This case was last updated from Santa Clara County Superior Courts on 08/07/2019 at 15:31:26 (UTC).

Sanchez, Jr. v. Packers Sanitation Services, Ltd., LLC

Case Summary

On 02/20/2018 Sanchez, Jr filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against Packers Sanitation Services, Ltd , LLC. This case was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Courts, Downtown Superior Court located in Santa Clara, California. The Judge overseeing this case is Walsh, Brian C. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ******3571

  • Filing Date:

    02/20/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    Santa Clara County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Downtown Superior Court

  • County, State:

    Santa Clara, California

Judge Details

Judge

Walsh, Brian C

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Sanchez, Carlos, Jr.

Defendant

Packers Sanitation Services, Ltd., LLC

Other

Superior Court of California

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Lee, Larry W

Other Attorney

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

 

Court Documents

Notice: Entry of Dismissal w/POS

Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service: Comment: Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service

Dismissal - Entire Action

Dismissal - Entire Action: Comment: Dismissal Without Prejudice of Entire Action

Notice: Entry of Order

Notice Entry of Order: Comment: Notice of Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery

Order: Deeming Case Complex

Order Deeming Case Complex, Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadlines: Comment: Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline signed/BCW

Proof of Service: Mail

Proof of Service Mail: Comment: Proof of Service of Civil Lawsuit Notice and ADR Information Sheet

Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)

Proof of Service Summons DLR (Civil):

Summons: Issued/Filed

Summons Issued Filed:

Civil Case Cover Sheet

Civil Case Cover Sheet: Comment: COMPLEX

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies): Comment: Class Action Complaint

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/22/2018
  • Conference: Case Management - Judicial Officer: Walsh, Brian C; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Cancel Reason: Vacated; Comment: (1st CMC) Proposed Class Action * Employment * Discovery and responsive pleading deadline stayed, as of 3/2/18, when the case was deemed complex.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice: Entry of Dismissal w/POS - Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service: Comment: Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Dismissal - Entire Action - Dismissal - Entire Action: Comment: Dismissal Without Prejudice of Entire Action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice: Entry of Order - Notice Entry of Order: Comment: Notice of Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Order: Deeming Case Complex - Order Deeming Case Complex, Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadlines: Comment: Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline signed/BCW

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service: Mail - Proof of Service Mail: Comment: Proof of Service of Civil Lawsuit Notice and ADR Information Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - Proof of Service Summons DLR (Civil):

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Summons: Issued/Filed - Summons Issued Filed:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet: Comment: COMPLEX

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies): Comment: Class Action Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

E-FILED

2/20/2018 10:26 AM Clerk of Court

Larry W. Lee (State Bar No. 228175) Superior Court of CA, Kristen M. Agnew (State Bar No. 247656) County of Santa Clara Nick Rosenthal (State Bar No. 268297) 18CV 323571 DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. Reviewed By: R. Walker 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250

Los Angeles, CA 90071

(213) 488-6555

(213) 488-6554 facsimile

WILLIAM L. MARDER, ESQ. (CBN 170131) Polaris Law Group LLP

501 San Benito Street, Suite 200

Hollister, CA 95023

Tel: (831) 531-4214

Fax: (831) 634-0333

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

CARLOS SANCHEZ JR., as an individual | Case No.: 18C\/323571

and on behalf of all others similarly

situated, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: Plaintiffs, (1) VIOLATION OF CAL. LABOR CODE vs. §§ 510, 558, AND 1194; (2) VIOLATION OF CAL. LABOR CODE § PACKERS SANITATION SERVICES, 226(a); LTD., LLC, an Ohio limited (3) VIOLATION OF CAL. LABOR CODE § liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, 2698, ET SEQ.; inclusive, (49) VIOLATION OF CAL. BUS. & PROF.

CODE § 17200, ET SEQ. Defendants. DEMAND OVER $25.,000.00

Plaintiff Carlos Sanchez Jr. (together, “Plaintiff”’) hereby submits this Class Action Complaint (“Complaint”) against Defendants Packers Sanitation Services, L.td., LLC and Does 1 through 50 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”) on behalf of himself and the

class of all other similarly situated current and former non-exempt employees of Defendants for failure to pay all overtime wages owed, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages in a timely manner upon separation of employment, and penalties under the California Labor Code, and for restitution as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This class action is within the Court’s jurisdiction under California Labor Code §§ 201-203, 226, 510, 558, 1194, and 2698, et seq., the applicable Wage Orders of the California Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) and the California Unfair Competition Law (the “UCL”), Business and Professions Code § 17200, ef seq.

2. This complaint challenges systemic illegal employment practices resulting in violations of the California Labor Code and the UCL against individuals who worked for Defendants.

3. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants, jointly and severally, have acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights of all employees in Defendants’ failure to: (a) properly pay overtime wages for all hours worked; (b) provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (c) pay wages in a timely manner upon separation of employment.

4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants have engaged in, among other things a system of willful violations of the California Labor Code and the UCL by creating and maintaining policies, practices, and customs that knowingly deny its employees the above stated rights and benefits.

5. The policies, practices and customs of defendants described above and below have resulted in unjust enrichment of Defendants and an unfair business advantage over businesses that routinely adhere to the strictures of the California Labor Code and the UCL.

6. The Court has jurisdiction over the violations of the California Labor Code §§ 201-203, 226, 510, 558, 1194, and 2698, et seq., and the UCL.

PARTIES

7. On or about February 9, 2017, Defendants hired Plaintiff as a Sanitizer. Plaintiff

was paid on an hourly basis. Plaintiff was termination on March 14, 2017.

2 8. Plaintiff was and is the victim of the policies, practices, and customs of Defendants complained of in this action in ways that have deprived him of the rights guaranteed by California Labor Code §§ 201-203, 226, 510, 558, 1194, and 2698, et seq., and the UCL.

9. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges Defendant Packers Sanitation Services, Ltd.,Ohio limited liability company doing business in the State of California providing contract sanitation services for food processing plants throughout the United States and in California.

10. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned DOES 1 through 50, are and were corporations, business entities, individuals, and partnerships, licensed to do business and actually doing business in the State of California.

11. As such, and based upon all the facts and circumstances incident to Defendants’ business, Defendants are subject to California Labor Code §§ 201-203, 226, 510, 558, 1194, and 2698, et seq., and the UCL.

12. Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities, whether individual, partner or corporate, of the defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 50, inclusive, and for that reason, said defendants are sued under such fictitious names, and Plaintiff prays for leave to amend this complaint when the true names and capacities are known. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that each of said fictitious defendants were responsible in some way for the matters alleged herein and proximately caused Plaintiff and members of the general public and class to be subject to the illegal employment practices, wrongs, and injuries complained of herein.

13. At all times herein mentioned, each of said defendants participated in the doing of the acts hereinafter alleged to have been done by the named Defendants; and furthermore, the Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants and employees of each of the other Defendants, as well as the agents of all Defendants, and at all times herein mentioned, were acting within the course and scope of said agency and employment.

14. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all times

material hereto, each of the Defendants named herein was the agent, employee, alter ego, and/or

3page 3 can't be parsed

further discovery.

19. Numerosity and Ascertainability: The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members would be impractical, if not impossible. The identities of the members of the Class are readily ascertainable by review of Defendants’ records, including payroll records. Plaintiff 1s informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants: (a) failed to pay overtime wages to Class Members in violation of Labor Code §§ 510, 558, and 1194; (b) failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements to Class Members in violation of Labor Code § 226(a); (c) pay wages in a timely manner upon separation of employment in violation of Labor Code §§ 201-203; and (d) engaged in unfair business practices in violation of the California Labor Code, the applicable IWC Wage Orders, and the UCL.

20. Adequacy of Representation: The named Plaintiff is fully prepared to take all necessary steps to represent fairly and adequately the interests of the Class defined above. Plaintiff’s attorneys are ready, willing, and able to fully and adequately represent the Class and the individual Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s attorneys have prosecuted and settled wage-and-hour class actions in the past and currently have a number of wage-and-hour class actions pending in California state and federal courts.

21. Common Question of Law and Fact: There are predominant common questions of law and fact and a community of interest amongst Plaintiff and the claims of the Class concerning Defendants’ policy and practice of: (a) failing to pay overtime wages to Class Members in violation of Labor Code §§ 510, 558, and 1194; (b) failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements to Class Members in violation of Labor Code § 226(a); and (c) engaging in unfair business practices in violation of the California Labor Code, the applicable IWC Wage Orders, and the UCL.

22. Typicality: The claims of Plaintiff are typical of the claims of all members of the Class in that Plaintiff suffered the harm alleged in this Complaint in a similar and typical manner as the Class Members. As with all other non-exempt employees in the State of California, Plaintiff was paid on an hourly basis. Plaintiff also received non-discretionary

incentive pay; however, this incentive pay was not included in the regular rate of pay for the purposes of calculating overtime wages. As a result, Plaintiff’s overtime pay rate was inaccurate and Plaintiff was underpaid for all hours worked in excess of eight hours in a day or forty hours in a week. Therefore, Defendants owe Plaintiff (and Class Members) additional overtime pay. Given that Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members all wages owed, Defendants are liable for waiting time-penalties pursuant to Labor Code §§ 201, 202, and 203. In addition, the wage statements provided by Defendants to Plaintiff failed to identify the applicable rate(s) of pay and/or applicable hours or numbers for non-discretionary incentive pay, accurate overtime rate of pay, and accurate gross and net wages earned. Therefore, Plaintiff is a member of the Class and has suffered the alleged violations of California Labor Code §§ 201- 203, 226, 510, 558, 1194, and 2698. |

23. The California Labor Code upon which Plaintiff bases these claims are broadly remedial in nature. These laws and labor standards serve an important public interest in establishing minimum working conditions and standards in California. These laws and labor standards protect the average working employee from exploitation by employers who may seek to take advantage of superior economic and bargaining power in setting onerous terms and conditions of employment.

24. The nature of this action and the format of laws available to Plaintiff and members of the Class identified herein make the class action format a particularly efficient and appropriate procedure to redress the wrongs alleged herein. If each employee were required to file an individual lawsuit, the corporate Defendants would necessarily gain an unconscionable advantage since it would be able to exploit and overwhelm the limited resources of each individual plaintiff with their vastly superior financial and legal resources. Requiring each class member to pursue and individual remedy would also discourage the assertion of lawful claims by employees who would be disinclined to file an action against their former and/or current employer for real and justifiable fear of retaliation and permanent damage to their careers at subsequent employment.

25. The prosecution of separate actions by the individual class members, even if

possible, would create a substantial risk of (a) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members against the Defendants and which would establish potentially incompatible standards of conduct for the Defendants, and/or (b) adjudications with respect to individual class members which would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interest of the other class members not parties to the adjudications or which would substantially impair or impede the ability of the class members to protect their interests. Further, the claims of the individual members of the class are not sufficiently large to warrant vigorous individual prosecution considering all of the concomitant costs and expenses.

26. Such a pattern, practice and uniform administration of corporate policy regarding illegal employee compensation described herein is unlawful and creates an entitlement to recovery by Plaintiff and the Class identified herein, in a civil action, for the unpaid balance of the full amount of unpaid wages, including interest thereon, applicable penalties, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit according to the mandate of California Labor Code §§ 218.5, 218.6, 226, and Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5.

27. Proof of a common business practice or factual pattern, which the named Plaintiff experienced and is a representative of, will establish the right of each of the members of the Plaintiff class to recovery on the causes of action alleged herein.

28. The Plaintiff class is commonly entitled to a specific fund with respect to the compensation illegally and unfairly retained by Defendants. The Plaintiff class is commonly entitled to restitution of those funds being improperly withheld by Defendants. This action is brought for the benefit of the entire Class and will result in the creation of a common fund.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §§ 510, 558, AND 1194

(BY PLAINTIFF AND THE CLASS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

29. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 28 as though fully set forth herein.

30. This cause of action is brought pursuant to Labor Code §§ 510, 558, and 1194, which require an employer to pay employees for all overtime hours worked.

31. As apattern and practice, Defendants suffered and permitted employees to work without payment of overtime wages for all hours worked in a workday and workweek. Specifically, Defendants paid employees non-discretionary incentive pay in addition to their hourly rate of pay. The incentive pay, however, was not included in the regular rate of pay for the purposes of paying overtime wages. As a result, Plaintiff and Class Members were consistently underpaid for all overtime hours worked.

32. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants’ willful failure to pay all wages due and owing to Class Members upon separation from employment results in a continued payment of wages up to thirty (30) days from the time the wages were due. Therefore, Plaintiff and other members of the Class who have separated from employment are entitled to compensation pursuant to Labor Code § 203.

33. Such a pattern, practice and uniform administration of corporate policy regarding illegal employee compensation as described herein is unlawful and creates an entitlement to recovery by Plaintiff and the Class in a civil action, for the unpaid balance of the full amount of damages owed, including interest thereon, penalties, attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit according to the mandate of California Labor Code §§ 510, 558, and 1194.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §§ 226(a)

(BY PLAINTIFF AND THE CLASS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

34. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 33 as though fully set forth herein.

35. Defendants failed in their affirmative obligation to provide accurate itemized wage statements. For instance, the wage statements provided to Plaintiff failed to identify the applicable rate(s) of pay and/or applicable hours used to calculate non-discretionary incentive pay. The wage statements also failed to identify an accurate overtime rate of pay, and gross and net wages earned.

36. Such a pattern, practice and uniform administration of corporate policy as described herein is unlawful and creates an entitlement to recovery by the Plaintiffs and the Class

identified herein, in a civil action, for all damages or penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 226,

8 including interest thereon, attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit according to the mandate of California Labor Code § 226.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 2698, ET SEQ.

(BY PLAINTIFF AND THE CLASS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

37. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 36 as though fully set forth herein.

38. Plaintiff bring this cause of action as a proxy for the State of California and in this capacity, seeks penalties on behalf of all Aggrieved Employees from March 21, 2016, through the present, for Defendants’ violations of Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 226, 510, 558, 1194, and 1197.1 arising from Defendants’ failure to: (a) properly pay overtime wages to Aggrieved Employees; (b) provide accurate itemized wage statements to Aggrieved Employees; and (c) provide Aggrieved Employees the wages due and owing to them upon separation of employment.

39. On or about March 21, 2017, Plaintiff sent written notice to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA?”) of Defendants’ violations of Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 226, 510, 558, 1194, and 1197.1, pursuant to Labor Code § 2698, ef seq., the Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”). To date, the LWDA has not responded to Plaintiff’s written notice.

40. As such, pursuant to Labor Code section 2699(a), Plaintiff seeks recovery of any and all applicable civil penalties for Defendants’ violation of Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 226, 510, 558, 1194, and 1197.1, for the time periods described above, on behalf of himself and other Aggrieved Employees.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200, ET SEQ.

(BY PLAINTIFF AND THE CLASS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

41. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 40 as

though fully set forth herein.

9 42. Defendants, and each of them, have engaged and continue to engage in unfair and unlawful business practices in California by practicing, employing and utilizing the employment practices outlined above, include, to wit, by failing to correctly calculate and pay overtime wages in violation of Labor Code §§ 510, 558, and 1194.

43. Defendants’ utilization of such unfair and unlawful business practices constitutes unfair, unlawful competition and provides an unfair advantage over Defendants’ competitors.

44. Plaintiff seeks, individually and on behalf of other members of the Class similarly situated, full restitution of monies, as necessary and according to proof, to restore any and all monies withheld, acquired and/or converted by the Defendants by means of the unfair practices complained of herein.

45. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all times herein mentioned Defendants have engaged in unlawful, deceptive, and unfair business practices, as proscribed by California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., including those set forth herein above thereby depriving Plaintiff and other members of the Class the minimum working condition standards and conditions due to them under the California laws as specifically described therein.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment for himself and all others on whose behalf

this suit is brought against Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows:

1. For an order appointing Plaintiff as the representative of the Class as described herein;

2. For an order appointing Counsel for Plaintiff as class counsel;

3. Upon the First Cause of Action, for damages and/or penalties pursuant to statute

as set forth in Labor Code §§ 201-203, 510, 558, and 1194, and for costs and attorneys’ fees;

4. Upon the Second Cause of Action, for damages and/or penalties, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to statute as set forth in Labor Code § 226;

5. Upon the Third Cause of Action, for civil penalties according to proof pursuant to

Labor Code § 2698, ef seq., and for costs and attorneys’ fees; 6. Upon the Fourth Cause of Action, for restitution to Plaintiffs and other similarly affected members of the general public of all funds unlawfully acquired by Defendants by means of any acts or practices declared by this Court to be in violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.;

7. On all causes of action for attorneys’ fees and costs as provided by California

Labor Code §§ 201-203, 218.5, 226, 1194, and 2698, et seq., and Code of Civil Procedure §

1021.5; and 8. For such other and further relief that the Court may deem just and proper. DATED: February 16,2018 DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.