods, as alleged above, Defendants willfully violated the provisions of Labor Code sections
18 226.7, 512 and the applicable IWC Wage Order.
19 54. Defendants also willfully violated Labor Code sections 201-203 by failing to
20 provide all owed wages at separation from employment. Labor Code sections 201 and 202 require
21 Defendants to pay their employees all wages due either at time of firing, or within seventy-two
22 (72) hours of voluntary separation, if not sooner. Section 203 of the Labor Code provides that if an
23 employer willfully fails to timely pay such wages the employer must, as a penalty, continue to pay
24 the subject employee’s wages until the back wages are paid in full or an action is commenced.
25 The penalty cannot exceed 30 days of wages.
26 55. Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees who were separated from employment
27 are entitled to compensation for all forms of wages earned, including but not limited to
28 compensation regular and overtime wages, and for non-provided meal and rest periods, but to date
- 11 -
PROPOSED PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
1 have not received such compensation, therefore entitling them to penalties under PAGA for
2 violations of Labor Code sections 201-203.
3 56. On information and belief, Defendants willfully failed to pay all wages due and
4 owing upon separation from employment. These wages include but are not limited to regular and
5 overtime wages, and meal and rest period premiums.
6 57. On information and belief, Defendants willfully failed to pay all wages due and
7 owing upon separation from employment. These wages include minimum and overtime wages.
8 These wages also include Plaintiff’s accrued PTO.
9 58. On information and belief, Defendants failed to provide accurate itemized wage
10 statements which failed to include the rate of pay and total hours worked per pay period, failed to
11 account for all hours worked, including overtime, and lastly the accurate accounting of, the lawful
12 meal and rest period premiums due and owing to Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees, pursuant
13 to Labor Code section 226(a).
14 59. Defendants have failed to provide Plaintiff and aggrieved Employees rates of pay
15 and the hours for which they worked for any given pay period.
16 60. Defendants have failed to accurately record all time worked.
17 61. Defendants have also failed to pay vested vacation pay.
18 62. Defendants have also failed to accurately record the meal and rest period premiums
19 owed and all wages owed per pay period.
20 63. Plaintiff and aggrieved Employees have been injured as they were unable to
21 determine whether they had been paid correctly for all hours worked per pay period among other
22 things.
23 64. Pursuant to Labor Code section 226.3, any employer who violates subdivision (a)
24 of Section 226 shall be subject to a civil penalty in the amount of two hundred fifty dollars ($250)
25 per employee per violation in an initial citation and one thousand dollars ($1,000) per employee
26 for each violation in a subsequent citation, for which the employer fails to provide the employee a
27 wage deduction statement or fails to keep the records required in subdivision (a) of Section 226.
28 65. On information and belief, Defendants failed to reimburse Plaintiff and aggrieved
- 12 -
PROPOSED PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Employees for business expenses incurred as described above. Labor Code § 2802 requires
2 Defendants to indemnify Plaintiff and aggrieved Employees for necessary expenditures incurred in
3 direct consequences of the discharge of his or her duties. Despite these realities of the job,
4 Defendants failed to provide reimbursements.
5 66. Labor Code §2804 states in pertinent part: “Any contract or agreement, express or
6 implied, made by any employee to waive the benefits of this article or any part thereof is null and
7 void, and this article shall not deprive any employee or his or her personal representative of any
8 right or remedy to which he is entitled under the laws of this State.
9 67. Labor Code section 1197 makes it unlawful to pay an employee less than the
10 minimum wage as established by the Industrial Welfare Commission.
11 68. Labor Code section 1198 provides that the maximum hours of work and the
12 standard conditions of labor fixed by the commission shall be the maximum hours of work and the
13 standard conditions of labor by the commission shall be the maximum hours of work and the
14 standard conditions of labor for employees. The employment of any employee for longer hours
15 than those fixed by the order or under conditions of labor prohibited by the order is unlawful.
16 a. The applicable reporting time wages are fixed by the IWC in Wage Order 1.
17 b. In relevant part, Section 5 of the applicable wage order provides:
(A) Each workday an employee is required to report for work and does report,
18
but is not put to work or is furnished less than half said employee’s usual or scheduled
19 day’s work, the employee shall be paid for half the usual or scheduled day’s work, but in
no event for less than two (2) hours nor more than four (4) hours, at the employee’s regular
20 rate of pay, which shall not be less than the minimum wage.
c. Defendants failed to pay reporting time wages. In particular, Plaintiff and the
21 Aggrieved Employees were forced to report to work and were furnished with less
than half the employee’s usual or scheduled day’s work.
22
69. In fact, Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees reported to work at Defendant’s
23
direction, and then were sent home – without the legal compensation. By failure to pay hourly
24
wages for reporting time, Defendants willfully violated Labor Code sections 1194, 1197, 1198,
25
and IWC Wage Orders 1.
26
70. Additionally, Defendants have no accurate records relating to aggrieved
27
employees’ work periods, meal periods, total daily hours worked, total hours worked per payroll
28
- 13 -
PROPOSED PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
1 period and applicable pay rates, in violation of Wage Order. Similarly, Defendants failed to
2 maintain accurate records relating to hours worked daily in violation of Labor Code sections
3 1174(d), 1174.5.
4 71. As a result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and aggrieved employees
5 are entitled to penalties to the extent they were not paid at the prevailing wage rate for all hours
6 worked.
7 72. Plaintiff and the Representative aggrieved Employees are entitled to recover
8 Penalties and attorneys’ fees and costs sunder Labor Code section 2698, et seq.
9 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
10 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, as follows:
11 1. For penalties according to proof, pursuant to Labor Code §§ 2698 et seq.;
12 2. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and
13 3. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.
14
15
16 Dated: May 20, 2024 JAMES HAWKINS APLC
17
By:
18 JAMES R. HAWKINS, ESQ.
GREGORY MAURO, ESQ.
19 MICHAEL CALVO, ESQ.
LAUREN FALK, ESQ.
20 AVA ISSARY, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff MAUREEN
21 LANCEFIELD MORGAN-BALDWIN on
behalf of the general public as private attorney
22 general
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 14 -
PROPOSED PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
EXHIBIT A
JAMES JH HAWKINS
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
9880 RESEARCH DRIVE, SUITE 200, IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92618
TELEPHONE (949) 387-7200; FACSIMILE (949) 387-6676
March 13, 2024
Via LWDA Website
Labor and Workforce Development Agency
Attn: PAGA Administrator
1515 Clay Street, Suite 801
Oakland, CA 94612
http://www.dir.ca.gov/Private-Attorneys-General-Act
Via Certified Mail
ALAMITOS RIDGE HEALTHCARE, LLC
Agent for Service of Process:
CSC Lawyers
2710 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 150N
Sacramento, CA 95833
Receipt No.: 9589 0710 5270 0748 0704 23
Via Certified Mail
OCEAN RIDGE POST ACUTE Agent for
Service of Process:
Jeff Berke
22287 Mulholland Hwy, #428 Calabasas,
CA 91302
Receipt No.: 9589 0710 5270 0748 0704 16
Via Certified Mail
REGENCY OAKS CARE CENTER
3850 E. Esther Street
Long Beach CA 90804
Receipt No.: 9589 0710 5270 0748 0707 75
Via Certified Mail
MEK LONG BEACH, LLC
Agent for Service of Process:
Jeff Berke
22287 Mulholland Hwy, #428 Calabasas, CA
91302
Receipt No.: 9589 0710 5270 0748 0704 93
Re: NOTICE PURSUANT TO LABOR CODE SECTIONS 2698, et seq.
To Whom It May Concern:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that plaintiff MAUREEN LANCEFIELD MORGAN-
BALDWIN, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated representative aggrieved
employees, gives NOTICE to commence and/or amend a civil action pursuant to California
Labor Code Sections 2698, et seq. Plaintiff hereby gives written notice by certified mail to
the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, ALAMITOS RIDGE HEALTHCARE,
LLC, OCEAN RIDGE POST ACUTE, REGENCY OAKS CARE CENTER, and MEK
LONG BEACH, LLC through its Agent for Service of Process.
Plaintiff hereby attaches a copy of the Proposed PAGA Representative Action Complaint
to be filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, as though fully set forth herewith
setting out the specific provisions of the Labor Code Plaintiff alleges have been violated,
including the facts and theories. All labor provisions in the Proposed PAGA
Representative Action Complaint alleged to have been violated pertain to all entities and
individuals named in the Complaints, even if not expressly specified.
Please advise within sixty (60) days of the post mark on this letter if the LWDA intends to
investigate these claims. Thank you, and if you have any questions, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Very Truly Yours,
Gregory Mauro
Enclosure: Proposed PAGA Representative Action Complaint
2
Preview
1 JAMES HAWKINS APLC 2 James R. Hawkins, Esq. (#192925) Gregory Mauro, Esq. (#222239) 3 Michael Calvo, Esq. (#314986) Lauren Falk, Esq. (#316893) 4 Ava Issary, Esq. (#342252) 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 5 Irvine, CA 92618 Tel.: (949) 387-7200 6 Fax: (949) 387-6676 Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com 7 Email: Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com Email: Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com 8 Email: Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com Email: Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff MAUREEN LANCEFIELD MORGAN-BALDWIN, 10 on behalf of the general public as private attorney general. 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 12 13 MAUREEN LANCEFIELD MORGAN- CASE NO.: BALDWIN, on behalf of the general public as 14 private attorney general, PROPOSED PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 15 THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL Plaintiff, ACT (Labor Code §§ 2698 et seq). 16 v. 17 18 ALAMITOS RIDGE HEALTHCARE, LLC; OCEAN RIDGE POST ACUTE; REGENCY 19 OAKS CARE CENTER; MEK LONG BEACH, LLC; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, 20 Defendants. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROPOSED PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 1 Plaintiff MAUREEN LANCEFIELD MORGAN-BALDWIN (“Plaintiff”), on behalf the 2 general public and all non-exempt aggrieved employees, acting on behalf of the California 3 Attorney General as private attorney general, asserts claims against ALAMITOS RIDGE 4 HEALTHCARE, LLC; OCEAN RIDGE POST ACUTE; REGENCY OAKS CARE CENTER; 5 MEK LONG BEACH, LLC; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, (collectively “Defendants”) as follows: 6 I. INTRODUCTION 7 1. This is a representative action for recovery of penalties under the Private Attorneys 8 General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), Cal. Lab. Code sections 2698 et seq. PAGA permits “aggrieved 9 employees” to bring a lawsuit as a representative action on behalf of the general public as private 10 attorney general and all other current and former aggrieved employees, to recover civil penalties 11 and address an employer’s violations of the California Labor Code. 12 2. In this case, Defendants violated various provisions of the California Labor Code. 13 As set forth below, Defendants implemented policies and practices which led to Defendant’s: 14 (a) failure to pay wages including overtime; (b) failure to provide meal periods for every work 15 period exceeding more than five (5) or ten (10) hours per day and failure to pay an additional 16 hour’s of pay or accurately pay an additional hour’s of pay in lieu of providing a meal period; (c) 17 failure to provide rest breaks for every four hours or major fraction thereof worked and failure to 18 pay an additional hour’s of pay or accurately pay an additional hour’s of pay in lieu of providing a 19 rest period; (d) failing to pay timely wages required by Labor Code § 203; (e) failing to provide 20 accurate itemized wage statements; (f) failing to indemnify necessary business expenses; and 21 (g) failing to pay vested vacation pay at separation. As a result, Plaintiff seeks penalties under 22 Labor Code 2698, et seq. on behalf of the general public as private attorney general and all other 23 aggrieved employees. 24 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 25 3. The California Superior Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 26 California Constitution Article VI, Section 10, which grants the Superior Court “original 27 jurisdiction in all cases except those given by statute to other trial courts.” The statutes under 28 which this action is brought do not give jurisdiction to any other court. -1- PROPOSED PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 1 4. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendants because, upon information and belief, 2 each Defendant either has sufficient minimum contacts in California, or otherwise intentionally 3 avails itself of the California market so as to render the exercise of jurisdiction over it by the 4 California Courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 5 5. Venue as to each Defendant is proper in this judicial district pursuant to Code of 6 Civil Procedure section 395. Defendants are doing business throughout California, including but 7 not limited to Los Angeles County, and each Defendant is within the jurisdiction of this Court for 8 service of process purposes. The unlawful acts alleged herein have a direct effect on Plaintiff and 9 all other aggrieved employees within the State of California. Defendants employ numerous 10 aggrieved employees in in the State of California. 11 6. On information and belief, Defendants have conducted business within the State of 12 California during the purported liability period and continue to conduct business throughout the 13 State of California. The unlawful acts alleged herein have had a direct effect on Plaintiff, and the 14 similarly situated non-exempt aggrieved employees within California. 15 7. The California Superior Court also has jurisdiction in this matter because on 16 information and belief there are no federal questions at issue, as the issues herein are based solely 17 on California statutes and law, including the California Labor Code, the IWC Wage Orders, the 18 California Code of Civil Procedure, the California Civil Code, and the California Business and 19 Professions Code. 20 8. On information and belief, during the statutory liability period and continuing to 21 the present (“liability period”), Defendant consistently maintained and enforced against 22 Defendant’s Non-Exempt aggrieved Employees, among others, the following unlawful practices 23 and policies, in violation of California state wage and hour laws: (a) failure to pay wages including 24 overtime; (b) failure to provide meal periods for every work period exceeding more than five (5) 25 or ten (10) hours per day and failure to pay an additional hour’s of pay or accurately pay an 26 additional hour’s of pay in lieu of providing a meal period; (c) failure to provide rest breaks for 27 every four hours or major fraction thereof worked and failure to pay an additional hour’s of pay or 28 accurately pay an additional hour’s of pay in lieu of providing a rest period; (d) failing to pay -2- PROPOSED PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 1 timely wages required by Labor Code § 203; (e) failing to provide accurate itemized wage 2 statements; (f) failing to indemnify necessary business expenses; and (g) failing to pay vested 3 vacation pay at separation. 4 9. Plaintiff on behalf of the general public as private attorney general and all other 5 aggrieved employees bring this action pursuant to Labor Code 2698, et seq. for violations 6 enumerated under 2699.5 as follows: sections 201-203, 510, 512, 558, 226, 226.3, 226.7, 227.3, 7 246, 1174, 1174.5, 1175, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2802, and seeking penalties, interest, 8 attorneys’ fees and costs. 9 III. PARTIES 10 A. Plaintiff 11 10. Plaintiff, MAUREEN LANCEFIELD MORGAN-BALDWIN was, at all times 12 relevant to this action, a resident of California. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in 13 approximately August 2, 2022 as a Non-Exempt Employee with the title of Charge Nurse and 14 worked during the liability period for Defendants until Plaintiff’s separation from Defendants’ 15 employ in approximately August 4, 2023. Plaintiff’s duties included but were not limited to: 16 caring for patients and carrying out doctor’s orders. 17 11. As Defendant’s employee, Plaintiff, and all other aggrieved employees were 18 regularly required to and subsequently suffered: 19 a) perform work subject to the control of the employer without being compensated all 20 wages including overtime and minimum wages, all in violation of California labor laws, 21 regulations, and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order (“IWC”); 22 b) work without being permitted or authorized a minimum ten-minute rest period for 23 every four hours or major fraction thereof worked and not compensated one (1) hour of pay at his 24 regular rate of compensation for each workday that a rest period was not provided, all in 25 violation of California labor laws, regulations, and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage 26 Orders (“IWC”); 27 c) work in excess of five and ten hours per day without being provided meal periods 28 and not compensated one (1) hour of pay at the regular rate of compensation for each workday that -3- PROPOSED PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 1 a meal period was not provided, all in violation of California labor laws, regulations, and the 2 Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders (“IWC”); 3 d) not provided accurate itemized wage statements; 4 e) not timely paid wages; 5 f) not paid vested vacation pay at the time of separation; 6 g) not reimbursed necessary business expenses; and 7 h) conducting and engaging in unfair business practices. 8 12. On information and belief, Defendants willfully failed to pay all earned wages in 9 the form regular wages, minimum wages, overtime wages, vacation pay, and meal and rest period 10 premium wages to its Non-Exempt Employees and Aggrieved Employees; nor have Defendants 11 returned to Plaintiff or Aggrieved Employees, upon or after separation from employment with 12 Defendants, all wages earned and owing. Plaintiff seeks penalties under Labor Code 2698, et seq. 13 on behalf of the general public as private attorney general and all other aggrieved employees. 14 B. Defendants 15 13. Defendants ALAMITOS RIDGE HEALTHCARE, LLC, OCEAN RIDGE POST 16 ACUTE, REGENCY OAKS CARE CENTER, and MEK LONG BEACH, LLC operate as 17 nursing home businesses. Plaintiff estimates there are in excess of 100 Non-Exempt Employees 18 who work or have worked for Defendants over the last year. 19 14. Other than identified herein, Plaintiff is unaware of the true names, capacities, 20 relationships and extent of participation in the conduct alleged herein, of the defendants sued as 21 DOES 1 through 50, but is informed and believes and thereon alleges that said defendants are 22 legally responsible for the wrongful conduct alleged herein and therefore sues these defendants by 23 such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint when their true names and capacities are 24 ascertained. 25 15. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each Defendant, directly 26 or indirectly, or through agents or other persons, employed Plaintiff and other Aggrieved 27 Employees, and exercised control over their wages, hours, and working conditions. Plaintiff is 28 informed and believes and thereon alleges that each defendant acted in all respects pertinent to this -4- PROPOSED PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 1 action as the agent of the other defendants, carried out a joint scheme, business plan or policy in 2 all respects pertinent hereto, and the acts of each defendant are legally attributable to the other 3 defendants. 4 IV. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 5 16. At all times set forth herein, Defendants employed Plaintiff and other persons in the 6 capacity of non-exempt positions, however titled, throughout the state of California. 7 17. Plaintiff is informed and believes Aggrieved Employees have at all times pertinent 8 hereto been Non-Exempt within the meaning of the California Labor Code and the implementing 9 rules and regulations of the IWC California Wage Orders. 10 18. Defendants continue to employ Non-Exempt Employees, however titled, in 11 California and implement a uniform set of policies and practices to all non-exempt employees, as 12 they were all engaged in the job duties related to Defendants’ nursing home businesses. 13 19. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants are and 14 were advised by skilled lawyers and other professionals, employees, and advisors with knowledge 15 of the requirements of California’s wage and employment laws. 16 20. Plaintiff is informed and believes that during the relevant time frame, all Aggrieved 17 Employees are citizens of the state of California. 18 21. During the relevant time frame, Defendants compensated Plaintiff and Aggrieved 19 Employees based upon an hourly rate. 20 22. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with an uninterrupted duty-free meal period 21 as required by law. 22 23. Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees were regularly required to work shifts in 23 excess of five hours without being provided a lawful meal period and over ten hours in a day 24 without being provided a second lawful meal period as required by law. 25 24. Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees missed meal breaks several times a week and 26 had late meal breaks. Meal breaks were interrupted daily and lasted for less than the 30 minutes 27 required by law. Defendants failed to pay premium wages for missed, short or late meal breaks. 28 25. Defendants also unlawfully deducted a full 30-minutes of time for meal periods no -5- PROPOSED PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 1 matter if a Labor Code compliant meal period was provided to Plaintiff and Aggrieved 2 Employees. Resulting in an underpayment of minimum and overtime wages. 3 26. Indeed, during the relevant time, as a consequence of Defendants’ staffing and 4 scheduling practices, work demands, and Defendants’ policies and practices, Defendants 5 frequently failed to provide Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees timely, legally compliant 6 uninterrupted 30-minute meal periods on shifts over five hours as required by law. 7 27. Similarly, as a consequence of Defendants’ staffing and scheduling practices, work 8 demands, and Defendants’ policies and practices, Defendants frequently failed to provide Plaintiff 9 and the Aggrieved Employees legally compliant second meal periods on shifts over ten hours as 10 required by law. 11 28. On information and belief, Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees did not waive their 12 rights to meal periods under the law. 13 29. Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees were not provided with valid lawful on-duty 14 meal periods. 15 30. Despite the above-mentioned meal period violations, Defendants failed to 16 compensate Plaintiff, and on information and belief, failed to compensate Aggrieved Employees, 17 one additional hour of pay at their regular rate as required by California law when meal periods 18 were not timely or lawfully provided in a compliant manner. 19 31. Plaintiff are informed and believe, and thereon alleges, that Defendants know, 20 should know, knew, and/or should have known that Plaintiff and the other Aggrieved Employees 21 were entitled to receive premium wages based on their regular rate of pay under Labor Code 22 §226.7 but were not receiving such compensation. 23 32. In addition, during the relevant time frame, Plaintiff and the Non-Exempt 24 Employees were systematically not authorized and permitted to take one net ten-minute paid, rest 25 period for every four hours worked or major fraction thereof, including third rest breaks which is a 26 violation of the Labor Code and IWC wage order. 27 33. Defendants maintained and enforced scheduling practices, policies, and imposed 28 work demands that frequently required Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees to forego their lawful, -6- PROPOSED PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 1 paid rest periods of a net ten minutes for every four hours worked or major fraction thereof. Such 2 requisite rest periods were not timely authorized and permitted as a result of Defendants’ failure to 3 provide relief for Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees to take their lawfully required breaks. 4 Further, Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees were prohibited from leaving the premises during rest 5 breaks. 6 34. Despite the above-mentioned rest period violations, Defendants did not compensate 7 Plaintiff, and on information and belief, did not pay Aggrieved Employees one additional hour of 8 pay at their regular rate as required by California law, including Labor Code section 226.7 and the 9 applicable IWC wage order, for each day on which lawful rest periods were not authorized and 10 permitted. 11 35. On information and belief, during the relevant time frame, Defendants failed to 12 adequately pay overtime to Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees when they were forced to work 12 13 hours per day, for three (3) days in a week. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff overtime for her 14 additional hours worked. 15 36. On information and belief, Defendants also required Plaintiff and Aggrieved 16 Employees to work off-the-clock. For instance, Plaintiff, and on information and belief Aggrieved 17 Employees would need to wait in order for the time clock to become available so they could clock 18 in and out for meal breaks and their shifts. 19 37. Defendants also failed to compensate Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees for off 20 the-clock work conducting pre-shift activities for COVID-19 screenings. The screenings consisted 21 of temperature checks and a swab test, which were done prior to Plaintiff and Aggrieve Employees 22 clocking in for their shifts. 23 38. On information and belief, during the relevant time frame, Defendants failed to 24 adequately reimburse Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees for business expenditures incurred for 25 the use required tools and equipment. Plaintiff was forced to bring some of her own tools to work 26 such as scissors, blood pressure cuffs, stethoscopes, and pulse oximeters. Such business 27 expenditures incurred were incurred in direct consequence of Plaintiff’s and Aggrieved 28 Employees’ duties pursuant to Labor Code § 2802. Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees were -7- PROPOSED PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 1 forced to pay for tools out-of-pocket and Defendants failed to reimburse employees for these 2 necessary business expenses. 3 39. Further, Defendants also failed to reimburse Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees for 4 mileage for the use of their personal vehicles. Plaintiff was forced to drive to the health 5 department and was not reimbursed for mileage spent. 6 40. Defendants also failed to provide accurate, lawful itemized wage statements to 7 Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees in part because of the above specified violations. In 8 addition, upon information and belief, Defendants omitted an accurate itemization of total hours 9 worked, including premiums due and owing for meal and rest period violations, overtime pay, 10 gross pay and net pay figures from Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees’ wage statements. In 11 addition, upon information and belief, Defendants omitted an accurate itemization of the 12 premiums due and owing for meal and rest period violations from Plaintiff and the Aggrieved 13 Employees’ wage statements. 14 41. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein 15 mentioned, Defendants knew that at the time of termination of employment (or within 72 hours 16 thereof for resignations without prior notice as the case may be) they had a duty to accurately 17 compensate Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees for all wages owed including minimum wages, 18 meal and rest period premiums, and that Defendants had the financial ability to pay such 19 compensation, but willfully, knowingly, recklessly, and/or intentionally failed to do so in part 20 because of the above-specified violations. 21 42. Plaintiff did not receive her accrued PTO upon her separation from Defendant’s 22 employ. Plaintiff was removed from the schedule and never formally terminated or separated from 23 the Company. Plaintiff did not receive her final wages nor her accrued PTO. 24 43. Upon information and belief, Defendants knew and or should have known that it is 25 improper to implement policies and commit unlawful acts such as: 26 (a) requiring employees to work four (4) hours or a major fraction thereof without 27 being provided a minimum ten (10) minute rest period and without compensating the employees 28 with one (1) hour of pay at the employees’ regular rate of compensation for each workday that a -8- PROPOSED PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 1 rest period was not provided; 2 (b) requiring employees to work in excess of five (5) hours or ten (10) hours per day 3 without being provided an uninterrupted thirty minute meal period and/or a second meal period, 4 and without compensating employees with one (1) hour of pay at the regular rate of compensation 5 for each workday that such a meal period was not provided; 6 (c) failing to pay overtime and minimum wages; 7 (d) failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; 8 (e) failing to timely pay Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees; 9 (f) failing to pay vested vacation pay; 10 (g) failing to reimburse necessary business expenses; and 11 (h) conducting and engaging in unfair business practices. 12 44. In addition to the violations above, and on information and belief, Defendants knew 13 they had a duty to compensate Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees for the allegations asserted 14 herein, and that Defendants had the financial ability to pay such compensation, but willfully, 15 knowingly, recklessly, and/or intentionally failed to do so. 16 Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees they seek to represent are covered by, and Defendants 17 are required to comply with, applicable California Labor Codes, Industrial Welfare Commission 18 Occupational Wage Orders (hereinafter “IWC Wage Orders”) and corresponding applicable 19 provisions of California Code of Regulations, Title 8, section 11000 et seq. 20 REPRESENTATIVE CLAIMS 21 THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT- LABOR CODE §§ 2698 et seq. 22 45. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges each and every allegation 23 contained above, as though fully set forth herein. 24 46. On March 13, 2024, Plaintiff complied with notice requirements pursuant to Labor 25 Code section 2699.3. A copy of the letter sent to the LWDA is attached hereto as Exhibit A, 26 indicating that the LWDA and Defendants were put on notice of the claims alleged here and that 27 the notice requirement has been satisfied. Sixty-five days have passed and the LWDA has not 28 indicated intent to investigate the claims. Therefore, Plaintiff may proceed with this action in a -9- PROPOSED PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 1 representative capacity. The substance and violations set forth in this Complaint of which the 2 LWDA was provided timely notice, Plaintiff has also sent a copy of this PAGA Representative 3 Action Complaint to the LWDA. 4 47. Plaintiff is an aggrieved employee as defined in Labor Code Section 2699(a). 5 Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of all current and former California Non-Exempt 6 Employees of Defendants. 7 48. Pursuant to Labor Code section 2699(a) Plaintiff seek to recover civil penalties for 8 which Defendants are liable due to numerous Labor Code violations as set forth in this Complaint, 9 including without limitation Labor Code section 201-203, 510, 512, 558, 226, 226.3, 226.7, 227.3, 10 246, 1174, 1174.5, 1175, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2802, and 2698 et seq., applicable IWC Wage 11 Orders and California Code of Regulations, Title 8, section 11000 et seq. 12 49. At all times relevant, Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees regularly 13 performed non-exempt work in excess of 50% of the time, and thus, were subject to the meal and 14 rest break requirements of the applicable IWC wage order and the Labor Code. 15 50. Defendants violated Labor Code section 200, 558, 1194, 1197, by failing to 16 accurately pay at least minimum wages due as a result of Defendants’ requiring Plaintiff and 17 aggrieved Employees to work off-the-clock as outlined above. 18 51. Defendants violated Labor Code section 510, and 1194 by failing to accurately pay 19 overtime wages owed as discussed above due to Defendants’ failure to incorporate bonuses and 20 other forms of remuneration as described above into the regular rate of pay for overtime 21 calculation purposes. Defendants further failed to accurately pay overtime wages due to 22 Defendants’ requiring Plaintiff and aggrieved Employees to work off-the-clock as outlined above. 23 Therefore, Defendants violated section 510, and 1194 by not compensating its Non-Exempt 24 Employees for work performed in excess of eight hours (8) in a day or forty hours in a work week 25 (40). Section 510 of the Labor Code codifies the right to overtime compensation at the rate of one 26 and one-half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a day 27 or forty (40) hours in a work week and to overtime compensation twice the regular rate of pay for 28 hours worked in excess of twelve (12) hours in a day or in excess of eight (8) hours in a day on the - 10 - PROPOSED PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 1 seventh day of work in a particular work week. 2 52. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees 3 uninterrupted duty-free meal periods of not less than thirty (30) minutes. Defendants implemented 4 and enforced policies of on duty meal period practices which required employees to work during 5 their meal periods, to forego their meal periods, and/or to return to work from meal periods prior 6 to thirty (30) uninterrupted minutes. As a proximate result of the aforementioned violations, 7 Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees have been damaged in an amount according to proof at 8 time of trial. 9 53. Plaintiff, and on information and belief, all aggrieved employees, were 10 systematically not permitted or authorized to take ten-minute rest periods for every four hours 11 worked or major fraction thereof, which is a violation of the Labor Code and IWC wage order. 12 Plaintiff and on information and belief, aggrieved employees, were not compensated with one 13 hour of wages for every day in which a rest period was missed or untimely as a result of 14 Defendants’ policies, practices, or work demands. By failing to authorize and permit a ten-minute 15 rest period for every four hours or major fraction thereof worked per day by its Non-Exempt 16 Employees, and by failing to provide compensation for such non-provided or shortened rest 17 periods, as alleged above, Defendants willfully violated the provisions of Labor Code sections 18 226.7, 512 and the applicable IWC Wage Order. 19 54. Defendants also willfully violated Labor Code sections 201-203 by failing to 20 provide all owed wages at separation from employment. Labor Code sections 201 and 202 require 21 Defendants to pay their employees all wages due either at time of firing, or within seventy-two 22 (72) hours of voluntary separation, if not sooner. Section 203 of the Labor Code provides that if an 23 employer willfully fails to timely pay such wages the employer must, as a penalty, continue to pay 24 the subject employee’s wages until the back wages are paid in full or an action is commenced. 25 The penalty cannot exceed 30 days of wages. 26 55. Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees who were separated from employment 27 are entitled to compensation for all forms of wages earned, including but not limited to 28 compensation regular and overtime wages, and for non-provided meal and rest periods, but to date - 11 - PROPOSED PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 1 have not received such compensation, therefore entitling them to penalties under PAGA for 2 violations of Labor Code sections 201-203. 3 56. On information and belief, Defendants willfully failed to pay all wages due and 4 owing upon separation from employment. These wages include but are not limited to regular and 5 overtime wages, and meal and rest period premiums. 6 57. On information and belief, Defendants willfully failed to pay all wages due and 7 owing upon separation from employment. These wages include minimum and overtime wages. 8 These wages also include Plaintiff’s accrued PTO. 9 58. On information and belief, Defendants failed to provide accurate itemized wage 10 statements which failed to include the rate of pay and total hours worked per pay period, failed to 11 account for all hours worked, including overtime, and lastly the accurate accounting of, the lawful 12 meal and rest period premiums due and owing to Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees, pursuant 13 to Labor Code section 226(a). 14 59. Defendants have failed to provide Plaintiff and aggrieved Employees rates of pay 15 and the hours for which they worked for any given pay period. 16 60. Defendants have failed to accurately record all time worked. 17 61. Defendants have also failed to pay vested vacation pay. 18 62. Defendants have also failed to accurately record the meal and rest period premiums 19 owed and all wages owed per pay period. 20 63. Plaintiff and aggrieved Employees have been injured as they were unable to 21 determine whether they had been paid correctly for all hours worked per pay period among other 22 things. 23 64. Pursuant to Labor Code section 226.3, any employer who violates subdivision (a) 24 of Section 226 shall be subject to a civil penalty in the amount of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) 25 per employee per violation in an initial citation and one thousand dollars ($1,000) per employee 26 for each violation in a subsequent citation, for which the employer fails to provide the employee a 27 wage deduction statement or fails to keep the records required in subdivision (a) of Section 226. 28 65. On information and belief, Defendants failed to reimburse Plaintiff and aggrieved - 12 - PROPOSED PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 1 Employees for business expenses incurred as described above. Labor Code § 2802 requires 2 Defendants to indemnify Plaintiff and aggrieved Employees for necessary expenditures incurred in 3 direct consequences of the discharge of his or her duties. Despite these realities of the job, 4 Defendants failed to provide reimbursements. 5 66. Labor Code §2804 states in pertinent part: “Any contract or agreement, express or 6 implied, made by any employee to waive the benefits of this article or any part thereof is null and 7 void, and this article shall not deprive any employee or his or her personal representative of any 8 right or remedy to which he is entitled under the laws of this State. 9 67. Labor Code section 1197 makes it unlawful to pay an employee less than the 10 minimum wage as established by the Industrial Welfare Commission. 11 68. Labor Code section 1198 provides that the maximum hours of work and the 12 standard conditions of labor fixed by the commission shall be the maximum hours of work and the 13 standard conditions of labor by the commission shall be the maximum hours of work and the 14 standard conditions of labor for employees. The employment of any employee for longer hours 15 than those fixed by the order or under conditions of labor prohibited by the order is unlawful. 16 a. The applicable reporting time wages are fixed by the IWC in Wage Order 1. 17 b. In relevant part, Section 5 of the applicable wage order provides: (A) Each workday an employee is required to report for work and does report, 18 but is not put to work or is furnished less than half said employee’s usual or scheduled 19 day’s work, the employee shall be paid for half the usual or scheduled day’s work, but in no event for less than two (2) hours nor more than four (4) hours, at the employee’s regular 20 rate of pay, which shall not be less than the minimum wage. c. Defendants failed to pay reporting time wages. In particular, Plaintiff and the 21 Aggrieved Employees were forced to report to work and were furnished with less than half the employee’s usual or scheduled day’s work. 22 69. In fact, Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees reported to work at Defendant’s 23 direction, and then were sent home – without the legal compensation. By failure to pay hourly 24 wages for reporting time, Defendants willfully violated Labor Code sections 1194, 1197, 1198, 25 and IWC Wage Orders 1. 26 70. Additionally, Defendants have no accurate records relating to aggrieved 27 employees’ work periods, meal periods, total daily hours worked, total hours worked per payroll 28 - 13 - PROPOSED PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 1 period and applicable pay rates, in violation of Wage Order. Similarly, Defendants failed to 2 maintain accurate records relating to hours worked daily in violation of Labor Code sections 3 1174(d), 1174.5. 4 71. As a result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and aggrieved employees 5 are entitled to penalties to the extent they were not paid at the prevailing wage rate for all hours 6 worked. 7 72. Plaintiff and the Representative aggrieved Employees are entitled to recover 8 Penalties and attorneys’ fees and costs sunder Labor Code section 2698, et seq. 9 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 10 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, as follows: 11 1. For penalties according to proof, pursuant to Labor Code §§ 2698 et seq.; 12 2. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and 13 3. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper. 14 15 16 Dated: May 20, 2024 JAMES HAWKINS APLC 17 By: 18 JAMES R. HAWKINS, ESQ. GREGORY MAURO, ESQ. 19 MICHAEL CALVO, ESQ. LAUREN FALK, ESQ. 20 AVA ISSARY, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff MAUREEN 21 LANCEFIELD MORGAN-BALDWIN on behalf of the general public as private attorney 22 general 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 14 - PROPOSED PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT EXHIBIT A JAMES JH HAWKINS A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 9880 RESEARCH DRIVE, SUITE 200, IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92618 TELEPHONE (949) 387-7200; FACSIMILE (949) 387-6676 March 13, 2024 Via LWDA Website Labor and Workforce Development Agency Attn: PAGA Administrator 1515 Clay Street, Suite 801 Oakland, CA 94612 http://www.dir.ca.gov/Private-Attorneys-General-Act Via Certified Mail ALAMITOS RIDGE HEALTHCARE, LLC Agent for Service of Process: CSC Lawyers 2710 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 150N Sacramento, CA 95833 Receipt No.: 9589 0710 5270 0748 0704 23 Via Certified Mail OCEAN RIDGE POST ACUTE Agent for Service of Process: Jeff Berke 22287 Mulholland Hwy, #428 Calabasas, CA 91302 Receipt No.: 9589 0710 5270 0748 0704 16 Via Certified Mail REGENCY OAKS CARE CENTER 3850 E. Esther Street Long Beach CA 90804 Receipt No.: 9589 0710 5270 0748 0707 75 Via Certified Mail MEK LONG BEACH, LLC Agent for Service of Process: Jeff Berke 22287 Mulholland Hwy, #428 Calabasas, CA 91302 Receipt No.: 9589 0710 5270 0748 0704 93 Re: NOTICE PURSUANT TO LABOR CODE SECTIONS 2698, et seq. To Whom It May Concern: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that plaintiff MAUREEN LANCEFIELD MORGAN- BALDWIN, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated representative aggrieved employees, gives NOTICE to commence and/or amend a civil action pursuant to California Labor Code Sections 2698, et seq. Plaintiff hereby gives written notice by certified mail to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, ALAMITOS RIDGE HEALTHCARE, LLC, OCEAN RIDGE POST ACUTE, REGENCY OAKS CARE CENTER, and MEK LONG BEACH, LLC through its Agent for Service of Process. Plaintiff hereby attaches a copy of the Proposed PAGA Representative Action Complaint to be filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, as though fully set forth herewith setting out the specific provisions of the Labor Code Plaintiff alleges have been violated, including the facts and theories. All labor provisions in the Proposed PAGA Representative Action Complaint alleged to have been violated pertain to all entities and individuals named in the Complaints, even if not expressly specified. Please advise within sixty (60) days of the post mark on this letter if the LWDA intends to investigate these claims. Thank you, and if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very Truly Yours, Gregory Mauro Enclosure: Proposed PAGA Representative Action Complaint 2