Complaint,Petition: Jose Alberto Barron Gutierrez , et al vs. Amina Halim , et al

On March 12, 2021 a Complaint,Petition was filed involving a dispute between Barron Gutierrez , Jose Alberto, Castillo Guevara , Milton Andres, and 1-50, Does, Halim , Amina, Jetfinity, Inc., for (15) Unlimited Other Employment in the District Court of San Mateo County.

Preview
Arlo Garcia Uriarte, SBN 231764
1 3/12/2021
Elizabeth L. Lyons, SBN 327742
2 LIBERATION LAW GROUP, P.C.
2760 Mission Street
3 San Francisco, CA 94110
Telephone: (415) 695-1000
4
Facsimile: (415) 695-1006
5
Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS
6 JOSE ALBERTO BARRON GUTIERREZ &
MILTON ANDRES CASTILLO GUEVARA
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
FOR THE COUNTY AND CITY OF SAN MATEO
9

10 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
21-CIV-01327
11
JOSE ALBERTO BARRON GUTIERREZ and COMPLAINT
12 MILTON ANDRES CASTILLO GUEVARA,
(1) FAILURE TO PAY ALL HOURS
13 Plaintiffs, WORKED
(2) FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME
14 vs. (3) FAILURE TO PERMIT MEAL
PERIODS
15 JETFINITY, INC.; AMINA HALIM; and DOES 1- (4) FAILURE TO PERMIT REST PERIODS
50, (5) FAILURE TO FURNISH ACCURATE
16 WAGE STATEMENTS
Defendants. (6) WAITING TIME PENALTIES
17 (7) WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN
VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY
18 (8) UNFAIR COMPETITION IN
VIOLATION OF CAL. BUSINESS
19 AND PROFESSIONS CODE §§ 17200
ET. SEQ.
20

21
JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
22

28
1
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT
1 1. Plaintiff Jose Alberto Barron Gutierrez (hereinafter “PLAINTIFF BARRON”) and
2 Plaintiff Milton Andres Castillo Guevara (hereinafter “PLAINTIFF CASTILLO”), collectively
3 hereinafter “PLAINTIFFS”, are informed, believe, and hereby allege as follow:
4 I. INTRODUCTION & JURISDICTION
5 2. PLAINTIFFS bring this action against Defendant Jetfinity, Inc. (hereinafter
6 “DEFENDANT JETFINITY”), Defendant Amina Halim (hereinafter “DEFENDANT HALIM”), and
7 DOES 1 through 50 (hereinafter “DOES”) (collectively “DEFENDANTS”) for compensatory damages,
8 consequential damages, punitive damages, waiting time penalty, prejudgment interest, restitution,
9 attorneys’ fees and costs, and appropriate and just relief.
10 3. Jurisdiction is proper in this court because alleged damages exceed twenty-five
11 thousand dollars ($25,000.00).
12 4. Venue is proper in this Court because the actions or inactions hereby alleged occurred
13 within the City and County of San Mateo. DEFENDANTS conduct business, have their principal place
14 of business, and PLAINTIFFS were employed within the City and County of San Mateo.
15 II. PARTIES

16 1. PLAINTIFFS are competent individuals and former employees of DEFENDANTS. At
17 all relevant times mentioned herein, PLAINTIFFS worked as cooks for DEFENDANTS and were
18 directly supervised by DEFENDANT HALIM.
19 2. DEFENDANT JETFINITY is a California corporation which maintains offices and
20 transacts business within the State of California and the County of San Mateo. DEFENDANTS provide
21 in-flight catering services to corporate flight departments, aircraft management companies, charter
22 operators, brokers and private owners of business aircrafts.
23 3. PLAINTIFFS are informed, believe, and based thereon allege that DEFENDANT
24 HALIM was, at all relevant times alleged herein, a natural person, individual, a shareholder, and
25 managing partner of DEFENDANT JETFINITY engaging in business in the County of San Mateo,
26 State of California. DEFENDANT HALIM is an individual and is a manager of DEFENDANT
27 JETINFINITY and acted as a manager of PLAINTIFFS, and exercised direct control over the wages,
28 hours, and working conditions of PLAINTIFFS. The actions or DEFENDANT HALIM were ratified
2
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT
1 by DEFENDANT JETFINITY. At all relevant times, DEFENDANT HALIM acted within the course
2 and scope of his employment at DEFENDANT JETFINITY. DEFENDANT HALIM is being sued in
3 her individual capacity as a “person acting on behalf of an employer who violates, or causes to be
4 violated,” a section of [part 2, Chapter 1, of the Labor Code] regulating hours and days of work and is
5 being sued individually under Causes of Action One (1) through Six (6), inclusive. DEFENDANT
6 HALIM is individually liable for under Labor Code § 558.1. DEFENDANT HALIM is being sued as a
7 natural individual under Cause of Action No. Eight (8) because she is a “person” as defined by
8 Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.
9 4. Reference herein to “DEFENDANTS” without other limitation shall include all
10 specifically, and fictitiously named DEFENDANTS, including DEFENDANTS who were the officers,
11 directors, and/or managing agents of other DEFENDANTS. Whenever and wherever reference is made
12 in this Complaint to DEFENDANTS, such reference shall include each and every specifically and
13 fictitiously named defendant individually, jointly, and severally.
14 5. DEFENDANTS exercised direct or indirect, or through an agent or any other person,
15 employs or exercise control over the wages, hours, and working conditions of PLAINTIFFS, who are
16 covered by the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order, and the California Labor Code.
17 6. The actions of PLAINTIFFS’ supervisors, managers, and/or employees of
18 DEFENDANTS, including but not limited to DEFENDANT HALIM, were ratified by DEFENDANTS.
19 At all relevant times, the employees, owners, supervisors, agents, and managers of DEFENDANTS
20 acted within the course and scope of their employment.
21 7. PLAINTIFFS are unaware of the true names and capacities of the DEFENDANTS sued
22 herein as DOES 1 – 50, inclusive, and therefore sue these DEFENDANTS by such fictitious names
23 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 474. PLAINTIFFS will amend this Complaint to allege
24 their true names and capacities when ascertained. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and
25 thereupon allege that each fictitiously-named defendant is responsible in some manner for the
26 occurrences alleged herein, that the damages as alleged herein were directly and proximately caused by
27 each such fictitiously-named defendant, and that PLAINTIFF is entitled to the relief requested herein
28 against each such fictitiously-named defendant.
3
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT
1 8. DEFENDANTS, including each of these fictitiously named DOES, was an individual
2 person who owned, controlled, or managed the business for which PLAINTIFFS worked and/or who
3 directly or indirectly exercised operational control over the wages, hours, and working conditions of
4 PLAINTIFFS. DEFENDANTS and these DOES held ownership, officer, director and/or executive
5 positions with the remaining DEFENDANTS, and acted on behalf of the remaining DEFENDANTS,
6 which included decision-making responsibility for, and establishment of, illegal wage and hour
7 practice, payroll practices and policies for DEFENDANTS which have damaged PLAINTIFF and
8 others similarly situated. Therefore, DEFENDANT and DOES 1 - 50, are “employers” as a matter of
9 law and personally liable on the causes of action alleged herein under California wage and hour laws
10 and regulations as alleged herein.
11 III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

12 9. DEFENDANTS employed PLAINTIFF BARRON as a cook from approximately 2008
13 until the day of his termination approximately on March 6, 2020.
14 10. PLAINTIFF BARRON’S claim period (“CLAIM PERIOD”) encompasses the
15 immediate four years preceding the filing of this complaint, up to the day of his termination
16 approximately on March 6, 2020.
17 11. DEFENDANTS employed PLAINTIFF CASTILLO as a cook from approximately 2012
18 until the day of his termination approximately in February 2020.
19 12. PLAINTIFF CASTILLO’S claim period (“CLAIM PERIOD”) encompasses the
20 immediate four years preceding the filing of this complaint up to the date of his termination
21 approximately in February 2020.
22 13. PLAINTIFFS worked for DEFENDANTS as cooks and were responsible for preparing
23 and cooking food for DEFENDANTS’ catering customers including airline companies and private
24 chartering services.
25 14. At all relevant times, DEFENDANTS’ owner or shareholder, DEFENDANT HALIM,
26 supervised PLAINTIFFS and controlled their schedules, duties, and work hours.
27

28
4
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT
1 15. PLAINTIFFS regularly worked six (6) days per week and sometimes worked seven (7)
2 days per week. When PLAINTIFFS worked seven (7) days per week, they often worked over eight (8)
3 hours per day.
4 16. PLAINTIFFS regularly worked over eight (8) hours per day, over twelve (12) hours per
5 day, and over forty (40) hours per week.
6 17. DEFENDANTS failed to properly compensate PLAINTIFFS for all time worked.
7 18. DEFENDANTS failed to pay PLAINTIFFS at the legal overtime rate for the time
8 PLAINTIFFS worked over eight (8) hours per day and for time worked over forty (40) hours per week.
9 19. DEFENDANTS failed to pay PLAINTIFFS at the legal overtime rate for the time
10 PLAINTIFFS worked during the seventh (7th) consecutive day in a workweek.
11 20. DEFENDANTS failed to pay PLAINTIFFS double their regular rate of pay for time
12 PLAINTIFFS worked in excess of twelve (12) hours in a workday.
13 21. DEFENDANTS had a policy and practice of requiring PLAINTIFFS to meet strict time
14 requirements in supplying DEFENDANTS’ airline clients with the catered food orders prepared by
15 PLAINTIFFS. DEFENDANT HALIM required and pressured PLAINTIFFS to prioritize completing
16 catering and dismissed or prevented PLAINTIFFS’ from taking proper meal periods and/or rest breaks.
17 22. DEFENDANTS failed to provide PLAINTIFFS with opportunity to take proper meal
18 periods to which they were entitled and within the time legally required when they worked more than
19 five (5) hours a day and the total hours worked in a shift were longer than six (6) hours.
20 23. DEFENDANTS failed to provide PLAINTIFFS with opportunity to take a proper second
21 meal period when they worked more than ten (10) hours a day and the day was longer than twelve (12)
22 hours and within the time legally required.
23 24. DEFENDANTS and PLAINTIFFS did not have a written agreement to waive any meal
24 period.
25 25. DEFENDANTS failed to pay PLAINTIFFS at a rate of one hour at their regular rate of
26 pay for each thirty (30) minutes meal period that DEFENDANTS did not permit PLAINTIFFS to take
27 within the legally required time period.
28
5
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT
1 26. DEFENDANTS failed to pay PLAINTIFFS at rate of one hour at their regular rate of
2 pay for each second meal period that DEFENDANTS caused PLAINTIFFS to miss for shifts worked
3 that exceeded ten (10) hours and were over twelve (12) hours long.
4 27. DEFENDANTS did not authorize and permit PLAINTIFFS to take proper ten (10)
5 minute rest periods per every four (4) hours of work or major fraction thereof.
6 28. DEFENDANTS did not pay PLAINTIFFS an additional one hour at their regular hourly
7 rate for proper rest breaks DEFENDANTS did not provide PLAINTIFFS to take.
8 29. PLAINTIFFS were sometimes required to report to work but were not put to work or
9 were furnished with less than half of their usual or scheduled day’s work and were not properly
10 compensated with reporting time pay.
11 30. DEFENDANTS failed to properly compensate PLAINTIFFS split-shift premium pay at
12 a rate of one hour the local minimum wage rate per split shift worked in a single day.
13 31. DEFENDANTS failed to properly compensate PLAINTIFFS for stand-by time that they
14 were required to be available to report to work immediately when called and outside of work time
15 scheduled at their regularly scheduled shifts.
16 32. DEFENDANTS had a policy and practice of requiring PLAINTIFFS to perform off-the-
17 clock work for which they were not compensated. For example, DEFENDANTS required
18 PLAINTIFFS to wear specific uniforms while working, including a white t-shirt and apron.
19 DEFENDANT HALIM instructed PLAINTIFFS to change in to the required uniform before clocking-
20 in at the start of shifts and to clock-out prior to changing out of the required uniform. As a result of this
21 practice, PLAINTFFS were required to work off-the-clock and not properly compensated.
22 33. Throughout the course of PLAINTIFFS’ employment, DEFENDANT HALIM required
23 PLAINTIFFS to be on-call, or on standby, during unscheduled work time and available to report to
24 work immediately when DEFENDANT HALIM called them on their cell phones. DEFENDANT
25 HALIM required PLAINTIFFS to be available to report to work twenty-four hours a day and seven
26 days per week on their cell phones and did indeed call them to report to work immediately when
27 needed. DEFENDANT HALIM informed PLAINTIFFS that they needed to answer and be accessible
28 on their personal cell phones at all times and capable of reporting to work within five minutes of being
6
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT
1 called to work. DEFENDANT HALIM informed PLAINTIFFS that failure to report to work
2 immediately when called while on standby could result in termination of their employment. Indeed,
3 when PLAINTIFFS were unable to report to work during on-call or stand-by time, DEFENDANT
4 HALIM retaliated by criticizing and excessively monitoring their work.
5 34. Even when unscheduled to work, DEFENDANT HALIM told PLAINTIFFS that they
6 could not have any other conflicts that would prevent them from reporting to work immediately.
7 DEFENDANTS required PLAINTIFFS to be in close geographic proximity the workplace such that
8 they could report to work immediately and within five minutes from a call. DEFENDANT HALIM
9 instructed PLAINTIFFS that they could not take on a second job because it would interfere with their
10 on-call availability. DEFENDANTS made known that PLAINTIFFS’ failure to be available on-call
11 and report to work immediately would result in disciplinary action, including termination of
12 employment. DEFENDANTS failed to properly compensate PLAINTIFFS for on-call and/or stand-by
13 time. When contacted to report to work during on-call or standby time, PLAINTIFFS were not able to
14 easily trade on-call responsibilities with other employees.
15 35. As a result of DEFENDANTS on-call and standby work time requirements,
16 PLAINTIFFS’ personal activities were restricted while waiting on-call. For example, PLAINTIFFS
17 were prevented from engaging in hobbies or activities that would require travel time away from the
18 geographic proximity to DEFENDANTS, including visiting family or taking trips outside of the
19 immediate geographic area by DEFENDANTS. They could not engage in activities where interruptions
20 would be unwanted.
21 36. DEFENDANTS failed to issue accurate itemized wage statements to PLAINTIFFS. The
22 wage statements issued are not accurate because, for example, they do not reflect all hours worked and
23 regular wages earned, improperly rounded all overtime hours worked and overtime earned, and required
24 compensation for denied or improper meal periods and rest periods.
25 37. During their employment, PLAINTIFFS complained to DEFENDANT HALIM about
26 the failure to compensate them properly and failure to provide proper meal and rest breaks.
27 PLAINTIFFS also opposed and complained about the excessively restrictive on-call and standby time
28 requirements for which they were not compensated. DEFENDANT HALIM disregarded PLAINTIFFS’
7
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT
1 complaints. PLAINTIFFS continued to be compensated improperly and denied proper meal and rest
2 breaks due to DEFENDANTS’ practice of requiring PLAINTIFFS to prioritize and complete work
3 instead of taking meal periods and rest breaks.
4 38. In or around December 2019, DEFENDANT HALIM drastically reduced PLAINTIFF
5 CASTILLO’S work hours in retaliation for his complaints and inability to report to work immediately
6 when called on a day that he was not scheduled to work.
7 39. In about February 2020 and due to DEFENDANTS’ retaliatory reduction in PLAINTIFF
8 CASTILLO’S scheduled work hours, PLAINTIFF CASTILLO was forced to inform DEFENDANT
9 HALIM that he intended to submit his two-weeks resignation notice. About one week later and before
10 PLAINTIFF CASTILLO’S final date of employment, DEFENDANT HALIM sent PLAINTIFF
11 CASTILLO a text message informing him that DEFENDANTS did not need him to return to work.
12 40. PLAINTIFF CASTILLO was forced to resign from his employment with
13 DEFENDANTS because of DEFENDANTS’ retaliatory reduction of work hours and continued failure
14 to provide proper compensation, meal periods, and rest breaks to which he was entitled.
15 41. In or around late February 2020, PLAINTIFF BARRON worked his morning shift as
16 scheduled. At the conclusion of his morning shift, he left the workplace as he had several hours before
17 the start of his second shift that same day.
18 42. Before the start of PLAINTIFF BARRON’S second shift, DEFENDANT HALIM called
19 PLAINTIFF BARRON to return to work immediately. PLAINTIFF BARRON informed her that he
20 was unable to return to work immediately.
21 43. In response, DEFENDANT HALIM got angry and yelled at PLAINTIFF BARRON
22 telling him that he had to be able to report to work within five minutes if called even if he was not
23 scheduled to work at that time.
24 44. PLAINTIFF BARRON did not report to work within the time that HALIM demanded
25 and opposed DEFENDANT HALIM’S unfair and uncompensated working conditions and on-call
26 requirements.
27 45. After this incident when PLAINTIFF BARRON was unable to report to work
28 immediately when called at a time that he was not scheduled to work, DEFENDANT HALIM retaliated
8
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT
1 and treated PLAINTIFF BARRON in an increasingly hostile manner, criticizing and micromanaging
2 PLAINTIFF BARRON’S work.
3 46. On or about March 6, 2020, DEFENDANT HALIM terminated PLAINTIFF
4 BARRON’S employment.
5 47. DEFENDANTS terminated PLAINTIFF BARRON in retaliation for complaining of
6 unfair working conditions and refusing to work when not properly compensated.
7 48. DEFENDANTS failed to pay PLAINTIFFS in a timely manner all wages
8 DEFENDANTS owed to PLAINTIFFS at the end of their employment.
9 IV. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
10 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
11 By PLAINTIFFS against DEFENDANTS
12 (Failure to Pay All Hours Worked)

13 49. PLAINTIFFS reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations of the above
14 paragraphs.
15 50. Pursuant to the applicable IWC Wage Order and Labor Code §§ 201 to 204, 226.2 and
16 210, DEFENDANTS were required to compensate PLAINTIFFS for all hours worked at least twice a
17 month and all wages are due immediately at the time of discharge of an employee or within seventy-
18 two (72) hours of an employee’s resignation.
19 51. During PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM PERIOD, DEFENDANTS failed to compensate
20 PLAINTIFFS for all hours worked while employed and upon termination.
21 52. As a result of DEFENDANTS’ unlawful acts, PLAINTIFFS have been deprived of
22 compensation for all hours worked in an amount to be determined at trial, and PLAINTIFFS are entitled
23 to recovery of such amounts, plus interest thereon.
24 53. PLAINTIFFS who have retained the services of legal counsel to enforce their rights of
25 compensation for all hours worked, request an award of attorney`s fees, costs, and interest pursuant to
26 Labor Code § 1194 (a) and 218.5.
27 54. PLAINTIFFS request relief as described below.
28 //
9
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT
1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
2 By PLAINTIFFS against DEFENDANTS
3 (Failure to Pay Overtime Wages)

4 55. PLAINTIFFS reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations of the above
5 paragraphs.
6 56. Pursuant to the applicable IWC Wage Order, Section 3(A) and Labor Code § 510, and
7 1194, PLAINTIFFS are owed premium compensation for all overtime hours worked.
8 57. For example, DEFENDANT failed to pay PLAINTIFFS’ overtime compensation when
9 they worked more than eight (8) hours per day or forty (40) hours per week, seven (7) consecutive days,
10 at a rate of one and one-half or double of PLAINTIFFS’ regular rate of pay when PLAINTIFFS worked
11 more than twelve (12) hours per day.
12 58. PLAINTIFFS who have retained the services of legal counsel to enforce their rights of
13 overtime compensation, request an award of attorney`s fees, costs, and interest pursuant to Labor Code
14 § 1194 (a) and 218.5.
15 59. PLAINTIFFS request relief as described below.
16 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
17 By PLAINTIFFS against DEFENDANTS
18 (Failure to Authorize and Permit Meal Periods and
19 to Pay Compensation for Unauthorized, Missed & Late & Improper Meal Period)
20 60. PLAINTIFFS reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations of the above
21 paragraphs.
22 61. Pursuant to Labor Code §§ 226.7(a), 512 and the applicable IWC Wage Order,
23 DEFENDANTS are required to authorize and permit PLAINTIFFS, the opportunity to take meal
24 periods based upon total hours worked, at a rate of thirty (30) minutes net rest time per five (5) hours
25 worked or major fraction thereof, lasting at least thirty (30) minutes.
26 62. DEFENDANTS failed and refused to authorize and permit PLAINTIFFS to take thirty
27 (30) minute meal periods for every five (5) hours worked, or major fraction thereof, in violation of
28 Labor Code §§ 226.7(a), 512, and the applicable IWC Wage Order.
10
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT
1 63. DEFENDANTS have violated Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512, and the applicable IWC Wage
2 Order, by failing to pay PLAINTIFFS one (1) hour of pay at their regular rate of pay for each workday
3 meal periods were required but not provided.
4 64. PLAINTIFF requests relief as described below.
5 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
6 By PLAINTIFFS against DEFENDANTS
7 (Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks and to Pay Compensation for Unauthorized, Missed &
8 Short & Improper Rest Breaks)
9 65. PLAINTIFFS reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations of the above
10 paragraphs.
11 66. Pursuant to Labor Code § 226.7(a) and the applicable IWC Wage Order,
12 DEFENDANTS are required to authorize and permit PLAINTIFFS, the opportunity to take rest period
13 based upon the total hours worked, at a rate of ten (10) minutes net per four (4) hours or major fraction
14 thereof, lasting at least ten (10) minutes.
15 67. DEFENDANTS failed and refused to authorize and permit PLAINTIFFS, ten (10)
16 minute rest periods for every four (4) hours worked, or major fraction thereof, in violation of Labor
17 Code § 226.7(a) and the applicable IWC Wage Order.
18 68. DEFENDANTS have violated Labor Code § 226.7 and the applicable IWC Wage Order
19 by failing to pay PLAINTIFFS one (1) hour of pay at PLAINTIFFS’ regular rate of pay for each
20 workday rest breaks were required but neither authorized nor provided.
21 69. PLAINTIFFS requests relief as described below.
22 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
23 By PLAINTIFFS against DEFENDANTS
24 (Failure to Provide Accurate/Itemized Wage Statements)
25 70. PLAINTIFFS reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations of the above
26 paragraphs.
27

28
11
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT
1 71. DEFENDANTS failed to provide PLAINTIFFS itemized statements accurately showing
2 all gross wages earned, overtime at the accurate rate, including the premium compensation for any
3 denied meal and/or rest breaks at the applicable hourly rates of PLAINTIFFS.
4 72. DEFENDANTS knowingly and intentionally failed to comply with Labor Code §226(a)
5 and the applicable IWC Wage Order, causing damages to PLAINTIFFS. These damages, including but
6 not limited to costs expended calculating their true hours worked and the amount of employment taxes
7 which were not properly paid to state and federal tax authorities, are difficult to estimate. Therefore,
8 PLAINTIFFS elect to recover liquidated damages of fifty dollars ($50.00) for the initial pay period in
9 which the violation occurred, and one hundred dollars ($100.00) for each violation in subsequent pay
10 periods pursuant to Labor Code §226(e), up to the statutory maximum amount of four thousand dollars
11 ($4,000.00), plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
12 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
13 By PLAINTIFFS against DEFENDANTS
14 (Labor code §§ 201-203 - Waiting Time Penalties)
15 73. PLAINTIFFS reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations of the above
16 paragraphs.
17 74. California Labor Code § 201 requires an employer who discharges an employee to pay
18 all compensation due to that employee immediately upon discharge.
19 75. California Labor Code § 202 requires an employer to pay within 72 hours of that
20 employee quitting, all compensation due that employee, unless the employee gave the employer at least
21 72 hours of notice of quitting, in which case all compensation is due at the end of the employee’s final
22 day of work.
23 76. Labor Code § 203 provides that if an employer willfully fails to pay compensation as
24 required by § 201 or § 202, then the employer is liable for waiting time penalties in the form of
25 continued compensation of up to 30 workdays.
26 77. DEFENDANTS willfully failed and refused to timely pay compensation and wages,
27

28
12
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT
1 including unpaid wages and overtime compensation, to PLAINTIFFS, at the end of their employment.
2 As a result, DEFENDANTS are liable to PLAINTIFFS for waiting time penalties pursuant to Labor
3 Code § 203.
4 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
5 By PLAINTIFF against DEFENDANT JETFINITY and DOES
6 (Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy)
7 78. PLAINTIFFS reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs above.
8 79. The fundamental public policies of the State of California that the DEFENDANTS
9 violated, or implicated, are: IWC Wage Orders, Section 3(A) and Labor Code §§ 98.6, 221, 510, and
10 1194.
11 80. DEFENDANTS constructively terminated PLAINTIFF CASTILLO’S employment in or
12 about February 2020.
13 81. DEFENDANTS terminated PLAINTIFF BARRON’S employment on or about March
14 06, 2020.
15 82. PLAINTIFFS’ opposition to DEFENDANTS’ unlawful working conditions and
16 complaints about not being properly compensated, unlawful on-call and stand by work requirements,
17 and lack of breaks and meal periods were a substantial motivating reason for DEFENDANTS’
18 termination of PLAINTIFFS.
19 83. As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ adverse actions against PLAINTIFFS,
20 PLAINTIFFS have been harmed in that PLAINTIFFS suffered the loss of wages, salary, benefits,
21 intangible loss of such employment-related opportunities such as experience in the positions held and
22 sought by PLAINTIFFS, and additional amounts of money PLAINTIFFS would have received if
23 PLAINTIFFS had continued to work for DEFENDANTS, been properly promoted, received proper
24 wage increases, and increased hours of work.
25 84. DEFENDANTS’ oppressive, malicious, deliberate, willful conduct was in conscious
26 disregard for the rights of PLAINTIFF.
27 85. DEFENDANTS’ oppressive, malicious conduct was committed by one or more officers,
28 directors, or managing agents of DEFENDANTS, who acted on behalf of DEFENDANTS, and was
13
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT
1 otherwise authorized by one or more officers, directors, or managing agents of DEFENDANTS.
2 DEFENDANTS knew of the conduct constituting oppression and malice and adopted or approved of
3 such conduct. As a result, PLAINTIFFS seek punitive damages against DEFENDANTS in order to
4 deter them from such conduct in the future.
5 86. As a result of DEFENDANTS’ adverse actions and consequent harm to PLAINTIFFS,
6 PLAINTIFFS suffered such damages in an amount according to proof.
7 87. PLAINTIFFS requests relief as described below.
8 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
9 By PLAINTIFFS against DEFENDANTS
10 (Unfair Competition in Violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.)
11 88. PLAINTIFFS reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations of the above
12 paragraphs.
13 89. California Business and Professions Code (“Cal Bus & Prof Code”) §§ 17200 et. seq.
14 prohibits acts of unfair competition, which shall mean and include any “unlawful and unfair business
15 practices.”
16 90. The conduct of DEFENDANTS has been and continues to be unfair, unlawful, and
17 deleterious to PLAINTIFFS, and to the public. PLAINTIFFS hereby seek to enforce important rights
18 affecting the public interest within the meaning of California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5.
19 PLAINTIFFS are “individuals” within the meaning of Cal. Bus & Prof Code §17204, and therefore has
20 standing to bring this suit for restitution.
21 91. The prompt and proper payment of wages is a fundamental public policy of the State of
22 California.
23 92. It is also the public policy of the State to enforce minimum labor standards, to ensure
24 that employees are not required or permitted to work under substandard and unlawful conditions, and to
25 protect those employers who comply with the law from losing competitive advantage to other
26 employers who fail to comply with labor standards and requirements.
27 93. Through the conduct alleged herein, DEFENDANTS acted contrary to these public
28
14
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT
1 policies and have thus engaged in unlawful and/or unfair business practices in violation of Cal. Bus. &
2 Prof. Code §§17200 et. seq., depriving PLAINTIFFS and other employees working for DEFENDANTS
3 the rights, benefits, and privileges guaranteed to employees under California law.
4 94. DEFENDANTS regularly and routinely violated the following statutes and regulations
5 with respect to PLAINTIFFS and other employees of DEFENDANTS.
6 95. The applicable IWC Wage Order and Labor Code §§ 201, 204, 226.2 (failure to pay all
7 hours worked); 210 civil penalty;
8 96. The applicable IWC Wage Order, and Labor Code §§ 510, 558, and 1194 (failure to pay
9 overtime rate pay);
10 97. The applicable IWC Wage Order, and Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512 (failure to provide meal
11 periods);
12 98. The applicable IWC Wage Order, and Labor Code §§ 226.7 (failure to provide rest
13 breaks); and
14 99. By engaging in these unfair and unlawful business practices, DEFENDANTS have
15 harmed PLAINTIFFS, other employees working for DEFENDANTS, and the general public, for which
16 DEFENDANTS have gained an unfair competitive edge.
17 100. Under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203, PLAINTIFFS are entitled to obtain restitution of
18 these funds on behalf of other employees working for DEFENDANTS who are similarly affected by
19 DEFENDANTS’ unfair and/or unlawful business practices as set forth herein.
20 101. Pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17202, PLAINTIFFS are entitled to specific relief
21 enforcing the penalty provisions of various Cal Lab Code sections in amounts to be proven at trial.
22 Failure to enforce the penalties due would result in the unlawful enrichment of DEFENDANTS and
23 would promote unfair competition.
24 102. PLAINTIFFS’ success in this action will result in the enforcement of important rights
25 affecting the public and will confer a significant benefit upon the public. Private enforcement of the
26 rights enumerated in this Complaint is necessary, as public agencies have only sought limited
27 enforcement of those rights, if any. PLAINTIFFS are incurring a financial burden in pursuing this
28
15
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT
1 action on behalf of the public. PLAINTIFFS further seek to enjoin the above-referenced unlawful
2 actions under the Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage Order.
3 V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
4 WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS respectfully pray that this Court enter judgment in their favor and
5 against DEFENDANTS, and each of them, as follows:
6 1. Compensatory and consequential damages, including unpaid wages, according to proof;
7 2. Prejudgment interest pursuant to Cal. Labor Code § 218.6 accrued on all due and unpaid
8 wages from the date that wages were due and payable, according to proof;
9 3. Pursuant to the applicable IWC Wage Order, and Labor Code §§ 204, and 1194(a), an
10 award in the amount of unpaid overtime and double time wages, owed by DEFENDANTS for the four
11 years preceding the filing of this complaint, plus interest.
12 4. Attorneys’ fees and costs made payable to the Liberation Law Group, P.C., pursuant to
13 Cal. Labor Code §§ 218.5, 226(e), 1194(a) and other applicable laws;
14 5. Awarding statutory damages according to proof;
15 6. Compensation of one hour at the regular rate of pay for each meal or rest period denied
16 in violation of Cal. Labor Code § 226.7 and the applicable IWC Wage Order, according to proof;
17 7. Compensation of one hour at the local minimum wage rate for each split shift premium
18 denied in violation of the applicable IWC Wage Order, according to proof;
19 8. Payment to Plaintiffs of waiting time penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 203, in an
20 amount equal to their respective daily rates of pay at the time of termination, multiplied by the total
21 amount of days elapsed between the date of the involuntary termination up to a maximum of 30 days’
22 pay, according to proof;
23 9. Pursuant to Business & Professions Code § 17203, an award of restitution according to
24 proof for the amounts earned or retained by DEFENDANTS unlawfully;
25 10. Punitive damages, according to proof, and;
26 11. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
27

28
16
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT
1

2 Dated: March 12, 2021 LIBERATION LAW GROUP, P.C.
3

4 By:

5 Elizabeth L. Lyons
Attorney for PLAINTIFFS
6

7
VI. JURY REQUEST
8
PLAINTIFF requests a trial by jury.
9

10
Dated: March 12, 2021 LIBERATION LAW GROUP, P.C.
11

12 By:
13
Elizabeth L. Lyons
14 Attorney for PLAINTIFFS

28
17
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT

Case Info

Judge

Fineman, Nancy L. Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

March 12, 2021

Case Filing Date

March 12, 2021

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Complaint,Petition: Jose Alberto Barron Gutierrez , et al vs. Amina Halim , et al

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties