This case was last updated from Fresno County Superior Courts on 09/01/2019 at 16:04:24 (UTC).

Veronica Duran vs. Pitman Farms, a California Corporation/CLASS ACTION

Case Summary

On 06/05/2018 a Labor - Other Labor case was filed by Veronica Duran against Pitman Farms, a California Corporation/CLASS ACTION in the jurisdiction of Fresno County Superior Courts, Bf Sisk Courthouse located in Fresno, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1995

  • Filing Date:

    06/05/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    Fresno County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Bf Sisk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Fresno, California

Judge Details

Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Duran, Veronica

Defendant

Pitman Farms, a California Corporation

 

Court Documents

Case Management Statement Filed

Case Management Statement; Comment: Case Management Statement

Notice of Hearing

Notice of Hearing; Comment: Case Management Conference and Assignment of Judge for All Purposes

Answer Filed

Answer/Response/Denial/Demurrer - First Appearance Fee

Notice Filed

Notice and Ack of Receipt.Ryan, Esq..pdf; Comment: Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt on behalf of Pitman Farms.

Summons issued and filed

Summons.Pitman-507290.pdf; Summons issued and filed

Summons issued and filed

Summons.Pitman-507290.pdf; Summons issued and filed

Notice of Hearing

Notice of Hearing; Comment: Notice of CMC/CJAP

Civil case cover sheet

Civil Case Cover Sheet-507288.pdf

Civil Complaint filed

Complaint-507289.pdf

Declaration Filed

Declaration; Comment: of Russell K. Ryan Re Court's Order to Show Cause Re Sanctions or Contempt

Statement filed

Statement; Comment: Joint Status Conference Statement

Order filed

Civil Document; Judicial Officer: Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.; Comment: Order re: Failure to Inform Court of Status, Failure to Follow Court Order; Order to Show Cause RE: Sanctions or Contempt

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment; Comment: re: Status Report Review

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment; Comment: re: Case Management Conference

Notice Filed

Notice of Related Case; Comment: Notice of Related Case

Statement filed

Status Conference Statement; Comment: Status Conference Statement

Statement filed

Statement; Comment: Plaintiff's Status Conference Statement

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment; Comment: From Chambers re: Case Management Conference

10 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/07/2019
  • Case Management Conference- Judicial Officer: Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.; Hearing Time: 3:00 PM; Comment: Status Conf Statement regarding result of Broadman mediation to be submitted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Minute Order Attachment- Minute Order Attachment; Comment: From Chambers re: Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2019
  • Chambers Work- Pre- Judicial Officer: Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.; Hearing Time: 5:30 PM; Result: Chambers Work - Order Submitted for Consideration

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Statement filed- Case Management Statement; Comment: Joint Status Conference Statement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Minute Order Attachment- Minute Order Attachment; Comment: From Chambers re: Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2019
  • Case Management Conference- Judicial Officer: Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.; Hearing Time: 3:00 PM; Result: Continued Court's Motion; Comment: per Judge

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Minute Order Attachment- Minute Order Attachment; Comment: From Chambers re: Order to Show Cause

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2019
  • Chambers Work- Pre- Judicial Officer: Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.; Hearing Time: 5:30 PM; Result: Chambers Work - Order Submitted for Consideration

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2019
  • Order to Show Cause - Contempt- Judicial Officer: Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.; Hearing Time: 3:00 PM; Cancel Reason: Off Calendar; Comment: re: sanctions and/ or contempt for failure to comply

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Declaration Filed- Declaration; Comment: of Russell K. Ryan Re Court's Order to Show Cause Re Sanctions or Contempt

    Read MoreRead Less
15 More Docket Entries
  • 06/06/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Summons issued and filed- Summons.Pitman-507290.pdf; Summons issued and filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice of Hearing- Notice of Hearing; Comment: Notice of CMC/CJAP

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil case cover sheet- Civil Case Cover Sheet-507288.pdf

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil Complaint filed- Complaint-507289.pdf

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2018
  • Financial info for Pitman Farms, a California Corporation: EFile Payment Receipt # WEB-2018-67429 Pitman Farms, a California Corporation $1435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2018
  • Financial info for Pitman Farms, a California Corporation: Transaction Assessment $1435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2018
  • Financial: Pitman Farms, a California Corporation; Total Financial Assessment $1,435.00; Total Payments and Credits $1,435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2018
  • Financial info for Duran, Veronica: EFile Payment Receipt # WEB-2018-41074 Duran, Veronica $1435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2018
  • Financial info for Duran, Veronica: Transaction Assessment $1435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2018
  • Financial: Duran, Veronica; Total Financial Assessment $1,435.00; Total Payments and Credits $1,435.00

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP

Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. (SBN 174156)

Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq. (SBN 245960) /5 /zEdgslstE-[l)g o Taylor L. Emerson, Esq. (SBN 225303) '

2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130 FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Westlake Village, California 91361 By: A. Ramos, Deputy

Telephone: (805) 212-5124

Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com temerson@bradleygrombacher.com

LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II

Sahag Majarian, Esq. (SBN 146621)

18250 Ventura Boulevard

Tarzana, California 91356

Telephone: (818) 609-0807

Facsimile: (818) 609-0892

Email: sahagii@aol.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff VERONICA DURAN individual, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO

VERONICA DURAN, an individual, on her CASE NO. 18CECG01995

own behalf and on behalf of all others CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR:

similarly situated, 1. Failure to Pay All Wages Owed; Plaintiffs, 2. Failure to Pay Minimum Wages . (California Labor Code §§ 558, 1194, 1194.2, 1197 & 1198 and Wage Order

PITMAN FARMS, a California corporation; 3 14);

and DOES 1-100, inclusive, . Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation (Welfare Commission Orders and Defendants. California Labor Code §§ 510, 1194);

4. Seven Days in a Row Without a Day of Rest (California Labor Code §§ 551/552);

S. Missed Meal and Rest Breaks in Violation of California Labor Code §§ 200, 226.7, 512, and 12 CCR § 11040;

6. Failure to Pay Compensation at the Time of Termination (California Labor Code §§201-203);

. 7. Failure to Provide Proper Wage A_J Statement (California Labor Code §

sl Class Action Complaint

sl Class Action Complaint 226); and, 8. Violation of California Business and Professions Code §17200

226); and, 8. Violation of California Business and Professions Code §17200

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff Veronica Duran, hereby submits her Class and Collective Action Complaint against Defendants PITMAN FARMS, a California corporation and Does 1-100 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants™) on behalf of herself and the class of all other similarly situated current and former employees and common law employees of Defendants as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This matter is brought as a class action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 382, on behalf of Plaintiff and the members of the plaintiff class, which is defined more specifically below, but which is generally described as all former and current non-exempt employees of Defendants who, during the applicable Class Period.

2. The Class Period is from June 5, 2014, through and including the date judgment is rendered in this matter.

3. Plaintiff seeks relief on behalf of herself and the members of the plaintiff class as a result of the unlawful employment policies, practices and procedures described herein, which have resulted in the failure of Defendants to pay Plaintiff and the members of the plaintiff class all wages due to them. Said employment policies, practices and procedures include the following:

4, Said employment policies, practices and procedures are generally described as follows:

a. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and members of the plaintiff class the minimum wage for all hours worked (California Labor Code §§ 558, 1194, 1194.2, 1197 & 1198 and Wage Order 14);

~ b. Defendants routinely failed to pay Plaintiff and members of the plaintiff Class correct overtime compensation (Welfare Commission Orders and California

2. Class Action Complaint

2. Class Action Complaint Labor Code §§ 510, 1194);

Labor Code §§ 510, 1194);

¢. Defendants routinely failed to provide Plaintiff and members of the plaintiff class one day’s rest in seven in violation of California Labor Code sections 551 and 552;

d. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and members of the plaintiff Class with timely meal and rest breaks (California Labor Code §§ 200, 226.7, 512, 12 CCR § 11040, and 29 U.S.C. §201, et. seq);

e. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and members of the plaintiff Class with proper wage statements (California Labor Code § 226(a));

f. Defendants failed to maintain accurate records of work performed by members of the Class in violation of California Labor Code section 1174, and IWC Wage Order 14, § 6; and,

g. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and members of the plaintiff class all final wages in a timely fashion (California Labor Code §§201-203).

5. In addition, Plaintiff and the members of the plaintiff class seek relief and damages for Defendants’ violation, by way of the above-described conduct, of California’s unfair competition laws (California Business &Professions Code § 17200), inclfiding the equitable remedies of declaratory relief, disgorgement, accounting, and restitution.

JURISDICTION

6. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the provisions of the California Labor Code, as well as Business & Professions Code § 17200. Venue is proper in Fresno County because the acts which give rise to this litigation occurred in this county. In addition, PITMAN FARMS is a California corporation in Sanger, California (Fresno County).

THE PARTIES

7 At all times mentioned herein Plaintiff is overresident of the County of Fresno, State of California. During the Class Period, Plaintiff was employed as a “Chicken Processor” by Defendants.

8. The members of the proposed class are likewise current and former non-exempt employees of Defendants, employed by Defendants within the state of California,

. Class Action Complaint

. Class Action Complaint 9. Defendant Pitman Farms is a California corporation, operating and conducting business in Sanger, California within the County of Fresno. Pitman operates chicken farms within the state of California, and maintains business locations in the city of Sanger, California, | within Fresno County.

9. Defendant Pitman Farms is a California corporation, operating and conducting business in Sanger, California within the County of Fresno. Pitman operates chicken farms within the state of California, and maintains business locations in the city of Sanger, California, | within Fresno County.

10. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names, capacities, relationships and extent of participation in the conduct herein alleged of the Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, but on information and belief allege that said Defendants are in some manner legally responsible for the unlawful actions, policies, and practices alleged herein, and therefore sue such Defendants by such fictitious names.

11. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each Defendant named herein was the agent of the other, and the agent of all defendants. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each Defendant was acting within the course and scope of said agency at all relevant times herein, for the benefit of themselves, each other, and the other Defendants, and that each Defendant’s actions as alleged herein was authorized and ratified by the other Defendants.

- FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

12. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

13. Plaintiff and the members of the plaintiff class were and are classified by Defendants as non-exempt employees, pursuant to the provisions of the California Labor Code, and the orders-and standards promulgated by the California Department of Industrial Relations, Industrial Welfare Commission, and Division of Labor Standards. As non-exempt employees, Plaintiff and members of the plaintiff class are entitled to certain benefits, including mandated meal and rest breaks. In addition, said statutory provisions, wage orders, regulations and standards obligate the employer to maintain accurate records of the hours worked by employees.

14. According to http://www.maryschickens.com/maryandherfamily.htm (Accessed on June 4, 2018) “Mary's Free-Range Chickens are produced by Pitman Farms, a family owned business that has been raising poultry for three generations. Don Pitman began raising free- range turkeys and chickens in 1954. His son, Rick, continued to raise turkeys and named them

- Class Action Complaint

- Class Action Complaint after his wife, Mary. Their son, David, continued the family tradition of raising chickens...”

after his wife, Mary. Their son, David, continued the family tradition of raising chickens...”

15. Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt hourly employee by Defendants. She

was a “Chicken Processor” for Defendants from approximately July 2, 2016 to October 6, 2017.

Plaintiff was hired at an hourly rate of approximately $12.42 an hour during the entire time she

was employed by Defendants. Plaintiff typically worked shifts from 9:30 a.m. to 10 p.m. from

5 to 7 days a week.

16. Plaintiff alleges that she and other members of the plaintiff class suffered the

following violations:

a. All Hours Worked/ Minimum Wages/Overtime:

iil.

Before each shift, Plaintiff and the other members of the plaintiff class were required to don certain uniform items before clocking in, including

a gown, apron, gloves from wrist to elbow, cloth gloves, rubber gloves,

Thair net, hard hat, glasses, and boots. In addition, they wére required pick

up and sharpen two knives and put on waist band and obtain a cutting board. Plaintiff and the other members of the plaintiff class were required are not allowed to clock-in until these tasks are completed each

shift. These required tasks take approximately 15 to 10 minutes before

each shift. Plaintiff and the other members of the plaintiff class were

required have to be ready to start work at 9:30 otherwise they get points assigned and are written up.

There are 6 clock-in points in area where Plaintiff works. Sometimes there is a long line when she clocks in or out and therefore she is not paid for the time spent waiting in line to clock in.

When employees have to use the rest room outside of the two rest breaks and one meal break, they have to write down their employee number and how long it took to go. These times are deducted from the hours worked. At end of each shift, Plaintiff and the other members of the plaintiff class

stop 15 minutes before the end of the shift and have to wash everything

. Class Action Complaint

. Class Action Complaint off and remove all of the uniform items listed in (i) above and put them away. On a routine basis, it takes Plaintiff and the other members of the plaintiff class longer than 15 minutes to perform the required tasks for which they are not compensated.

off and remove all of the uniform items listed in (i) above and put them away. On a routine basis, it takes Plaintiff and the other members of the plaintiff class longer than 15 minutes to perform the required tasks for which they are not compensated.

Defendants’ did not compensate their hourly non-exempt employees for all the minutes that they worked as described above, including but not limited to the time that the employees were subject to the control and direction of Defendants; and/or the time that the employees were suffered or permitted to work. Defendants’ timekeeping system systematically shaved time off her actual time worked by rounding her timestamps. The system had a bias toward the employer typically shaving minutes per day off of Plaintiff’s “hours worked.” Therefore, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants illegally rounded or “shaved” minutes from their hourly non- exempt employees' daily time worked at the beginning and end of their shift. Defendants’ illegal “shaving” of minutes per day from each hourly employee's time worked and/or illegal “rounding” resulted in Defendants’ failure to compensate each employee for all minutes of actual work every day worked in violation of California Labor Code § 1194. Defendants owe each of their hourly employees for the unpaid “shaved” minutes

and/or illegally “rounded” time.

b. Meal and Rest Breaks:

Plaintiff and the other members of the plaintiff class each work approximately 12 hour shifts and never received a second 30 minute meal break.

Plaintiff and the other members of the plaintiff class each work approximately 12 hour shifts and never received a third 15 minute rest

break.

c. Seven Days in Row: On a routine basis, Plaintiff worked seven days in a row

without a single day of rest. Plaintiff and the other members of the plaintiff class