This case was last updated from Santa Clara County Superior Courts on 10/02/2019 at 07:56:15 (UTC).

Cecena v. Rooter Hero Plumbing, Inc., et al.

Case Summary

On 07/19/2018 Cecena filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against Rooter Hero Plumbing, Inc . 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 Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ******1610

  • Filing Date:

    07/19/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • 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

Cecena, Jermaine

Defendants

Rooter Hero Plumbing, Inc.

RHSF, Inc.

Not Classified By Court

Superior Court of California

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Marder, William Lucas

Hyun, Dennis Sangwon

Defendant Attorneys

Huron, Jeffrey Glen

Lopez, Jamie Loryn

Norman, Ronald E

Not Classified By Court Attorney

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

 

Court Documents

Notice

Notice CMC reset from 5-17-19 to 10-18-19: Comment: CMC reset from 5/17/19 to 10/18/19

Statement: Case Management Conference

Joint CMC Statement: Comment: Joint Further Case Management Statement

Substitution: Attorney

Substitution of Attorney: Comment: Old: Huron, New: Norman

Substitution: Attorney

Substitution of Attorney: Comment: old: Huron, new: Norman

Minute Order

Minutes Non-Criminal:

Notice

Notice CMC reset from 4-12-19 to 5-17-19: Comment: CMC reset from 4/12/19 to 5/17/19

Notice

Notice CMC 4-12-19 at 10am in D1: Comment: CMC set for 4/12/19 at 10am in D1

Statement: Case Management Conference

Joint CMC Statement: Comment: Case Management Statement

Statement: Case Management Conference

Joint Further CMC Statement: Comment: Joint Further Case Management Statement

Notice: Related Cases

Notice of Related Case: Comment: Notice of Related Case

Notice

Notice CMC 1-18-19 at 10am in D1: Comment: CMC set for 1/18/19 at 10am in D1

Notice

Notice: Comment: Of Payment Of Complex Fees

Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)

Proof of Service of Summons Complaint: Comment: Proof of Service of Summons/Complaint

Order: Deeming Case Complex

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

Civil Case Cover Sheet

Civil Case Cover Sheet: Comment: COMPLEX

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies):

Summons: Issued/Filed

Summons Issued Filed:

5 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/18/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Conference: Case Management - Joint CMC Statement: Judicial Officer: Walsh, Brian C; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Comment: (3rd CMC) Proposed Wage & Hour Class Action * Discovery and responsive pleading deadline stayed, as of 7/23/18, when the case was deemed complex. This CMC may be reset, depending on mediation; counsel to contact R. Walker.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice CMC reset from 5-17-19 to 10-18-19: Comment: CMC reset from 5/17/19 to 10/18/19

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Statement: Case Management Conference - Joint CMC Statement: Comment: Joint Further Case Management Statement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Substitution: Attorney - Substitution of Attorney: Comment: Old: Huron, New: Norman

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Substitution: Attorney - Substitution of Attorney: Comment: old: Huron, new: Norman

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice CMC reset from 4-12-19 to 5-17-19: Comment: CMC reset from 4/12/19 to 5/17/19

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice CMC 4-12-19 at 10am in D1: Comment: CMC set for 4/12/19 at 10am in D1

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Conference: Case Management - Joint CMC Statement: Minutes Non-Criminal: Judicial Officer: Walsh, Brian C; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Result: Held; Comment: (2nd CMC)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Minute Order - Minutes Non-Criminal:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Statement: Case Management Conference - Joint CMC Statement: Comment: Case Management Statement

    Read MoreRead Less
4 More Docket Entries
  • 11/14/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice: Related Cases - Notice of Related Case: Comment: Notice of Related Case

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2018
  • Statement: Case Management Conference - Comment: Hearing on 11/16/18 - Joint Case Management Conference Statement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice: Comment: Of Payment Of Complex Fees

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2018
  • Notice - Comment: Notice of appearance. Atty Huron

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2018
  • First Paper Filed - Fee - Comment: Taken on Notice of appearance. Atty: Huron.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/23/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - Proof of Service of Summons Complaint: Comment: Proof of Service of Summons/Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/23/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Order: Deeming Case Complex - Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline: Comment: Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline signed/BCW

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet: Comment: COMPLEX

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies):

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Summons: Issued/Filed - Summons Issued Filed:

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

O 0 3 O Wn»m S WO

e

IS)OSO\UI-POJI\J*—*O\DOO'\]O\M-PUJMP—‘O E-FILED

7/19/2018 10:29 AM

William L. Marder (State Bar No. 170131) Clerk of Court POLARIS LAW GROUP Superior Court of CA, 501 San Benito St., Suite 200 County of Santa Clara Hollister, California 95023 18CV331610

(831) 531-4214 Reviewed By: R. Walkdr

(831) 634-0333 facsimile

Dennis S. Hyun (State Bar No. 224240) HYUN LEGAL, APC

515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250

Los Angeles, California 90071

(213) 488-6555

(213) 488-6554 facsimile

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class

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

JERMAINE CECENA, as individual and on Case No.: 18c V33 16 10 behalf of all others similarly situated,

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR

Plaintiff, DAMAGES FOR: vS: (1) FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME ROOTER HERO PLUMBING, INC., a s California corporation; RHSF, INC., a (2) FAILURE TO PAY REPORTING California corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, TIME WAGES; inclusive, (3) FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIODS; Defendants.

(4) FAILURE TO AUTHORIZE AND

PERMIT REST PERIODS;

(5) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §

226;

(6) UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES

(Violation of California Business & Professions Code §17200 et seq.); and

(7) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §

2698 ET. SEQ.

DEMAND OVER $§25,000

Plaintiff Jermaine Cecena (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff), hereby submits his Class O©e

e

Action Complaint against Defendants Rooter Hero Plumbing, Inc. and RHSF, Inc. and DOES 1- 25 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants™), as an individual and on behalf of the class and subclasses of all other similarly situated current and former non-exempt employees of Defendants for overtime wages, reporting time wages, and failure to provide meal and rest periods, as well as waiting time penalties, and penalties or damages for failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements, penalties under California Labor Code statutes, and for restitution as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This class action is within the Court’s jurisdiction under California Labor Code §§ 201-203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 2698 the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order, and California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., (Unfair Practices Act).

2. This complaint challenges systemic illegal employment practices resulting in violations of the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code against employees o Defendants.

3. Plaintiff is informed and believe and based thereon allege Defendants, joint and severally have acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights of all employees in receiving all overtime wages, reporting time wages, waiting time penalties, off-duty meal and rest periods and in connection with Defendants’ failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements to Plaintiff and Class Members.

4, Plaintiff is informed and believe and based thereon allege Defendants have engaged in, among other things a system of willful violations of the California Labor Code, Business and Professions Code and applicable IWC wage orders by creating and maintaining policies, practices and customs that knowingly deny 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, Business and Professions Code.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. The Court has jurisdiction over the violations of the California Labor Code §§ 201-203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 2698, the applicable IWC Wage Order, and California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., (Unfair Practices Act).

7. Venue is proper because the Defendants conduct business here in California, and

the acts complained of herein arose in the County of Santa Clara and other counties throughout California.

PARTIES

8. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt plumber’s helper from in or around September 2017, to in or around April 2018. Plaintiff performed work for Defendants in this County. And, although Plaintiff was actually employed by Defendants, Defendants misclassified Plaintiff and class members as independent contractors.

0. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Defendants are corporations doing business in the State of California, including in this County.

10. Plaintiff is informed and believe and based thereon allege that at all times herein mentioned Defendants and DOES 1 through 25, 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 in California, Defendants are subject to California Labor Code §§ 201-203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 2698, the applicable IWC Wage Order, and California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.

12. Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities, whether individual, partner or corporate, of the Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 25, 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 believe and based thereon allege that each of said fictitious Defendants was 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 believe and based thereon allege that at all times material hereto, each of the Defendants named herein was the agent, employee, alter ego and/or joint venturer of, or working in concert with each of the other co-Defendants and was acting within the course and scope of such agency, employment, joint venture, or concerted activity. To the extent said acts, conduct, and omissions were perpetrated by certain Defendants, each of the remaining Defendants confirmed and ratified said acts, conduct, and omissions of the acting Defendants.

15. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, were members of, and engaged 1in, a joint venture, partnership and common enterprise, and acting within the course and scope of, and in pursuance of, said joint venture, partnership and common enterprise.

16. At all times herein mentioned, the acts and omissions of various Defendants, and each of them, concurred and contribfited to the various acts and omissions of each and all of the other Defendants in proximately causing the injuries and damages as herein alleged. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, ratified each and every act or omission complained of herein. At all times herein mentioned, the Defendants, and each of them, aided and abetted the acts and omissions of each and all of the other Defendants in proximately causin

the damages as herein alleged. O 0 ~J O W»n B W N e

—twbnmh W N =k O

16

28 discovery.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

Definition: The named individual Plaintiff seeks class certification, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 382, of a class of all current and former individuals who worked for Defendants performing any type of plumbing-related services in California during th. during the period from July 19, 2014, through the present, including without limitation, plumbers, plumber apprentices, plumber helpers, and laborers. Further, Plaintiff seeks certification of the following sub-classes:

(a) All past and current individuals who worked for Defendants in California and

who received any itemized wage statement at any time between July 19, 2017,

through the present (the “Wage Statement Subclass”™);

(b) All past and current California individuals who worked for Defendant

performing any type of plumbing-related services for Defendants, including without limitation, plumbers, plumber apprentices, plumber helpers, and laborers, and who worked less than half of any scheduled work-shift (the

“Reporting Time Pay Subclass”);

(c) All past and current California individuals who worked for Defendant

performing any type of plumbing-related services for Defendants, including without limitation, plumbers, plumber apprentices, plumber helpers, and laborers, and who worked any shifts 3.5 hours or longer (the “Rest Period

Subclass™); and

(d) All past and current California individuals who worked for Defendant

performing any type of plumbing-related services for Defendants, including without limitation, plumbers, plumber apprentices, plumber helpers, and laborers, and who worked any shifts longer than 5 hours (the “Meal Period

Subclass™).

Plaintiff further reserves the right to amend the above definitions based upon further O ©0 ~J O D» b= W N

e

18. Numerosity: The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members would be impractical, if not impossible. The identity of the members of the Class is readily ascertainable by review of Defendants’ records, including payroll records. Plaintiff is informed and believe and based thereon allege that Defendants: (a) failed to pay to Plaintiff and the Class all overtime wages owed in violation of Labor Code §§ 510, 558, and 1194; (b) failed to pay reporting time wages in violation of Wage Order No. 16-2001(5); (¢) failed to provide 30- minute off-duty meal periods for shifts longer than 5 hours in violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512; (d) failed to authorize and permit 10-minute off-duty rest periods for shifts 3.5 hours or longer in violation of Labor Code § 226.7; (e) failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of Labor Code § 226; (d) failed to pay final wages in a timely manner in violation of Labor Code §§ 201-203; and (e) engaged in Unfair Business Practices, all in violation of the applicable IWC Wage Orders.

19. 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 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 courts.

20. Defendants uniformly administered a corporate policy, practice of: (a) failing to pay to Plaintiff and the Class all overtime wages owed in violation of Labor Code §§ 510, 558, and 1194; (b) failing to pay reporting time wages in violation of Wage Order No. 16-2001(5); (¢) failed to provide 30-minute off-duty meal periods for shifts longer than 5 hours in violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512; (d) failing to authorize and permit 10-minute off-duty rest periods for shifts 3.5 hours or longer in violation of Labor Code § 226.7; (e) failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of Labor Code § 226; (d) failing to pay final wages in a timely manner in violation of Labor Code §§ 201-203; and (e) engaging in Unfair Business

Practices, all in violation of the applicable IWC Wage Orders. 21. Plaintiff is informed and believe and based thereon allege that Defendants, in violation of California Labor Code §§ 201 to 203, respectfully, had a consistent and uniform policy, practice of willfully failing to comply with Labor Code § 203. Plaintiff and other members of the class did not secret or absent themselves from Defendants, nor refuse to accept the earned and unpaid wages from Defendants. Accordingly, Defendants are liable for waiting time compensation for the unpaid wages to separated employees pursuant to California Labor Code § 203.

22. 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: (a) failing to pay to Plaintiff and the Class all overtime wages owed in violation of Labor Code §§ 510, 558, and 1194; (b) failing to pay reporting time wages in violation of Wage Order No. 16-2001(5); (c) failed to provide 30-minute off-duty meal periods for shifts longer than 5 hours in violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512; (d) failing to authorize and permit 10-minute off-duty rest periods for shifts 3.5 hours or longer in violation of Labor Code § 226.7; (e) failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of Labor Code § 226; (d) failing to pay final wages in a timely manner in violation of Labor Code §§ 201-203; and (e) engaging in Unfair Business Practices, all in violation of the applicable IWC Wage Orders.

23. Typicality: The claims of Plaintiff is typical of the claims of all members of the Class in that Plaintiff have suffered the harm alleged in this Complaint in a similar and typical manner as the Class members. As an initial matter, Plaintiff was misclassified as an independent contractor. Specifically, Plaintiff and Class Members performed plumbing work for Defendants. Defendants are a plumbing company. Moreover, Defendants controlled the hours, working conditions, pay, and work assignments for Plaintiff and Class Members. Therefore, Defendants misclassified Plaintiff and Class Members as independent contractors pursuant to Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018). As such, Plaintiff and Class Members

should have been treated as employees and received the protections of the Labor Code and Wage O ©0 3 O WD»nm H W N

= R R e

Orders. Plaintiff was not paid for all overtime wages. Specifically, Plaintiff worked more than 8 hours in a day. Indeed, sometimes Plaintiff worked 12 hours or more in a shift. Nevertheless, Plaintiff was always paid at his base rate of pay of $18 per hour, as opposed to the requisite overtime, or double-time rates of pay. Moreover, Plaintiff would report to worksite, but he was not actually put to work, nor was he paid any reporting wages in violation of Wage Order No. 16-2001(5). Plaintiff was also not provided off-duty 30-minute meal periods for shifts longer than 5 hours and a second 30-minute meal period for shifts longer than 10 hours. Plaintiff was also not authorized and permitted to take off-duty 10-minute rest periods for every 3.5 hours worked. Plaintiff was also not paid his final wages in a timely manner. Defendants did not provide proper and accurate itemized wage statements in violation of California law. Specifically, Plaintiff’s wage statements failed to state the following information: (1) the address of the employer; (2) the total hours worked by the employee; (3) only the last four digits of the employee's social security number or an employee identification number other than a social security number; and (4) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee. Plaintiff is a member of the Class and has suffered the alleged violations of California Labor Code §§ 201-203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 2698, and IWC Wage Orders.

24. The California Labor Code and upon which Plaintiff bases his 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.

25. 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 plaifitiff 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.

26. 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.

27. 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 the Plaintiff and the class identified herein, in a civil action, for the unpaid balance of unpaid minimum and overtime wages, including interest thereon, applicable penalties, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs of suit according to the mandate of California Labor Code §§ 201-204, 226, 510, 558, 1194, 1197, 2698, IWC Wage Orders and Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5.

28. 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. |

29. 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 FOR UNPAID OVERTIME WAGES (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS BY PLAINTIFF AND ON BEHALF OF THE CLASS)

30. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 29 as though fully set for herein.

31. Asalleged above, Plaintiff and Class Members were misclassified as independent contractors. As such, Plaintiff and Class Members should have been treated as employees and received the protections of the Labor Code and Wage Orders. At all times relevant herein, Defendants were required to compensate their non-exempt employees overtime wages for all overtime hours worked.

32. As a pattern and practice, Defendants regularly required Plaintiff and other members of Class to work more than 8 hours in a day and/or 40 hours in a workweek without payment of overtime wages. In fact, Plaintiff often worked more than 8 hours in a workday and in some cases 12 hours, without payment of overtime wages. Rather, Defendant paid Plaintiff at his base rate for such hours.

33. As a pattern and practice, Defendants regfilarly failed to pay Plaintiff and other members of Class proper overtime wages as a result of such violations.

34. Plaintiff is informed and believe and based thereon allege Defendants willfully failed to pay employees all overtime wages. Plaintiff is informed and believe and based thereon allege Defendants’ willful failure to provide all overtime wages due and owing them upon separation from employment results in a continued payment of wages up to thirty (30) days from the time the wages were due. Therefore, all members of the Class who have separated from employment are entitled to compensation pursuant to Labor Code § 203.

35. 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 in a civil action, for the unpaid balance of the full amount of overtime wages owing, including interest thereon, applicable penalties, attorneys fees, and costs of suit.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY REPORTING TIME WAGES IN VIOLATION OF IWC WAGE ORDER 16-2001 § 5 (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS BY PLAINTIFF AND ON BEHALF OF THE CLASS)

36. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 35 as though fully set for herein.

37. Asalleged above, Plaintiff and Class Members were misclassified as independent contractors. As such, Plaintiff and Class Members should have been treated as employees and received the protections of the Labor Code and Wage Orders. At all times relevant herein, Defendants were required to compensate their non-exempt employees reporting time wages for any work shift that the employee was not allowed to work at least half of.

38. As a pattern and practice, Defendants regularly required Plaintiff and other members of Class to end their scheduled work shift without having worked at least half of said scheduled work shift and/or did not even put Plaintiff and Class Members to work without payment of reporting time pay, which is at least 2 hours, but no more than 4 hours at the regular rate of pay.

39. As a pattern and practice, Defendants regularly failed to pay Plaintiff and other members of Class proper reporting time wages as a result of such violations.

40. Plaintiff is informed and believe and based thereon allege Defendants willfully failed to pay employees all reporting time wages. Plaintiff is informed and believe and based thereon allege Defendants’ willful failure to provide all reporting time wages due and owing them upon separation from employment results in a continued payment of wages up to thirty (30) days from the time the wages were due. Therefore, all members of the Class who ha\}e separated from employment are entitled to compensation pursuant to Labor Code § 203.

41. Such a pattern, practice and uniform administration of corporate policy regarding

illegal employee compensation as described herein is unlawful and creates an entitlement to O 60 2 O W»n B L NN

= e

recovery by Plaintiff in a civil action, for the unpaid balance of the full amount of reporting time wages owing, including interest thereon, applicable penalties, attorneys fees, and costs of suit.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIODS (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS BY PLAINTIFF AND ON BEHALF OF THE CLASS)

42. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 41 as though fully set for herein.

43. As alleged above, Plaintiff and Class Members were misclassified as independent contractors. As such, Plaintiff and Class Members should have been treated as employees and received the protections of the Labor Code and Wage Orders. Defendants failed in their affirmative obligation to provide all of their employees, including Plaintiff and other members of Class, the opportunity to take meal periods in accordance with the mandates of the California Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage Order. Plaintiff and other members of Class were suffered and permitted to work through legally required meal breaks and were denied the opportunity to take their meal breaks. Furthermore, Plaintiff and other members of Class were not provided with meal breaks until after the 5 hour of work. As such, Defendants are responsible for paying premium compensation for missed meal periods pursuant to Labor Code § 226.7 and 512.

44. Plaintiff and other members of Class regularly worked in excess of five (5) hours per day and accordingly had a right to take a 30-minute meal period each day worked in excess of five (5) hours. Furthermore, Plaintiff and other members of Class who worked in excess of ten (10) hours per day had a right to take a second 30-minute meal period each day worked in excess of ten (10) hours.

45. Asa pattern and practice, Defendants regularly required employees to work through their meal periods and/or take untimely meal breaks without proper compensation and denied Plaintiff and their employees the right to take proper meal periods as required by law.

46. This policy of requiring employees to work through their legally mandated meal

periods and not allowing them to take proper meal periods is a violation of California law. 47. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Defendants

| willfully failed to pay employees who were not provided the opportunity to take meal breaks the premium compensation set out in Labor Code § 226.7 and that Plaintiff and those employees similarly situated as him are owed wages for the meal period violations set forth above. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges Defendants’ willful failure to provide Plaintiff and other members of Class the wages due and owing them 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 Class who have separated from employment are entitled to compensation pursuant to Labor Code § 203.

48. Such a pattern, practice and uniform administration of corporate policy as described herein is unlawful and creates an entitlement to recovery by the Plaintiff and other members of Class 1dentified herein, in a civil action, for the unpaid balance of the unpaid premium compensation pursuant to Labor Code § 226.7 and 512, including interest thereon, penalties and costs of suit.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO AUTHORIZE AND PERMIT REST PERIODS (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS BY PLAINTIFF AND ON BEHALF OF THE CLASS)

49. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 48 as though fully set for herein.

50. Asalleged above, Plaintiff and Class Members were misclassified as independent contractors. As such, Plaintiff and Class Members should have been treated as employees and received the protections of the Labor Code and Wage Orders. Defendants failed in their affirmative obligation to provide all of their employees, including Plaintiff and other members of Class, the opportunity to take rest periods in accordance with the mandates of the California Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage Order. Plaintiff and other members of Class were suffered and permitted to work through legally required rest breaks and were denied the opportunity to take their rest breaks. As such, Defendants are responsible for paying premium

compensation for missed rest periods pursuant to Labor Code § 226.7.b~ W N

28

51. Plaintiff and othel.~ members of Class regularly worked shifts of three and one-half hours (3.5) hours or more per day and accordingly had a right to take a 10-minute rest period each day. Furthermore, Plaintiff and other members of Class who worked shifts of seven and one-half (7.5) hours or more per day had a right to take a second 10-minute rest period.

52. Asapattern and practice, Defendants regularly required employees to work through their rest periods without proper compensation and denied Plaintiff and their employees the right to take proper rest periods as required by law.

53. This policy of requiring employees to work through their legally mandated rest periods and not allowing them to take proper rest periods is a violation of California law.

54. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Defendants willfully failed to pay employees who were not provided the opportunity to take rest breaks the premium compensation set out in Labor Code § 226.7 and that Plaintiff and those employees similarly situated as him are owed wages for the rest period violations set forth above. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges Defendants’ willful failure to provide Plaintiff and other members of Class the wages due and owing them 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 Class who have separated from employment are entitled to compensation pursuant to Labor Code § 203.

55. Such a pattern, practice and uniform administration of corporate policy as described herein is unlawful and creates an entitlement to recovery by the Plaintiff and other members of Class identified herein, in a civil action, for the unpaid balance of the unpaid premium compensation pursuant to Labor Code § 226.7, including interest thercon, penalties and costs of suit.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 226 (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS BY PLAINTIFF AND ON BEHALF OF THE CLASS)

56. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 55 as

though fully set for herein. 57. Asalleged above, Plaintiff and Class Members were misclassified as independent contractors. Thus, Plaintiff and Class Members should have received the protections offered by the Labor Code and Wage Orders. Defendants failed in their affirmative obligation to provide accurate itemized wage statements to Plaintiff and Class Members. Specifically, the wage statements issued by Defendants to Plaintiff and Class Members failed to state the following information: (1) the address of the employer; (2) the total hours worked by the employee; (3) only the last four digits of the employees social security number or an employee identification number other than a social security number; and (4) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee. Defendants, as a matter of policy and practice, did not provide accurate records in violation of Labor Code § 226.

58. Such a pattern, practice and uniform administration of corporate policy as described herein is unlawful and creates an entitlement to recovery by the Plaintiff and the Class identified herein, in a civil action, for all damages or penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 226, including interest thereon, attorney’s fees, and costs of suit according to the mandate of California Labor Code § 226.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FOR VIOLATIONS OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 ET SEQ.

(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS BY PLAINTIFF AND ON BEHALF OF THE CLASS)

59. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 58 as though fully set for herein.

60. 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 (a) pay all overtime wages, (b) pay reporting time wages, (c) provide 30-minute off-duty meal periods for shifts longer than 5 hours, and (d) provide 10-minute off-duty rest periods for shifts 3.5 hours or more.

61. Defendants’ utilization of such unfair and unlawful business practices constitutes ek

OLN

unfair, unlawful competition and provides an unfair advantage over Defendants’ competitors.

62. Plaintiff seeks, on his own behalf, 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.

63. Plaintiff is informed and believe and based thereon allege 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 fort 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 and Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders as specifically described therein.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FOR VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE § 2698 ET SEQ.

(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS BY PLAINTIFF)

64. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 63 as though fully set for herein.

65. Plaintiff brings this cause of action as a proxy of the State of California on behalf of all aggrieved employees for the violations of Labor Code §§ 201-204, 210, 226, 226.3, 226.7, 226.8, 510, 512, and 558. On or about May 14, 2018, Plaintiff provided written notice to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) of Defendants’ violations of Labor Code §§ 201-204, 210, 226, 226.3, 226.7, 510, 512, and 558, pursuant to the California Labor Code § 2699 et seq., the Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”). The LWDA has not provided written notice of whether it intends to investigate Plaintiff’s said allegations and, therefore, Plaintiff may proceed under PAGA against Defendants for said violations.

66. As such, pursuant to Labor Code §2699 et seq., Plaintiff seeks recovery of all applicable civil penalties for Defendants’ violations of Labor Code §§ 201-204, 210, 226, 226.3, 226.7,226.8, 510, 512, and 558, on behalf of the State of California and on behalf of all9

15

16

28

Aggrieved Employees for all such Labor Code violations committed by Defendants against the

Aggrieved Employees.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

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

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

1.

2 3. 4

10.

11.

For an order certifying the proposed class;

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

For an order appointing Counsel for Plaintiff as class counsel;

. Upon the First Cause of Action, for all overtime wages and waiting time penalties

according to proof pursuant to California Labor Code § 203, and for costs and attorney’s fees;

Upon the Second Cause of Action, for all reporting time wages owed and for waiting time penalties according to proof pursuant to California Labor Code § 203, and for costs and attorney’s fees;

Upon the Third Cause of Action, for damages and/or unpaid meal premium pay pursuant to Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512, and for costs;

Upon the Fourth Cause of Action, for damages and/or unpaid rest premium pay pursuant to Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512, and for costs;

Upon the Fifth Cause of Action, for damages or penalties pursuant to statute as set forth in California Labor Code § 226, and for costs and attorney’s fees;

Upon the Sixth Cause of Action, for restitution to Plaintiff and other similarly effected 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.;

Upon the Seventh Cause of Action, for penalties according to proof pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 2699 ef seq., and for costs and attorneys’ fees; and

On all causes of action for attorneys’ fees and costs and for such other and further relief the Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: July 18, 2018 POLARIS LAW GROUP, LLP