Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
1 KINGSLEY SZAMET & LY Superior Court of California
ERIC B. KINGSLEY, Esq. (SBN 185123) County of Santa Barbara
2 eric@kingsleylawyers.com Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
LIANE KATZENSTEIN LY, Esq., (SBN 259230) 6/18/2024 12:42 PM
3 liane@kingsleylawyers.com By: M. Gutierrez , Deputy
JESSICA BULAON, Esq., (SBN 340749)
4 jessi@kingsleylawyers.com
16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
5 Encino, CA 91436
Tel: (818) 990-8300, Fax (818) 990-2903
6
Edgar I. Aguilasocho, Esq. (SBN 285567)
7 Mario Martinez, Esq. (SBN 200721)
MARTINEZ AGUILASOCHO LAW, INC.
8 P.O. Box 1998
9 Bakersfield, California 93303
eaguilasocho@farmworkerlaw.com
10 mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com
Telephone: (661) 859-1 174
11 Facsimile: (661) 840-6154
12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the proposed class
13
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA (NORTH COUNTY)
15
16 EDUARDO FRANCISCO MAURILIO; CASE NO. 24CV03428
DAYSI ARIAS; PAULA HERNANDEZ
17 MARTINEZ; as individuals, on behalf of CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
themselves and others similarly situated,
18 1. Failure to Pay Wages and/or Overtime
PLAINTIFFS, Under Labor Code §§ 510, 1194, and
19 1199
v. 2. Failure to Provide Meal Breaks Pursuant
20 to Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512
AGRO-JAL FARMING ENTERPRISES; 3. Failure to Reimburse Expenses Pursuant
21 PALOMA PACKING, INC.; and DOES 1 to Labor Code § 2802
thru 50, inclusive,
4. Violation of Labor Code § 226(a)
22 5. Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code § 203
DEFENDANTS.
6. Violation of Labor Code § 221
23
7. Violation of Business & Professions Code
24 § 17200
25
26
27
28
1
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiffs EDUARDO FRANCISCO MAURILIO; DAYSI ARIAS; PAULA
2 HERNANDEZ MARTINEZ; as individuals, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated,
3 complains of Defendants AGRO-JAL FARMING ENTERPRISES; PALOMA PACKING, INC.
4 (collectively, “Defendants”) and each of them, as follows:
5 I.
6 INTRODUCTION
7 1. This is a Class Action, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 382, on behalf of
8 Plaintiffs and a Proposed Class defined as:
9 All field workers who are employed or have been employed by
AGRO-JAL FARMING ENTERPRISES; PALOMA PACKING,
10 INC. in the State of California since March 26, 2021, until the
present and continuing. (“Proposed Class”)
11
2. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class worked for Defendants, either directly or through
12
various Farm Labor Contractors (“FLC”), in or near Santa Barbara County, California as seasonal
13
agricultural workers. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class worked in the cultivation and harvest of
14
vegetables (including, but not limited to broccoli, cauliflower, celery, and lettuce), and doing other
15
agricultural work, on land owned, leased, managed, and/or operated, harvested, or otherwise made
16
productive by Defendants. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class were paid on an hourly basis and also
17
earned a piece rate for work picking crops.
18
3. From at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action continuing to the present,
19
Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay wages and/or overtime to all Proposed
20
Class Members at the appropriate rate as follows:
21
a. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class were not properly compensated for all
22
hours worked, because Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class for each and
23
every hour worked. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class routinely worked “off the clock” and
24
performed compensable activities before, during, and after each working shift for which no pay
25
was provided.
26
b. With regard to pre-shift work, Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are required
27
to report to work prior to their scheduled shift and perform work but are routinely told by
28
2
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Defendants to wait anywhere from approximately 10 to 40 minutes before Plaintiffs and the
2 Proposed Class can begin their scheduled shifts. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are required to
3 walk 8 to 10 minutes everyday walking to the field and prepping material for the day of work,
4 including bringing the necessary tools required. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are not allowed
5 to park close to the field where they will be harvesting crops, so they are required to arrive early
6 to walk to the field. Additionally, Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are required to arrive 20 to 40
7 minutes early on days when the foreman called a meeting. During the rainy season, Plaintiffs and
8 the Proposed Class were required to wait around 30 min to 2 hours three to four times a week
9 before beginning their scheduled shifts. Sometimes, the foreman would force the crew to begin
10 working without necessary protection despite the weather conditions, but Plaintiffs and the
11 Proposed Class would not be paid for any additional time in excess of eight hours in one workday.
12 This waiting time and work performed prior to Plaintiffs’ and the Proposed Class’ scheduled shift
13 occurs daily and Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are not compensated for this wait time or work
14 performed. These activities and time are compensable, but Defendants fail to pay Plaintiffs and
15 the Proposed Class for this time worked.
16 c. In the middle of Plaintiffs’ and the Proposed Class shifts, Defendants
17 required Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class to travel between fields once they are done picking at
18 one field. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class use their own vehicle(s) to travel to between fields per
19 shift one or twice per season at least, during their lunch breaks. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
20 are not compensated for this travel time, nor are they reimbursed for use of their personal vehicle
21 to perform required work. This travel time usually takes 35 minutes to 1 hour to go from field to
22 field.
23 d. With regard to post-shift work, at the end of each working shift, Plaintiffs
24 and the Proposed Class are instructed by the foreman to close the row they were working on, and
25 clean the machines used before leaving. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class would work 25 to 40
26 minutes after the end of their shift in order to finish the row they were working on and clean the
27 machines. This time spent finishing their row and cleaning the machines was performed after being
28 “clocked out” and as such, Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are not compensated for this time
3
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 worked even though this time is compensable. Additionally, Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
2 spend time after their scheduled shift putting away tools and other work-related equipment,
3 including tools and protective gear. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class have to walk back to their
4 cars which are parked 8 to 10 minutes away from the field. This time spent putting away equipment
5 and walking back to their cars is performed after being “clocked out” and as such, Plaintiffs and
6 the Proposed Class are not compensated for this time worked even though this time is
7 compensable.
8 e. Additionally, Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay
9 wages and/or overtime to Plaintiffs and all Proposed Class at the appropriate rate of pay. Plaintiffs
10 and other Proposed Class were not properly compensated for all hours worked over eight (8) hours
11 in one day or forty (40) hours in one week. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class were not properly
12 compensated for overtime worked because Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Proposed
13 Class for all hours worked over 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week. As such, Plaintiffs and the
14 Proposed Class were not paid overtime pay despite working over eight (8) hours in one day or
15 forty (40) hours in one week. If overtime was paid, the foreman would announce to the employees
16 that Defendant was paying overtime for the day, but this would be capped for all workers.
17 4. From at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the
18 present, Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to inform Proposed Class Members of
19 their right to take meal periods by way of a lawful policy and failing to provide Plaintiffs and the
20 Proposed Class members compliant meal periods, and failing to pay such employees one (1) hour
21 of pay at the employees’ regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal period is not
22 provided or provided after five (5) hours, as required by California state wage and hour laws.
23 Additionally, Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay meal period premiums in
24 compliance with California law.
25 5. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the
26 present, Defendants have failed to reimburse Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class for their tools and
27 mileage necessary to perform their job duties. The work performed by Plaintiffs and the Proposed
28 Class necessitated the use of special tools. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are required to work
4
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 without being reimbursed for their business expenses. The work performed by Plaintiffs and the
2 Proposed Class necessitated the use of tools such as, but not limited to, aprons, gloves, boxes,
3 knifes, belts, and boots, and various other tools. Defendants fail to reimburse Plaintiffs and the
4 Proposed Class for the costs associated with purchasing and using these tools.
5 a. When employees first begin performing work for Defendants, they are
6 provided tape for packing, big bags to cover from the rain, a paid of blue gloves, and an apron.
7 However, these tools are of poor quality and are required to be returned every day after finishing
8 work. Additionally, Defendant allows Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class to purchase tools from
9 Defendants and Defendants will charge workers for the costs of the tools from their paychecks.
10 The tools provided by Defendants do not allow Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class to perform their
11 work adequately.
12 b. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are required to purchase a variety of
13 specialized tools in order to perform their work adequately. These tools/equipment include: various
14 types of gloves, specialized knifes for vegetable harvesting, belts, aprons, hats, scarves, boots,
15 jackets, and pants. Defendants do not provide these tools and fails to reimburse Plaintiffs and the
16 Proposed Class for the costs associated with purchasing and using these tools/equipment.
17 c. Defendants also required Plaintiffs and all Proposed Class members to
18 travel between fields to perform work tasks. Because Defendant did not provide buses or other
19 transportation to workers so that they could travel from field to field in the middle of their shifts,
20 Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class used their own vehicles to travel from field to field. Defendants
21 did not reimburse Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class for their vehicle use for travel between
22 Defendants’ job sites during the course of a work shift, in violation of California law.
23 6. For at least one (1) year prior to the filing of this action continuing to the present,
24 Defendants have failed to comply with Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order 14-
25 2001 and Labor Code § 226(a) by failing issue accurate itemized wage statements reporting all
26 applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period, and the corresponding number of hours
27 worked at each hourly rate by the employee.
28 7. For at least three (3) years prior to the filing of this action continuing to the present,
5
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Defendants have failed to pay all wages due at the time of termination or resignation to Plaintiffs
2 and the Proposed Class.
3 8. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the
4 present, Defendants have also violated Labor Code §221 with respect to Plaintiffs and the Proposed
5 Class. Defendants required Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class to authorize Defendants to recoup
6 wages and/or draw wages that were already paid and taxed for broken tools or if Plaintiffs and the
7 Proposed Class needed new tools. As such, Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class were subject to
8 deductions from their wages by Defendants, despite Defendants already paying Plaintiffs and the
9 Proposed Class these wages.
10 9. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all Proposed Class Members bring this
11 action pursuant to Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 221, 226(a), 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1194.2, 1199,
12 and 2802; Wage Order 14-2001; and California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 11140,
13 seeking unpaid wages/overtime, meal period penalties, unreimbursed expenses, accurate itemized
14 wage statements, other penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys’
15 fees and costs.
16 10. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all Proposed Class Members, pursuant to
17 Business & Professions Code §§ 17200-17208, also seeks injunctive relief, restitution, and
18 disgorgement of all benefits Defendants enjoyed from its unlawful conduct as described herein.
19 II.
20 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
21 11. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over all causes of action asserted herein
22 pursuant to Article VI, § 10 of the California Constitution and California Code of Civil Procedure
23 § 410.10 by virtue of the fact that this is a civil action in which the matter in controversy, exclusive
24 of interest, exceeds $35,000, and because each cause of action asserted arises under the laws of the
25 State of California or is subject to adjudication in the courts of the State of California.
26 12. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants have
27 caused injuries in the County of Santa Barbara and the State of California through their acts, and
28 by their violation of the California Labor Code, California state common law, and California
6
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.
2 13. Venue as to each Defendant is proper in this judicial district, pursuant to Code of
3 Civil Procedure § 395. Defendants operate within California and does business within Santa
4 Barbara County. The unlawful acts alleged herein have a direct effect on Plaintiffs and all
5 Proposed Class Members within the State of California and the county of Santa Barbara.
6 14. This case should be classified as complex according to Rule 3.400 of the California
7 Rules of Court, and assigned to a complex litigation judge and department, as it will involve
8 substantial documentary evidence, a large number of witnesses, and is likely to involve extensive
9 motion practice raising difficult or novel issues that will be time-consuming to resolve and would
10 require substantial post judgment judicial supervision.
11 III.
12 PARTIES
13 A. PLAINTIFFS
14 15. Plaintiffs EDUARDO FRANCISCO MAURILIO, DAYSI ARIAS, PAULA
15 HERNANDEZ MARTINEZ are residents of California.
16 16. Plaintiffs and all Proposed Class Members, were regularly required to:
17 a. Work without being paid for all hours worked;
18 b. Work without being paid for all hours at the appropriate overtime rate;
19 c. Work without being provided compliant meal periods;
20 d. Work without being reimbursed for their out of pocket expenses for
21 necessary tools and equipment and using personal vehicles for work related purposes;
22 e. Work without Defendants providing accurate itemized wage statements;
23 f. Work while authorizing Defendants to recoup or draw wages that were
24 already paid or taxed;
25 17. Defendants willfully failed to compensate Plaintiffs and all Proposed Class
26 Members for wages at the termination of their employment with Defendants.
27 18. As a result of this conduct, Defendants have engaged in unfair competition and
28 unlawful business practices.
7
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 B. DEFENDANTS
2 19. Defendant AGRO-JAL FARMING ENTERPRISES is believed to be a California
3 corporation operating within the State of California. Defendant’s corporate address is believed to
4 be 257 Kathleen Ct., Santa Maria, CA 93458. Upon information and belief, Defendant employed
5 Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons as hourly employees within California. Defendant has
6 done and does business throughout the State of California.
7 20. Defendant PALOMA PACKING, INC. is believed to be a California corporation
8 operating within the State of California. Defendant’s corporate address is believed to be 257
9 Kathleen Ct., Santa Maria, CA 93458. Upon information and belief, Defendant employed
10 Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons as hourly employees within California. Defendant has
11 done and does business throughout the State of California.
12 21. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or
13 otherwise, of Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, are currently unknown to
14 Plaintiffs, who therefore sues Defendants by such fictitious names under Code of Civil Procedure
15 § 474. Plaintiffs are informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each of the Defendants
16 designated herein as a DOE is legally responsible in some manner for the unlawful acts referred
17 to herein. Plaintiffs will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to reflect the true names and
18 capacities of the Defendants designated hereinafter as DOES when such identities become known.
19 22. Plaintiffs are informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each Defendant
20 acted in all respects pertinent to this action as the agent of the other Defendants, carried out a joint
21 scheme, business plan or policy in all respects pertinent hereto, and the acts of each Defendant are
22 legally attributable to the other Defendants. Furthermore, Defendants in all respects acted as the
23 employer and/or joint employer of Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class Members.
24 23. Furthermore, Defendants acted in all respects as the employers or joint employers
25 of the Proposed Class. Defendants, and each of them, exercised control over the wages, hours or
26 working conditions of the Proposed Class, or suffered or permitted the Proposed Class to work, or
27 engaged, thereby creating a common law employment relationship, with the Proposed Class.
28 Therefore, Defendants, and each of them, employed or jointly employed the Proposed Class.
8
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 24. Defendants are engaged in the operation of agricultural fields for production of
2 various vegetables, as described above. Defendants also own and operate packing facilities in or
3 near Santa Barbara County, California, to sort, grade, package, and distribute crops harvested by
4 Plaintiffs. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants employed Plaintiffs and members of the
5 Proposed Class as non-exempt employees in Defendants’ agricultural field operations.
6 25. Defendants are issued or cause to be issued, or employed FLCs that issue, during
7 the relevant period, payroll checks to Plaintiffs and members of the Proposed Class for agricultural
8 work performed by Defendants.
9 26. Defendants are, and during the relevant period, have been, engaged in the business
10 of cultivating, harvesting and packing crops as described above.
11 27. With respect to the events at issue in this case, Defendants acted as employer of
12 Plaintiffs and members of the Proposed Class. Defendants are liable for the wage violations alleged
13 herein, pursuant to California law, including but not limited to California Labor Code section
14 2810.3.
15 28. As the employer of Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class, Defendants are liable for the
16 violations of law described in this Complaint. See Cal. Labor Code section 2810.3.
17 29. Plaintiffs have complied with Cal. Labor Code section 2810.3, because more than
18 thirty (30) days prior to filing of the complaint, Plaintiffs notified Defendants of the violations
19 alleged in this complaint.
20 IV.
21 FACTUAL BACKGROUND
22 30. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are, and at all times pertinent hereto, have been
23 classified as non-exempt employees by Defendants. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class were paid
24 on an hourly basis and also earned a piece rate for work picking crops.
25 31. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are covered by
26 California Industrial Welfare Commission Occupational Wage Order No. 14-2001 (Title 8 Cal.
27 Code of Regs. § 11140).
28 32. On a regular and consistent basis, Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing
9
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 to pay wages and/or overtime to all Proposed Class Members at the appropriate rate as follows:
2 a. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class were not properly compensated for all
3 hours worked, because Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class for each and
4 every hour worked. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class routinely worked “off the clock” and
5 performed compensable activities before, during, and after each working shift for which no pay
6 was provided. With regard to pre-shift work, Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are required to
7 report to work prior to their scheduled shift and perform work but are routinely told by Defendants
8 to wait anywhere from approximately 10 to 40 minutes before Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
9 can begin their scheduled shifts. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are required to walk 8 to 10
10 minutes everyday walking to the field and prepping material for the day of work, including
11 bringing the necessary tools required. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are not allowed to park
12 close to the field where they will be harvesting crops, so they are required to arrive early to walk
13 to the field. Additionally, Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are required to arrive 20 to 40 minutes
14 early on days when the foreman called a meeting. During the rainy season, Plaintiffs and the
15 Proposed Class were required to wait around 30 min to 2 hours three to four times a week before
16 beginning their scheduled shifts. Sometimes, the foreman would enforce the crew to begin working
17 without necessary protection despite the weather conditions, but Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
18 would not be paid for any additional time in excess of eight hours in one workday. This waiting
19 time and work performed prior to Plaintiffs’ and the Proposed Class’ scheduled shift occurs daily
20 and Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are not compensated for this wait time or work performed.
21 These activities and time are compensable, but Defendants fail to pay Plaintiffs and the Proposed
22 Class for this time worked.
23 b. In the middle of Plaintiffs’ and the Proposed Class shifts, Defendants
24 required Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class to travel between fields once they are done picking at
25 one field. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class use their own vehicle(s) to travel to between fields per
26 shift at least one or twice per season, during their lunch breaks. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
27 are not compensated for this travel time, nor are they reimbursed for use of their personal vehicle
28 to perform required work. This travel time usually takes 35 minutes to 1 hour to go from field to
10
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 field.
2 c. With regard to post-shift work, at the end of each working shift, Plaintiffs
3 and the Proposed Class are instructed by the foreman to close the row they were working on, and
4 clean the machines used before leaving. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class would work 25 to 40
5 minutes after the end of their shift in order to finish the row they were working on and clean the
6 machines. This time spent finishing their row and cleaning the machines was performed after being
7 “clocked out” and as such, Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are not compensated for this time
8 worked even though this time is compensable. Additionally, Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
9 spend time after their scheduled shift putting away tools and other work-related equipment,
10 including tools and protective gear. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class have to walk back to their
11 cars which are parked 8 to 10 minutes away from the field. This time spent putting away equipment
12 and walking back to their cars is performed after being “clocked out” and as such, Plaintiffs and
13 the Proposed Class are not compensated for this time worked even though this time is
14 compensable.
15 d. Additionally, Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay
16 wages and/or overtime to Plaintiffs and all Proposed Class at the appropriate rate of pay. Plaintiffs
17 and other Proposed Class were not properly compensated for all hours worked over eight (8) hours
18 in one day or forty (40) hours in one week. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class were not properly
19 compensated for overtime worked because Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Proposed
20 Class for all hours worked over 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week. As such, Plaintiffs and the
21 Proposed Class were not paid overtime pay despite working over eight (8) hours in one day or
22 forty (40) hours in one week. If overtime was paid, the foreman would announce to the employees
23 that Defendant was paying overtime for the day, but this would be capped for all workers.
24 33. On a regular and consistent basis, Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing
25 to inform Proposed Class Members of their right to take meal periods by way of a lawful policy
26 and (1) failing to provide Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class compliant meal periods; (2) required
27 Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class to work shifts over ten (10) hours without providing a second
28 meal period of thirty minutes in length altogether; (3) failed to pay such employees one (1) hour
11
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 of pay at the employees regular rate of compensation for each workday that the first meal period
2 was not provided within the first (5) hours of the shift or that a second meal period was not
3 provided. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class that worked during the high peak of the season worked
4 shifts over ten (10) hours without being provided a second meal period of thirty minutes in length
5 altogether. Additionally, Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay meal period
6 premiums in compliance with California law.
7 34. On a regular and consistent basis, Defendants have failed to reimburse Plaintiffs
8 and the Proposed Class for their tools and mileage necessary to perform their job duties. The work
9 performed by Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class necessitated the use of special tools. Plaintiffs and
10 the Proposed Class are required to work without being reimbursed for their business expenses. The
11 work performed by Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class necessitated the use of tools such as, but not
12 limited to, aprons, gloves, boxes, knifes, belts, and boots, and various other tools. Defendants fail
13 to reimburse Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class for the costs associated with purchasing and using
14 these tools.
15 a. When employees first begin performing work for Defendants, they are
16 provided tape for packing, big bags to cover from the rain, a paid of blue gloves, and an apron.
17 However, these tools are of poor quality and are required to be returned every day after finishing
18 work. Additionally, Defendants allow Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class to purchase tools from
19 Defendants and Defendants will charge workers for the costs of the tools from their paychecks.
20 The tools provided by Defendants do not allow Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class to perform their
21 work adequately.
22 b. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are required to purchase a variety of
23 specialized tools in order to perform their work adequately. These tools/equipment include: various
24 types of gloves, specialized knifes for vegetable harvesting, belts, aprons, hats, scarves, boots,
25 jackets, and pants. Defendants do not provide these tools and fails to reimburse Plaintiffs and the
26 Proposed Class for the costs associated with purchasing and using these tools/equipment.
27 c. Defendants also required Plaintiffs and all Proposed Class members to
28 travel between fields to perform work tasks. Because Defendants did not provide buses or other
12
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 transportation to workers so that they could travel from field to field in the middle of their shifts,
2 Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class used their own vehicles to travel from field to field. Defendant
3 did not reimburse Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class for their vehicle use for travel between
4 Defendants’ job sites during the course of a work shift, in violation of California law.
5 35. For at least one (1) year prior to the filing of this action continuing to the present,
6 Defendants have failed to comply with Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order 14-
7 2001 and Labor Code § 226(a) by failing issue accurate itemized wage statements reporting all
8 applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period, and the corresponding number of hours
9 worked at each hourly rate by the employee.
10 36. On a regular and consistent basis, Defendants have also violated Labor Code §221
11 with respect to Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class. Defendants required Plaintiffs and the Proposed
12 Class to authorize Defendants to recoup wages and/or draw wages that were already paid and taxed
13 for broken tools or if Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class needed new tools. As such, Plaintiffs and
14 the Proposed Class were subject to deductions from their wages by Defendants, despite Defendants
15 already paying Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class these wages.
16 37. Defendants willfully failed to pay wages and compensation, when Plaintiffs and all
17 Proposed Class Members quit or were discharged. This failure was willful, without legal
18 justification, and interfered with Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ rights.
19 V.
20 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
21 38. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
22 as a Class Action pursuant to § 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs seek to represent a
23 proposed class composed of and defined as follows:
24 All field workers who are employed or have been employed by
AGRO-JAL FARMING ENTERPRISES; PALOMA PACKING,
25
INC. in the State of California since March 26, 2021, until the
26 present and continuing. (“Proposed Class”)
27 39. Plaintiffs reserve the right under Rule 3.765(b) of the California Rules of Court to
28 amend or modify the class description with greater specificity, by division into subclasses, or by
13
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 limitation to particular issues.
2 40. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action
3 under the provisions of § 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure because there is a well-defined
4 community of interest in the litigation and the Proposed Classes are easily ascertainable.
5 A. NUMEROSITY
6 41. The potential members of the Proposed Class as defined are so numerous that
7 joinder of all the members of the Proposed Class is impracticable. While the precise number of
8 proposed Class Members has not been determined at this time, Plaintiffs are informed and believes
9 that Defendant currently employ, and during the relevant time periods employed over 50 members
10 of the Proposed Class.
11 42. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ employment records would provide information
12 as to the number and location of all Proposed Class Members. Joinder of all members of the
13 Proposed Class is not practicable.
14 B. COMMONALITY
15 43. There are questions of law and fact common to the Proposed Class that predominate
16 over any questions affecting only individual Proposed Class Members. These common questions
17 of law and fact include, without limitation:
18 a. Whether Defendants failed to pay wages and/or overtime compensation as
19 required by the Labor Code and Wage Orders under Labor Code §§ 510, 1194, 1194.2, and 1199;
20 b. Whether Defendants violated Labor Code § 226.7 and IWC Wage Order
21 14-2001 or other applicable IWC Wage Orders, by failing to inform Plaintiffs and the Proposed
22 Class of their right to take meal periods and by failing to provide compliant meal periods
23 throughout the term of employment and failing to compensate said employees one (1) hours wages
24 in lieu of meal periods;
25 c. Whether Defendants violated Labor Code § 2802 and/or Wage Order 14-
26 2001 or other applicable IWC Wage Orders by failing to reimburse out of pocket expenses for the
27 cost of tools and using their own vehicles to perform required work;
28 d. Whether Defendants violated Labor Code § 226(a) and Wage Order 14-
14
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 2001 or other applicable IWC Wage Orders, and Cal. Code Regs., Title 8, Section 11140 by failing
2 to provide accurate itemized wage statements that accurately report the total hours worked and the
3 applicable rates, for Plaintiffs and the members of the Proposed Class;
4 e. Whether Defendants violated §§ 201-203 of the Labor Code by failing to
5 pay compensation due and owing at the time that any Proposed Class Member's employment with
6 Defendant terminated;
7 f. Whether Defendants violated Labor Code § 221 by requiring Plaintiffs and
8 the Proposed Class to authorize Defendants to recoup wages and/or draw wages that were already
9 paid and taxed for broken tools;
10 g. Whether Defendants violated § 17200, et seq. of the Business & Professions
11 Code by engaging in the acts previously alleged; and
12 h. Whether Plaintiffs and the members of the Proposed Class are entitled to
13 equitable relief pursuant to Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.
14 C. TYPICALITY
15 44. The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Proposed Class. Plaintiffs
16 and all members of the Proposed Class sustained injuries and damages arising out of and caused
17 by Defendants’ common course of conduct in violation of laws, regulations that have the force and
18 effect of law, and statutes as alleged herein.
19 D. ADEQUACY OF REPRESENTATION
20 45. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the
21 members of the proposed Class.
22 46. Counsel who represent Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are competent and
23 experienced in litigating large employment class actions.
24 E. SUPERIORITY OF CLASS ACTION
25 47. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient
26 adjudication of this controversy. Individual joinder of all Proposed Class Members is not
27 practicable, and questions of law and fact common to the Proposed Class predominate over any
28 questions affecting only individual members of the Proposed Class. Each member of the Proposed
15
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Class has been damaged and is entitled to recovery by reason of Defendants’ illegal policy and/or
2 practice of failing to pay all wages due, failing to provide meal periods, failing to reimburse
3 expenses, failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failing to pay all wages upon
4 resignation or termination.
5 48. Class action treatment will allow those similarly situated persons to litigate their
6 claims in the manner that is most efficient and economical for the parties and the judicial system.
7 Plaintiffs are unaware of any difficulties that are likely to be encountered in the management of
8 this action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action.
9 VI.
10 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
11 PLAINTIFFS ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND THE PROPOSED CLASS
12 FAILURE TO PAY WAGES AND/OR OVERTIME UNDER
13 LABOR CODE §§ 510, 1194, AND 1199
14 49. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Proposed Class, reallege and incorporate
15 by reference all previous paragraphs.
16 50. Labor Code §§ 510, 1194 and 1199 require an employer to compensate its
17 employees at the rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for any work
18 in excess of eight hours in one workday and any work in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek.
19 51. Defendants have violated Labor Code §§ 510, 1194, 1194.2 and 1199. These
20 statutes require an employer to compensate its employees at the minimum wage rate for all hours
21 worked and at a rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for any work in
22 excess of eight hours in one workday and any work in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek.
23 Any work in excess of 12 hours in one day shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice
24 the regular rate of pay. California law also requires that any compensation must be included in the
25 regular rate of pay for the purposes of determining correct overtime rates.
26 52. Here, Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay wages and/or
27 overtime to Plaintiffs and all Proposed Class. Plaintiffs and other Proposed Class were not properly
28 compensated for all hours worked over eight (8) hours in one day or forty (40) hours in one week.
16
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class were not properly compensated for all hours worked, because
2 Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class for each and every hour worked.
3 Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class routinely worked “off the clock” and performed compensable
4 activities before, during, and after each working shift for which no pay was provided.
5 53. With regard to pre-shift work, Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are required to
6 report to work prior to their scheduled shift and perform work but are routinely told by Defendants
7 to wait anywhere from approximately 10 to 40 minutes before Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
8 can begin their scheduled shifts. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are required to walk 8 to 10
9 minutes everyday walking to the field and prepping material for the day of work, including
10 bringing the necessary tools required. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are not allowed to park
11 close to the field where they will be harvesting crops, so they are required to arrive early to walk
12 to the field. Additionally, Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are required to arrive 20 to 40 minutes
13 early on days when the foreman called a meeting. During the rainy season, Plaintiffs and the
14 Proposed Class were required to wait around 30 min to 2 hours three to four times a week before
15 beginning their scheduled shifts. Sometimes, the foreman would enforce the crew to begin working
16 without necessary protection despite the weather conditions, but Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
17 would not be paid for any additional time in excess of eight hours in one workday. This waiting
18 time and work performed prior to Plaintiffs’ and the Proposed Class’ scheduled shift occurs daily
19 and Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are not compensated for this wait time or work performed.
20 These activities and time are compensable, but Defendants fail to pay Plaintiffs and the Proposed
21 Class for this time worked.
22 54. In the middle of Plaintiffs’ and the Proposed Class shifts, Defendants required
23 Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class to travel between fields once they are done picking at one field.
24 Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class use their own vehicle(s) to travel to between fields per shift at
25 least one or twice per season at least, during their lunch breaks. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
26 are not compensated for this travel time, nor are they reimbursed for use of their personal vehicle
27 to perform required work. This travel time usually takes 35 minutes to 1 hour to go from field to
28 field.
17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 55. With regard to post-shift work, at the end of each working shift, Plaintiffs and the
2 Proposed Class are instructed by the foreman to close the row they were working on, and clean the
3 machines used before leaving. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class would work 25 to 40 minutes after
4 the end of their shift in order to finish the row they were working on and clean the machines. This
5 time spent finishing their row and cleaning the machines was performed after being “clocked out”
6 and as such, Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are not compensated for this time worked even
7 though this time is compensable. Additionally, Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class spend time after
8 their scheduled shift putting away tools and other work-related equipment, including tools and
9 protective gear. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class have to walk back to their cars which are parked
10 8 to 10 minutes away from the field. This time spent putting away equipment and walking back to
11 their cars is performed after being “clocked out” and as such, Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are
12 not compensated for this time worked even though this time is compensable.
13 56. Additionally, Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay wages
14 and/or overtime to Plaintiffs and all Proposed Class at the appropriate rate of pay. Plaintiffs and
15 other Proposed Class were not properly compensated for all hours worked over eight (8) hours in
16 one day or forty (40) hours in one week. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class were not properly
17 compensated for overtime worked because Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Proposed
18 Class for all hours worked over 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week. As such, Plaintiffs and the
19 Proposed Class were not paid overtime pay despite working over eight (8) hours in one day or
20 forty (40) hours in one week. If overtime was paid, the foreman would announce to the employees
21 that Defendant was paying overtime for the day, but this would be capped for all workers.
22 57. Defendants failed to pay travel time, include work performed off-the-clock, and
23 failed to compensate Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class for all hours worked.
24 58. By their policy of requiring Plaintiffs and members of the Proposed Class to work
25 in excess of eight (8) hours in a workday and/or forty (40) hours in a workweek without
26 compensating them at the rate of one-half (1 ½) their regular rate of pay, Defendants willfully
27 violated the provisions of Labor Code §§ 510, 1194 and 1199.
28 59. As a result of the unlawful acts of Defendants, Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
18
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Members have been deprived of wages and/or overtime in amounts to be determined at trial, and
2 are entitled to recovery of such amounts, plus interest and penalties thereon, attorneys’ fees, and
3 costs.
4 VII.
5 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
6 PLAINTIFFS ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND THE PROPOSED CLASS
7 FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIODS PURSUANT TO
8 LABOR CODE § 226.7 AND LABOR CODE § 512
9 60. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Proposed Class, reallege and incorporate
10 by reference all previous paragraphs.
11 61. Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 require an employer to pay an additional hour of
12 compensation for each meal period the employer fails to provide. Employees are entitled to a first
13 meal period of at least thirty (30) minutes for shifts over five (5) hours, to be provided within the
14 first five (5) hours of the shift, and a second meal period of at least thirty (30) minutes for shifts
15 over ten (10) hours. If an employee is entitled to a second meal period, it must be provided after
16 no more than ten (10) h
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED 1 KINGSLEY SZAMET & LY Superior Court of California ERIC B. KINGSLEY, Esq. (SBN 185123) County of Santa Barbara 2 eric@kingsleylawyers.com Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer LIANE KATZENSTEIN LY, Esq., (SBN 259230) 6/18/2024 12:42 PM 3 liane@kingsleylawyers.com By: M. Gutierrez , Deputy JESSICA BULAON, Esq., (SBN 340749) 4 jessi@kingsleylawyers.com 16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200 5 Encino, CA 91436 Tel: (818) 990-8300, Fax (818) 990-2903 6 Edgar I. Aguilasocho, Esq. (SBN 285567) 7 Mario Martinez, Esq. (SBN 200721) MARTINEZ AGUILASOCHO LAW, INC. 8 P.O. Box 1998 9 Bakersfield, California 93303 eaguilasocho@farmworkerlaw.com 10 mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com Telephone: (661) 859-1 174 11 Facsimile: (661) 840-6154 12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the proposed class 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA (NORTH COUNTY) 15 16 EDUARDO FRANCISCO MAURILIO; CASE NO. 24CV03428 DAYSI ARIAS; PAULA HERNANDEZ 17 MARTINEZ; as individuals, on behalf of CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT themselves and others similarly situated, 18 1. Failure to Pay Wages and/or Overtime PLAINTIFFS, Under Labor Code §§ 510, 1194, and 19 1199 v. 2. Failure to Provide Meal Breaks Pursuant 20 to Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 AGRO-JAL FARMING ENTERPRISES; 3. Failure to Reimburse Expenses Pursuant 21 PALOMA PACKING, INC.; and DOES 1 to Labor Code § 2802 thru 50, inclusive, 4. Violation of Labor Code § 226(a) 22 5. Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code § 203 DEFENDANTS. 6. Violation of Labor Code § 221 23 7. Violation of Business & Professions Code 24 § 17200 25 26 27 28 1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 Plaintiffs EDUARDO FRANCISCO MAURILIO; DAYSI ARIAS; PAULA 2 HERNANDEZ MARTINEZ; as individuals, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, 3 complains of Defendants AGRO-JAL FARMING ENTERPRISES; PALOMA PACKING, INC. 4 (collectively, “Defendants”) and each of them, as follows: 5 I. 6 INTRODUCTION 7 1. This is a Class Action, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 382, on behalf of 8 Plaintiffs and a Proposed Class defined as: 9 All field workers who are employed or have been employed by AGRO-JAL FARMING ENTERPRISES; PALOMA PACKING, 10 INC. in the State of California since March 26, 2021, until the present and continuing. (“Proposed Class”) 11 2. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class worked for Defendants, either directly or through 12 various Farm Labor Contractors (“FLC”), in or near Santa Barbara County, California as seasonal 13 agricultural workers. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class worked in the cultivation and harvest of 14 vegetables (including, but not limited to broccoli, cauliflower, celery, and lettuce), and doing other 15 agricultural work, on land owned, leased, managed, and/or operated, harvested, or otherwise made 16 productive by Defendants. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class were paid on an hourly basis and also 17 earned a piece rate for work picking crops. 18 3. From at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action continuing to the present, 19 Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay wages and/or overtime to all Proposed 20 Class Members at the appropriate rate as follows: 21 a. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class were not properly compensated for all 22 hours worked, because Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class for each and 23 every hour worked. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class routinely worked “off the clock” and 24 performed compensable activities before, during, and after each working shift for which no pay 25 was provided. 26 b. With regard to pre-shift work, Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are required 27 to report to work prior to their scheduled shift and perform work but are routinely told by 28 2 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 Defendants to wait anywhere from approximately 10 to 40 minutes before Plaintiffs and the 2 Proposed Class can begin their scheduled shifts. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are required to 3 walk 8 to 10 minutes everyday walking to the field and prepping material for the day of work, 4 including bringing the necessary tools required. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are not allowed 5 to park close to the field where they will be harvesting crops, so they are required to arrive early 6 to walk to the field. Additionally, Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are required to arrive 20 to 40 7 minutes early on days when the foreman called a meeting. During the rainy season, Plaintiffs and 8 the Proposed Class were required to wait around 30 min to 2 hours three to four times a week 9 before beginning their scheduled shifts. Sometimes, the foreman would force the crew to begin 10 working without necessary protection despite the weather conditions, but Plaintiffs and the 11 Proposed Class would not be paid for any additional time in excess of eight hours in one workday. 12 This waiting time and work performed prior to Plaintiffs’ and the Proposed Class’ scheduled shift 13 occurs daily and Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are not compensated for this wait time or work 14 performed. These activities and time are compensable, but Defendants fail to pay Plaintiffs and 15 the Proposed Class for this time worked. 16 c. In the middle of Plaintiffs’ and the Proposed Class shifts, Defendants 17 required Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class to travel between fields once they are done picking at 18 one field. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class use their own vehicle(s) to travel to between fields per 19 shift one or twice per season at least, during their lunch breaks. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class 20 are not compensated for this travel time, nor are they reimbursed for use of their personal vehicle 21 to perform required work. This travel time usually takes 35 minutes to 1 hour to go from field to 22 field. 23 d. With regard to post-shift work, at the end of each working shift, Plaintiffs 24 and the Proposed Class are instructed by the foreman to close the row they were working on, and 25 clean the machines used before leaving. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class would work 25 to 40 26 minutes after the end of their shift in order to finish the row they were working on and clean the 27 machines. This time spent finishing their row and cleaning the machines was performed after being 28 “clocked out” and as such, Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are not compensated for this time 3 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 worked even though this time is compensable. Additionally, Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class 2 spend time after their scheduled shift putting away tools and other work-related equipment, 3 including tools and protective gear. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class have to walk back to their 4 cars which are parked 8 to 10 minutes away from the field. This time spent putting away equipment 5 and walking back to their cars is performed after being “clocked out” and as such, Plaintiffs and 6 the Proposed Class are not compensated for this time worked even though this time is 7 compensable. 8 e. Additionally, Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay 9 wages and/or overtime to Plaintiffs and all Proposed Class at the appropriate rate of pay. Plaintiffs 10 and other Proposed Class were not properly compensated for all hours worked over eight (8) hours 11 in one day or forty (40) hours in one week. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class were not properly 12 compensated for overtime worked because Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Proposed 13 Class for all hours worked over 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week. As such, Plaintiffs and the 14 Proposed Class were not paid overtime pay despite working over eight (8) hours in one day or 15 forty (40) hours in one week. If overtime was paid, the foreman would announce to the employees 16 that Defendant was paying overtime for the day, but this would be capped for all workers. 17 4. From at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the 18 present, Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to inform Proposed Class Members of 19 their right to take meal periods by way of a lawful policy and failing to provide Plaintiffs and the 20 Proposed Class members compliant meal periods, and failing to pay such employees one (1) hour 21 of pay at the employees’ regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal period is not 22 provided or provided after five (5) hours, as required by California state wage and hour laws. 23 Additionally, Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay meal period premiums in 24 compliance with California law. 25 5. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the 26 present, Defendants have failed to reimburse Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class for their tools and 27 mileage necessary to perform their job duties. The work performed by Plaintiffs and the Proposed 28 Class necessitated the use of special tools. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are required to work 4 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 without being reimbursed for their business expenses. The work performed by Plaintiffs and the 2 Proposed Class necessitated the use of tools such as, but not limited to, aprons, gloves, boxes, 3 knifes, belts, and boots, and various other tools. Defendants fail to reimburse Plaintiffs and the 4 Proposed Class for the costs associated with purchasing and using these tools. 5 a. When employees first begin performing work for Defendants, they are 6 provided tape for packing, big bags to cover from the rain, a paid of blue gloves, and an apron. 7 However, these tools are of poor quality and are required to be returned every day after finishing 8 work. Additionally, Defendant allows Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class to purchase tools from 9 Defendants and Defendants will charge workers for the costs of the tools from their paychecks. 10 The tools provided by Defendants do not allow Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class to perform their 11 work adequately. 12 b. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are required to purchase a variety of 13 specialized tools in order to perform their work adequately. These tools/equipment include: various 14 types of gloves, specialized knifes for vegetable harvesting, belts, aprons, hats, scarves, boots, 15 jackets, and pants. Defendants do not provide these tools and fails to reimburse Plaintiffs and the 16 Proposed Class for the costs associated with purchasing and using these tools/equipment. 17 c. Defendants also required Plaintiffs and all Proposed Class members to 18 travel between fields to perform work tasks. Because Defendant did not provide buses or other 19 transportation to workers so that they could travel from field to field in the middle of their shifts, 20 Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class used their own vehicles to travel from field to field. Defendants 21 did not reimburse Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class for their vehicle use for travel between 22 Defendants’ job sites during the course of a work shift, in violation of California law. 23 6. For at least one (1) year prior to the filing of this action continuing to the present, 24 Defendants have failed to comply with Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order 14- 25 2001 and Labor Code § 226(a) by failing issue accurate itemized wage statements reporting all 26 applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period, and the corresponding number of hours 27 worked at each hourly rate by the employee. 28 7. For at least three (3) years prior to the filing of this action continuing to the present, 5 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 Defendants have failed to pay all wages due at the time of termination or resignation to Plaintiffs 2 and the Proposed Class. 3 8. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the 4 present, Defendants have also violated Labor Code §221 with respect to Plaintiffs and the Proposed 5 Class. Defendants required Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class to authorize Defendants to recoup 6 wages and/or draw wages that were already paid and taxed for broken tools or if Plaintiffs and the 7 Proposed Class needed new tools. As such, Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class were subject to 8 deductions from their wages by Defendants, despite Defendants already paying Plaintiffs and the 9 Proposed Class these wages. 10 9. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all Proposed Class Members bring this 11 action pursuant to Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 221, 226(a), 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1194.2, 1199, 12 and 2802; Wage Order 14-2001; and California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 11140, 13 seeking unpaid wages/overtime, meal period penalties, unreimbursed expenses, accurate itemized 14 wage statements, other penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys’ 15 fees and costs. 16 10. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all Proposed Class Members, pursuant to 17 Business & Professions Code §§ 17200-17208, also seeks injunctive relief, restitution, and 18 disgorgement of all benefits Defendants enjoyed from its unlawful conduct as described herein. 19 II. 20 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 21 11. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over all causes of action asserted herein 22 pursuant to Article VI, § 10 of the California Constitution and California Code of Civil Procedure 23 § 410.10 by virtue of the fact that this is a civil action in which the matter in controversy, exclusive 24 of interest, exceeds $35,000, and because each cause of action asserted arises under the laws of the 25 State of California or is subject to adjudication in the courts of the State of California. 26 12. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants have 27 caused injuries in the County of Santa Barbara and the State of California through their acts, and 28 by their violation of the California Labor Code, California state common law, and California 6 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq. 2 13. Venue as to each Defendant is proper in this judicial district, pursuant to Code of 3 Civil Procedure § 395. Defendants operate within California and does business within Santa 4 Barbara County. The unlawful acts alleged herein have a direct effect on Plaintiffs and all 5 Proposed Class Members within the State of California and the county of Santa Barbara. 6 14. This case should be classified as complex according to Rule 3.400 of the California 7 Rules of Court, and assigned to a complex litigation judge and department, as it will involve 8 substantial documentary evidence, a large number of witnesses, and is likely to involve extensive 9 motion practice raising difficult or novel issues that will be time-consuming to resolve and would 10 require substantial post judgment judicial supervision. 11 III. 12 PARTIES 13 A. PLAINTIFFS 14 15. Plaintiffs EDUARDO FRANCISCO MAURILIO, DAYSI ARIAS, PAULA 15 HERNANDEZ MARTINEZ are residents of California. 16 16. Plaintiffs and all Proposed Class Members, were regularly required to: 17 a. Work without being paid for all hours worked; 18 b. Work without being paid for all hours at the appropriate overtime rate; 19 c. Work without being provided compliant meal periods; 20 d. Work without being reimbursed for their out of pocket expenses for 21 necessary tools and equipment and using personal vehicles for work related purposes; 22 e. Work without Defendants providing accurate itemized wage statements; 23 f. Work while authorizing Defendants to recoup or draw wages that were 24 already paid or taxed; 25 17. Defendants willfully failed to compensate Plaintiffs and all Proposed Class 26 Members for wages at the termination of their employment with Defendants. 27 18. As a result of this conduct, Defendants have engaged in unfair competition and 28 unlawful business practices. 7 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 B. DEFENDANTS 2 19. Defendant AGRO-JAL FARMING ENTERPRISES is believed to be a California 3 corporation operating within the State of California. Defendant’s corporate address is believed to 4 be 257 Kathleen Ct., Santa Maria, CA 93458. Upon information and belief, Defendant employed 5 Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons as hourly employees within California. Defendant has 6 done and does business throughout the State of California. 7 20. Defendant PALOMA PACKING, INC. is believed to be a California corporation 8 operating within the State of California. Defendant’s corporate address is believed to be 257 9 Kathleen Ct., Santa Maria, CA 93458. Upon information and belief, Defendant employed 10 Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons as hourly employees within California. Defendant has 11 done and does business throughout the State of California. 12 21. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or 13 otherwise, of Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, are currently unknown to 14 Plaintiffs, who therefore sues Defendants by such fictitious names under Code of Civil Procedure 15 § 474. Plaintiffs are informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each of the Defendants 16 designated herein as a DOE is legally responsible in some manner for the unlawful acts referred 17 to herein. Plaintiffs will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to reflect the true names and 18 capacities of the Defendants designated hereinafter as DOES when such identities become known. 19 22. Plaintiffs are informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each Defendant 20 acted in all respects pertinent to this action as the agent of the other Defendants, carried out a joint 21 scheme, business plan or policy in all respects pertinent hereto, and the acts of each Defendant are 22 legally attributable to the other Defendants. Furthermore, Defendants in all respects acted as the 23 employer and/or joint employer of Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class Members. 24 23. Furthermore, Defendants acted in all respects as the employers or joint employers 25 of the Proposed Class. Defendants, and each of them, exercised control over the wages, hours or 26 working conditions of the Proposed Class, or suffered or permitted the Proposed Class to work, or 27 engaged, thereby creating a common law employment relationship, with the Proposed Class. 28 Therefore, Defendants, and each of them, employed or jointly employed the Proposed Class. 8 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 24. Defendants are engaged in the operation of agricultural fields for production of 2 various vegetables, as described above. Defendants also own and operate packing facilities in or 3 near Santa Barbara County, California, to sort, grade, package, and distribute crops harvested by 4 Plaintiffs. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants employed Plaintiffs and members of the 5 Proposed Class as non-exempt employees in Defendants’ agricultural field operations. 6 25. Defendants are issued or cause to be issued, or employed FLCs that issue, during 7 the relevant period, payroll checks to Plaintiffs and members of the Proposed Class for agricultural 8 work performed by Defendants. 9 26. Defendants are, and during the relevant period, have been, engaged in the business 10 of cultivating, harvesting and packing crops as described above. 11 27. With respect to the events at issue in this case, Defendants acted as employer of 12 Plaintiffs and members of the Proposed Class. Defendants are liable for the wage violations alleged 13 herein, pursuant to California law, including but not limited to California Labor Code section 14 2810.3. 15 28. As the employer of Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class, Defendants are liable for the 16 violations of law described in this Complaint. See Cal. Labor Code section 2810.3. 17 29. Plaintiffs have complied with Cal. Labor Code section 2810.3, because more than 18 thirty (30) days prior to filing of the complaint, Plaintiffs notified Defendants of the violations 19 alleged in this complaint. 20 IV. 21 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 22 30. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are, and at all times pertinent hereto, have been 23 classified as non-exempt employees by Defendants. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class were paid 24 on an hourly basis and also earned a piece rate for work picking crops. 25 31. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are covered by 26 California Industrial Welfare Commission Occupational Wage Order No. 14-2001 (Title 8 Cal. 27 Code of Regs. § 11140). 28 32. On a regular and consistent basis, Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing 9 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 to pay wages and/or overtime to all Proposed Class Members at the appropriate rate as follows: 2 a. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class were not properly compensated for all 3 hours worked, because Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class for each and 4 every hour worked. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class routinely worked “off the clock” and 5 performed compensable activities before, during, and after each working shift for which no pay 6 was provided. With regard to pre-shift work, Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are required to 7 report to work prior to their scheduled shift and perform work but are routinely told by Defendants 8 to wait anywhere from approximately 10 to 40 minutes before Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class 9 can begin their scheduled shifts. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are required to walk 8 to 10 10 minutes everyday walking to the field and prepping material for the day of work, including 11 bringing the necessary tools required. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are not allowed to park 12 close to the field where they will be harvesting crops, so they are required to arrive early to walk 13 to the field. Additionally, Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are required to arrive 20 to 40 minutes 14 early on days when the foreman called a meeting. During the rainy season, Plaintiffs and the 15 Proposed Class were required to wait around 30 min to 2 hours three to four times a week before 16 beginning their scheduled shifts. Sometimes, the foreman would enforce the crew to begin working 17 without necessary protection despite the weather conditions, but Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class 18 would not be paid for any additional time in excess of eight hours in one workday. This waiting 19 time and work performed prior to Plaintiffs’ and the Proposed Class’ scheduled shift occurs daily 20 and Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are not compensated for this wait time or work performed. 21 These activities and time are compensable, but Defendants fail to pay Plaintiffs and the Proposed 22 Class for this time worked. 23 b. In the middle of Plaintiffs’ and the Proposed Class shifts, Defendants 24 required Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class to travel between fields once they are done picking at 25 one field. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class use their own vehicle(s) to travel to between fields per 26 shift at least one or twice per season, during their lunch breaks. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class 27 are not compensated for this travel time, nor are they reimbursed for use of their personal vehicle 28 to perform required work. This travel time usually takes 35 minutes to 1 hour to go from field to 10 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 field. 2 c. With regard to post-shift work, at the end of each working shift, Plaintiffs 3 and the Proposed Class are instructed by the foreman to close the row they were working on, and 4 clean the machines used before leaving. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class would work 25 to 40 5 minutes after the end of their shift in order to finish the row they were working on and clean the 6 machines. This time spent finishing their row and cleaning the machines was performed after being 7 “clocked out” and as such, Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are not compensated for this time 8 worked even though this time is compensable. Additionally, Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class 9 spend time after their scheduled shift putting away tools and other work-related equipment, 10 including tools and protective gear. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class have to walk back to their 11 cars which are parked 8 to 10 minutes away from the field. This time spent putting away equipment 12 and walking back to their cars is performed after being “clocked out” and as such, Plaintiffs and 13 the Proposed Class are not compensated for this time worked even though this time is 14 compensable. 15 d. Additionally, Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay 16 wages and/or overtime to Plaintiffs and all Proposed Class at the appropriate rate of pay. Plaintiffs 17 and other Proposed Class were not properly compensated for all hours worked over eight (8) hours 18 in one day or forty (40) hours in one week. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class were not properly 19 compensated for overtime worked because Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Proposed 20 Class for all hours worked over 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week. As such, Plaintiffs and the 21 Proposed Class were not paid overtime pay despite working over eight (8) hours in one day or 22 forty (40) hours in one week. If overtime was paid, the foreman would announce to the employees 23 that Defendant was paying overtime for the day, but this would be capped for all workers. 24 33. On a regular and consistent basis, Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing 25 to inform Proposed Class Members of their right to take meal periods by way of a lawful policy 26 and (1) failing to provide Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class compliant meal periods; (2) required 27 Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class to work shifts over ten (10) hours without providing a second 28 meal period of thirty minutes in length altogether; (3) failed to pay such employees one (1) hour 11 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 of pay at the employees regular rate of compensation for each workday that the first meal period 2 was not provided within the first (5) hours of the shift or that a second meal period was not 3 provided. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class that worked during the high peak of the season worked 4 shifts over ten (10) hours without being provided a second meal period of thirty minutes in length 5 altogether. Additionally, Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay meal period 6 premiums in compliance with California law. 7 34. On a regular and consistent basis, Defendants have failed to reimburse Plaintiffs 8 and the Proposed Class for their tools and mileage necessary to perform their job duties. The work 9 performed by Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class necessitated the use of special tools. Plaintiffs and 10 the Proposed Class are required to work without being reimbursed for their business expenses. The 11 work performed by Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class necessitated the use of tools such as, but not 12 limited to, aprons, gloves, boxes, knifes, belts, and boots, and various other tools. Defendants fail 13 to reimburse Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class for the costs associated with purchasing and using 14 these tools. 15 a. When employees first begin performing work for Defendants, they are 16 provided tape for packing, big bags to cover from the rain, a paid of blue gloves, and an apron. 17 However, these tools are of poor quality and are required to be returned every day after finishing 18 work. Additionally, Defendants allow Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class to purchase tools from 19 Defendants and Defendants will charge workers for the costs of the tools from their paychecks. 20 The tools provided by Defendants do not allow Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class to perform their 21 work adequately. 22 b. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are required to purchase a variety of 23 specialized tools in order to perform their work adequately. These tools/equipment include: various 24 types of gloves, specialized knifes for vegetable harvesting, belts, aprons, hats, scarves, boots, 25 jackets, and pants. Defendants do not provide these tools and fails to reimburse Plaintiffs and the 26 Proposed Class for the costs associated with purchasing and using these tools/equipment. 27 c. Defendants also required Plaintiffs and all Proposed Class members to 28 travel between fields to perform work tasks. Because Defendants did not provide buses or other 12 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 transportation to workers so that they could travel from field to field in the middle of their shifts, 2 Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class used their own vehicles to travel from field to field. Defendant 3 did not reimburse Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class for their vehicle use for travel between 4 Defendants’ job sites during the course of a work shift, in violation of California law. 5 35. For at least one (1) year prior to the filing of this action continuing to the present, 6 Defendants have failed to comply with Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order 14- 7 2001 and Labor Code § 226(a) by failing issue accurate itemized wage statements reporting all 8 applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period, and the corresponding number of hours 9 worked at each hourly rate by the employee. 10 36. On a regular and consistent basis, Defendants have also violated Labor Code §221 11 with respect to Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class. Defendants required Plaintiffs and the Proposed 12 Class to authorize Defendants to recoup wages and/or draw wages that were already paid and taxed 13 for broken tools or if Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class needed new tools. As such, Plaintiffs and 14 the Proposed Class were subject to deductions from their wages by Defendants, despite Defendants 15 already paying Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class these wages. 16 37. Defendants willfully failed to pay wages and compensation, when Plaintiffs and all 17 Proposed Class Members quit or were discharged. This failure was willful, without legal 18 justification, and interfered with Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ rights. 19 V. 20 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 21 38. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated 22 as a Class Action pursuant to § 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs seek to represent a 23 proposed class composed of and defined as follows: 24 All field workers who are employed or have been employed by AGRO-JAL FARMING ENTERPRISES; PALOMA PACKING, 25 INC. in the State of California since March 26, 2021, until the 26 present and continuing. (“Proposed Class”) 27 39. Plaintiffs reserve the right under Rule 3.765(b) of the California Rules of Court to 28 amend or modify the class description with greater specificity, by division into subclasses, or by 13 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 limitation to particular issues. 2 40. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action 3 under the provisions of § 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure because there is a well-defined 4 community of interest in the litigation and the Proposed Classes are easily ascertainable. 5 A. NUMEROSITY 6 41. The potential members of the Proposed Class as defined are so numerous that 7 joinder of all the members of the Proposed Class is impracticable. While the precise number of 8 proposed Class Members has not been determined at this time, Plaintiffs are informed and believes 9 that Defendant currently employ, and during the relevant time periods employed over 50 members 10 of the Proposed Class. 11 42. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ employment records would provide information 12 as to the number and location of all Proposed Class Members. Joinder of all members of the 13 Proposed Class is not practicable. 14 B. COMMONALITY 15 43. There are questions of law and fact common to the Proposed Class that predominate 16 over any questions affecting only individual Proposed Class Members. These common questions 17 of law and fact include, without limitation: 18 a. Whether Defendants failed to pay wages and/or overtime compensation as 19 required by the Labor Code and Wage Orders under Labor Code §§ 510, 1194, 1194.2, and 1199; 20 b. Whether Defendants violated Labor Code § 226.7 and IWC Wage Order 21 14-2001 or other applicable IWC Wage Orders, by failing to inform Plaintiffs and the Proposed 22 Class of their right to take meal periods and by failing to provide compliant meal periods 23 throughout the term of employment and failing to compensate said employees one (1) hours wages 24 in lieu of meal periods; 25 c. Whether Defendants violated Labor Code § 2802 and/or Wage Order 14- 26 2001 or other applicable IWC Wage Orders by failing to reimburse out of pocket expenses for the 27 cost of tools and using their own vehicles to perform required work; 28 d. Whether Defendants violated Labor Code § 226(a) and Wage Order 14- 14 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 2001 or other applicable IWC Wage Orders, and Cal. Code Regs., Title 8, Section 11140 by failing 2 to provide accurate itemized wage statements that accurately report the total hours worked and the 3 applicable rates, for Plaintiffs and the members of the Proposed Class; 4 e. Whether Defendants violated §§ 201-203 of the Labor Code by failing to 5 pay compensation due and owing at the time that any Proposed Class Member's employment with 6 Defendant terminated; 7 f. Whether Defendants violated Labor Code § 221 by requiring Plaintiffs and 8 the Proposed Class to authorize Defendants to recoup wages and/or draw wages that were already 9 paid and taxed for broken tools; 10 g. Whether Defendants violated § 17200, et seq. of the Business & Professions 11 Code by engaging in the acts previously alleged; and 12 h. Whether Plaintiffs and the members of the Proposed Class are entitled to 13 equitable relief pursuant to Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq. 14 C. TYPICALITY 15 44. The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Proposed Class. Plaintiffs 16 and all members of the Proposed Class sustained injuries and damages arising out of and caused 17 by Defendants’ common course of conduct in violation of laws, regulations that have the force and 18 effect of law, and statutes as alleged herein. 19 D. ADEQUACY OF REPRESENTATION 20 45. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the 21 members of the proposed Class. 22 46. Counsel who represent Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are competent and 23 experienced in litigating large employment class actions. 24 E. SUPERIORITY OF CLASS ACTION 25 47. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient 26 adjudication of this controversy. Individual joinder of all Proposed Class Members is not 27 practicable, and questions of law and fact common to the Proposed Class predominate over any 28 questions affecting only individual members of the Proposed Class. Each member of the Proposed 15 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 Class has been damaged and is entitled to recovery by reason of Defendants’ illegal policy and/or 2 practice of failing to pay all wages due, failing to provide meal periods, failing to reimburse 3 expenses, failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failing to pay all wages upon 4 resignation or termination. 5 48. Class action treatment will allow those similarly situated persons to litigate their 6 claims in the manner that is most efficient and economical for the parties and the judicial system. 7 Plaintiffs are unaware of any difficulties that are likely to be encountered in the management of 8 this action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action. 9 VI. 10 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 11 PLAINTIFFS ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND THE PROPOSED CLASS 12 FAILURE TO PAY WAGES AND/OR OVERTIME UNDER 13 LABOR CODE §§ 510, 1194, AND 1199 14 49. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Proposed Class, reallege and incorporate 15 by reference all previous paragraphs. 16 50. Labor Code §§ 510, 1194 and 1199 require an employer to compensate its 17 employees at the rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for any work 18 in excess of eight hours in one workday and any work in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek. 19 51. Defendants have violated Labor Code §§ 510, 1194, 1194.2 and 1199. These 20 statutes require an employer to compensate its employees at the minimum wage rate for all hours 21 worked and at a rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for any work in 22 excess of eight hours in one workday and any work in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek. 23 Any work in excess of 12 hours in one day shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice 24 the regular rate of pay. California law also requires that any compensation must be included in the 25 regular rate of pay for the purposes of determining correct overtime rates. 26 52. Here, Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay wages and/or 27 overtime to Plaintiffs and all Proposed Class. Plaintiffs and other Proposed Class were not properly 28 compensated for all hours worked over eight (8) hours in one day or forty (40) hours in one week. 16 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class were not properly compensated for all hours worked, because 2 Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class for each and every hour worked. 3 Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class routinely worked “off the clock” and performed compensable 4 activities before, during, and after each working shift for which no pay was provided. 5 53. With regard to pre-shift work, Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are required to 6 report to work prior to their scheduled shift and perform work but are routinely told by Defendants 7 to wait anywhere from approximately 10 to 40 minutes before Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class 8 can begin their scheduled shifts. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are required to walk 8 to 10 9 minutes everyday walking to the field and prepping material for the day of work, including 10 bringing the necessary tools required. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are not allowed to park 11 close to the field where they will be harvesting crops, so they are required to arrive early to walk 12 to the field. Additionally, Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are required to arrive 20 to 40 minutes 13 early on days when the foreman called a meeting. During the rainy season, Plaintiffs and the 14 Proposed Class were required to wait around 30 min to 2 hours three to four times a week before 15 beginning their scheduled shifts. Sometimes, the foreman would enforce the crew to begin working 16 without necessary protection despite the weather conditions, but Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class 17 would not be paid for any additional time in excess of eight hours in one workday. This waiting 18 time and work performed prior to Plaintiffs’ and the Proposed Class’ scheduled shift occurs daily 19 and Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are not compensated for this wait time or work performed. 20 These activities and time are compensable, but Defendants fail to pay Plaintiffs and the Proposed 21 Class for this time worked. 22 54. In the middle of Plaintiffs’ and the Proposed Class shifts, Defendants required 23 Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class to travel between fields once they are done picking at one field. 24 Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class use their own vehicle(s) to travel to between fields per shift at 25 least one or twice per season at least, during their lunch breaks. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class 26 are not compensated for this travel time, nor are they reimbursed for use of their personal vehicle 27 to perform required work. This travel time usually takes 35 minutes to 1 hour to go from field to 28 field. 17 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 55. With regard to post-shift work, at the end of each working shift, Plaintiffs and the 2 Proposed Class are instructed by the foreman to close the row they were working on, and clean the 3 machines used before leaving. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class would work 25 to 40 minutes after 4 the end of their shift in order to finish the row they were working on and clean the machines. This 5 time spent finishing their row and cleaning the machines was performed after being “clocked out” 6 and as such, Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are not compensated for this time worked even 7 though this time is compensable. Additionally, Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class spend time after 8 their scheduled shift putting away tools and other work-related equipment, including tools and 9 protective gear. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class have to walk back to their cars which are parked 10 8 to 10 minutes away from the field. This time spent putting away equipment and walking back to 11 their cars is performed after being “clocked out” and as such, Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are 12 not compensated for this time worked even though this time is compensable. 13 56. Additionally, Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay wages 14 and/or overtime to Plaintiffs and all Proposed Class at the appropriate rate of pay. Plaintiffs and 15 other Proposed Class were not properly compensated for all hours worked over eight (8) hours in 16 one day or forty (40) hours in one week. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class were not properly 17 compensated for overtime worked because Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Proposed 18 Class for all hours worked over 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week. As such, Plaintiffs and the 19 Proposed Class were not paid overtime pay despite working over eight (8) hours in one day or 20 forty (40) hours in one week. If overtime was paid, the foreman would announce to the employees 21 that Defendant was paying overtime for the day, but this would be capped for all workers. 22 57. Defendants failed to pay travel time, include work performed off-the-clock, and 23 failed to compensate Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class for all hours worked. 24 58. By their policy of requiring Plaintiffs and members of the Proposed Class to work 25 in excess of eight (8) hours in a workday and/or forty (40) hours in a workweek without 26 compensating them at the rate of one-half (1 ½) their regular rate of pay, Defendants willfully 27 violated the provisions of Labor Code §§ 510, 1194 and 1199. 28 59. As a result of the unlawful acts of Defendants, Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class 18 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 Members have been deprived of wages and/or overtime in amounts to be determined at trial, and 2 are entitled to recovery of such amounts, plus interest and penalties thereon, attorneys’ fees, and 3 costs. 4 VII. 5 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 6 PLAINTIFFS ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND THE PROPOSED CLASS 7 FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIODS PURSUANT TO 8 LABOR CODE § 226.7 AND LABOR CODE § 512 9 60. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Proposed Class, reallege and incorporate 10 by reference all previous paragraphs. 11 61. Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 require an employer to pay an additional hour of 12 compensation for each meal period the employer fails to provide. Employees are entitled to a first 13 meal period of at least thirty (30) minutes for shifts over five (5) hours, to be provided within the 14 first five (5) hours of the shift, and a second meal period of at least thirty (30) minutes for shifts 15 over ten (10) hours. If an employee is entitled to a second meal period, it must be provided after 16 no more than ten (10) h