This case was last updated from Fresno County Superior Courts on 03/06/2018 at 10:17:39 (UTC).

Robet Munoz vs. Tarlton & Son, Inc.// CLASS ACTION

Case Summary

On 11/07/2013 Robet Munoz filed a Contract - Business lawsuit against Tarlton Son, Inc // CLASS ACTION. This case was filed in Fresno County Superior Courts, Bf Sisk Courthouse located in Fresno, California. The Judges overseeing this case are Ikeda, Dale, Snauffer, Mark and Snauffer, Mark W. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******3503

  • Filing Date:

    11/07/2013

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Business

  • Court:

    Fresno County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Bf Sisk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Fresno, California

Judge Details

Judges

Ikeda, Dale

Snauffer, Mark

Snauffer, Mark W

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

Munoz, Robert

Speak, William

Martinez, Gary

Haro, Victor

Defendants

Tarlton & Son, Inc.

Texture Specialties, Inc.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Soto, Lisa R.

ROSENFELD, DAVID A

180 Grand Ave

Oakland, CA 94612

Defendant Attorney

Bowles, James A

 

Court Documents

Opposition filed

Opposition; Comment: PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Objection filed

Def's Evidentiary Objections1.pdf; Comment: Def's Evidentiary Objections

Amended Document Filed

Amended Complaint - Claim Amount Unchanged (No Fee); Comment: Amended Complaint - Claim Amount Unchanged (No Fee)

Minute Order Attachment (Tentative Rulings Only)

Civil Document; Comment: attached certificate of mailing

Clerk's Certificate of Mailing

Clerk's Certificate of Mailing; Comment: I certify that I am not a party to this cause and a true copy of the ( Minute Order/ Order ) was placed in a sealed envelope and placed for collection and mailing on the date and at the place shown below following our ordinary business practice. I am readily familiar with this court's practice for collection and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service with postage fully prepaid. Place of Mailing: Fresno, California on ( ) . Parties served: ( )

Declaration Filed

Declaration; Comment: Declaration of Lisl R. Soto in Support of Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Preliminary Approval Volume 4 of 5

Proof of Service

Proof of Service

Declaration Filed

Declaration; Comment: of Lisl R. Soto In Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement

Notice of Hearing

Notice of Hearing; Comment: Case Status Review is set for October 19, 2016 at 3:30 PM in Dept # 501

Notice of Motion

Notice of Motion; Comment: and Motion to:

Notice of Motion

Motion; Comment: and Motion for leave to file first amended complaint

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment; Comment: re: Status Conference

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment

Declaration Filed

Declaration; Comment: of Gary Martinez in Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement

Order Received for Signature

Proposed Order; Comment: *PENDING REVIEW*

Proof of Service

Proof of Service

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment; Comment: attached certificate of mailing

Notice Filed

Notice Filed; Comment: Entry of Order

62 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/24/2018
  • Motion - Certify Class Action- Judicial Officer: Snauffer, Mark; Hearing Time: 3:28 PM; Comment: Lisa Soto

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2018
  • Motion - Reconsideration- Judicial Officer: Snauffer, Mark; Hearing Time: 3:28 PM; Comment: Sean McLoughlin

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Request Filed- Letter to Clerk Requesting Extension.pdf; Comment: Request for Continuance of Hearing

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Request Filed- Joint Request to Set a Status Conference; Comment: Joint Request to Set a Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Reply filed- Reply ISO Motion for Reconsideration.pdf; Comment: Reply ISO Motion for Reconsideration

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Declaration Filed- Declaration; Comment: DECLARATION OF ALEJANDRO DELGADO IS SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Opposition filed- Opposition; Comment: PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice of Motion- Notice of Motion; Comment: and Motion to:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Minute Order Attachment- Minute Order Attachment; Comment: certificate of mailing attached

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2018
  • Chambers Work- Pre- Judicial Officer: Snauffer, Mark; Hearing Time: 5:30 PM; Result: Chambers Work - Order Submitted for Consideration

    Read MoreRead Less
232 More Docket Entries
  • 05/13/2014
  • Financial info for Munoz, Robert: Transaction Assessment $20.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2014
  • Financial info for Munoz, Robert: Counter Payment Receipt # 187787 Munoz, Robert $150.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2014
  • Financial info for Munoz, Robert: Transaction Assessment $150.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2014
  • Financial info for Munoz, Robert: Counter Payment Receipt # 186243 Munoz, Robert $60.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2014
  • Financial info for Munoz, Robert: Transaction Assessment $60.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2014
  • Financial info for Munoz, Robert: Counter Payment Receipt # 186025 Munoz, Robert $60.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2014
  • Financial info for Munoz, Robert: Transaction Assessment $60.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2013
  • Financial info for Munoz, Robert: Counter Payment Receipt # 183894 Munoz, Robert $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2013
  • Financial info for Munoz, Robert: Transaction Assessment $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2013
  • Financial: Munoz, Robert; Total Financial Assessment $1,865.00; Total Payments and Credits $1,865.00

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

E-FILED

e L R L 6/30/2017 10:52:41 AM ALEJANDRO DELGADO, Bar No, 302717 F RESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD By: C. Cogburn, Deputy A Professional Corporation

800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1320

Los Angeles, California 90017

Tel (213) 380-2344

Fax (213) 443-5098

Email: Isoto@unioncounsel.net

Email: adelgado@unioncounsel.net

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Robert Mufoz, William Speak, Gary Martinez and Victor Haro

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FRESNO

ROBERT MUNOZ, WILLIAM SPEAK, GARY MARTINEZ, and VICTOR HARO on their own behalf and on behalf of all those similarly situated,

Case No. 13-CE-CG-03503

CLASS ACTION FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES AND VIOLATIONS OF

) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) b ; THE LABOR CODE ) ) ) ) ) )

TARLTON & SON, INC., TEXTURE SPECIALTIES, INC. and DOES 1-20, inclusive,

Defendants.

I. INTRODUCTION This is an action brought by Plaintiffs Robert Mufioz, William Speak, Gary Martinez and Victor Haro, on their own behalf and on behalf of all those similarly situated (collectively “Plaintiffs”), against joint employer Defendants Tarlton and Son, Inc. (“Tarlton”), Texture Specialties, Inc. (“Texture”) and other as yet unnamed Defendants (collectively “Defendants™), alleging unfair business practices and violations of the California Labor Code (“Labor Code™). Plaintiffs and the putative class seek restitution, equitable accounting, statutory penalties and

damages, including declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit.

First Amended Complaint for Unfair Business Practices and Violations of the Labor Code Case No. 13-CE-CG-03503

ROSENFELD

A Professional Corporation #00) Wilshare Rivd., Suse §320 Laws Angeles, CA ®0L7

ROSENFELD

A Professionat Corporation #00 Wilshire Bivd., Saite 1320 Loy Angeles, CA 4017 {213y IR-2344

8. Venue 1s proper based on the location of the performance of various contracts as

well as the location of the commission of the acts alleged herein. The work giving rise to this

complaint was performed in various counties in California including Fresno County. The relief

requested is within the jurisdiction of this Court.

IIl. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

0. During the four years prior to the filing of this action and continuing (“statutory

period”), Defendants employed construction workers to work at various construction projects in

Califorma including public works projects.

10. During the statutory period, in violation of California law, Defendants engaged in:

a pattern and practice of failing to pay for all hours worked (“off the clock” time) at no less than the California minimum wage rate;

a pattern and practice of failing to provide all compensation owed in a timely manner;

a pattern and practice of failing to pay overtime wages;

a pattern and practice of failing to pay prevailing wages on public works jobs, including overtime at the prevailing wage rate;

a pattern and practice of failing to annualize benefit payments on prevailing works jobs;

a pattern and practice of failing to provide meal periods and rest breaks;

a pattern and practice of failing to indemnify construction workers for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the construction workers in direct consequence of the discharge of their duties, or of their obedience to the directions of the Defendants, including the failure to indemnify construction workers for tools or equipment-related expenses and for travel expenses, mileage, or subsistence;

a pattern and practice of failing to provide written wage notification;

ROSENFELD

A Professional Corporation A0 Wilshue Blva, Sune 132) Los Angeles, CA 90017 1213) WNt1-2343

24. During the statutory period, as a result of its failureclock work as described above Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the class for all hours worked at the appropriate wage rate as required by Labor Code § 1197 and Wage Order 16-2001.

Failure to imely pay

25. Labor Code § 204 requires employers to provide construction workers with all wages due and payable at least twice a month. TWC Wage Order 16-2001(4) provides that every employee shall pay to each employee, on the established payday for the period involved, not less than the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in the payroll period.

26. During the statutory period, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs and others similarly situated with pay for all hours worked, including work that should have been compensated at overtime and/or prevailing wage rates. As a result of these policies and practices, construction workers were not paid wages that were owed twice a month.

Failure to pay overtime

27. IWC Wage Order 16-2001(3) and California Labor Code §§ 510, 1194 and 1815 provide for overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 8 hourshours in one work week.

28. Defendants maintain a policy and practice of requiring construction workers to work off the clock (for no pay at all), including by requiring them to go to the shop before or after the jobsite, go to a materials store, travel between shop, jobsite(s), and store, arrive at least fifteen minutes early to the jobsite and clean up after, perform work at the jobsite in excess of the scheduled shift, attend meetings or training at the shop, and work during their meal and rest breaks, all without pay. When this off the clock work extends the already scheduled workday beyond eight (8) hours in a day or forty (40) hours in a week, that time worked should be paid at an overtime rate.

29. Defendants maintain a policy and practice of telling construction workers that Defendants do not pay overtime during the regular workweek (Monday through Friday) and of not

paying overtime on work performed Monday through Friday.

ROSENFELD

A Professional Corporation 800 Wilstire Blvd, Sune 1320 105 Angelos, UA W07

1233) 3R0-2344

30. Defendants maintain a policy and practice of “banking” overtime hours. Defendants regularly credit hours worked by construction workers to days other than the day work was performed to avoid daily overtime. As a result, construction workers were not paid for hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in one day and/or forty (40) hours in one workweek at an overtime rate.

31. When construction workers work in excess of eight (8) hours in one day and/or forty (40) hours in one workweek, construction workers are paid at the straight time rate with partial wage payments, or noneclock work caused by Defendants’ policies and practices.

32. Defendants paid construction workers at the straight time rate when they worked in excess of eight (8) hours in one day and/or forty (40) hours in one workweek, by maintaining a policy and practice of allocating some of the hours worked in the day and/or week to be paid by “Tarlton” and other hours to be paid by “Texture,” which avoided showing the correct time worked and applicable overtime wage rates on the wage statements.

33. Defendants maintain a policy and practice of altering construction workers’ timesheets to falsely show fewer overtime hours worked, or no overtime hours worked.

34. During the statutory period, Defendants maintain a policy and practice of regularly requiring Plaintiffs and the class to work in excess of eight (8) hours in one day and/or forty (40) hours in one workweek without being provided overtime at the rate of one and one-half times the regular wage rate in violation of Labor Code §§ 510, 1194 and 1815, and IWC Wage Order 16- 2001.

Failure to pay prevailing wages on public works jobs

35. During the statutory period, Plaintiffs and the class regularly worked on public works jobs as defined by Labor Code § 1720 et. seq. On those jobs, Defendants maintain a policy and practice the result of which is that Plaintiffs and the class were not:

i. Paid prevailing wages as required by Labor Code § 1720, et seq.;