This case was last updated from Santa Clara County Superior Courts on 08/07/2019 at 21:51:40 (UTC).

Magana v. Mas Mac, Inc., et al.

Case Summary

On 04/26/2018 Magana filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against Mas Mac, Inc . This case was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Courts, Downtown Superior Court located in Santa Clara, California. The Judges overseeing this case are Strickland, Elizabeth and Kuhnle, Thomas. The case status is Other - Transferred.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ******7348

  • Filing Date:

    04/26/2018

  • Case Status:

    Other - Transferred

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    Santa Clara County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Downtown Superior Court

  • County, State:

    Santa Clara, California

Judge Details

Judges

Strickland, Elizabeth

Kuhnle, Thomas

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

Magana, Estela

on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public

Defendants

Mas Mac, Inc.

Mas Mac III, Inc.

Mas Mac II, Inc.

Other

Superior Court of California

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Ilg, Steven Noel

Alpers, Richard Copeland

Scanlan, Tracy T.

Zeccola, Frank J.

Defendant Attorney

Dennison, Robert David

Other Attorney

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

 

Court Documents

Proof of Service

Proof of Service: Comment: Proof of Service

Statement: Case Management Conference

Joint CMC Statement: Comment: Joint Case Management Statement

Advance jury fee (Nonrefundable)

Advance Jury Fee (Nonrefundable):

Statement: Case Management Conference

Defendants' CMC Statement: Comment: Defendants, Mas Mac, Inc., Mas Mac II, Inc. and Mas Mac III, Inc.'s Case Management Conference Statement

Notice

Notice CMC reset from 8-10-18 to 8-17-18: Comment: CMC reset from 8/10/18 to 8/17/18

Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)

One Legal POS summons Mas Mac II (Mas Mac).pdf: Comment: Proof of Service of Summons/Complaint

Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)

One Legal POS summons Mas Mac I (Mas Mac).pdf: Comment: Proof of Service of Summons/Complaint

Complaint: Amended

Complaint First Amended: Comment: First Amended Complaint

Order: Deeming Case Complex

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

Proof of Service

Proof of Service: Comment: Proof of Service

Statement: Case Management Conference

Joint CMC Statement: Comment: Joint Case Management Statement

Proof of Service

Proof of Service: Comment: Proof of Service

Notice

Notice CMC reset from 11-9-18 to 12-7-18: Comment: CMC reset from 11/9/18 to 12/7/18

Statement: Case Management Conference

Joint CMC Statement: Comment: CMC 11/19/18 Joint Case Management Statement

Notice

Notice CMC reset from 10-5-18 to 11-9-18: Comment: CMC reset from 10/5/18 to 11/9/18. The parties are ordered to submit a Stipulation to Transfer, or responsive pleadings, on or before 10/31/18.

Proof of Service

POS JCMCS for 10.5.18 (Mas Mac).pdf: Comment: Proof of Service

Statement: Case Management Conference

Joint CMC Statement: Comment: Joint Case Management Statement

Notice

Notice CMC 10-5-18 at 10am in D5: Comment: CMC set for 10/5/18 at 10am in D5

10 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/21/2019
  • Acknowledgement of Receipt: Transfer

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • Receipt: Certified Mail

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2019
  • Notice: Transmittal (Transfer Out) - Comment: to Santa Cruz County.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Conference: Case Management - Joint CMC Statement: Joint CMC Statement: Joint CMC Statement: Judicial Officer: Kuhnle, Thomas; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Cancel Reason: Vacated; Comment: (2nd CMC) Proposed Class Action * Employment * Discovery and responsive pleading deadline stayed, as of 5/8/18, when the case was deemed complex. 1st Amended Complaint filed 5/11/18. The parties are ordered to submit a Stipulation to Transfer, or responsive pleadings, on or before 10/31/18 (extended to 11/16/18).

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice CMC 12-7-18 is vacated by the Court: Comment: CMC set for 12/7/18 is vacated by the Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Stipulation and Order - Stipulation and Order to Transfer Venue to Santa Cruz County: Comment: Stipulation & Order to Transfer Venue to Santa Cruz County - signed/TEK

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service - Proof of Service: Comment: Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Statement: Case Management Conference - Joint CMC Statement: Comment: Joint Case Management Statement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service - Proof of Service: Comment: Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service - POS Ntc Appearance George Lin (Mas Mac).pdf: Comment: Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
16 More Docket Entries
  • 07/06/2018
  • Notice - Comment: Defendants, Mas Mac, Inc., Mas Mac II, Inc. and Mas Mac III, Inc.'s Notice of Appearance

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2018
  • Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - Comment: Mas Mac III

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - One Legal POS summons Mas Mac II (Mas Mac).pdf: Comment: Proof of Service of Summons/Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - One Legal POS summons Mas Mac I (Mas Mac).pdf: Comment: Proof of Service of Summons/Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Complaint: Amended - Complaint First Amended: Comment: First Amended Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Order: Deeming Case Complex - Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading: Comment: Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline signed/TEK

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2018
  • Civil Lawsuit Notice - Comment: 1st CMC set for 8/10/18 at 10am in D5; assigned to Hon. Thomas E. Kuhnle

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2018
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet - Comment: Civil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2018
  • Summons: Issued/Filed - Comment: Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2018
  • Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Comment: Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

18CV327348

Santa Clara - Civil

RICHARD C. ALPERS (SBN 254646) ALPERS LAW GROUP, INC.

PO BOX 1540

APTOS, CA 95001

T: (831) 240-0490

F: (855) 870-1129

rca@ alperslawgroup.com

ILG Legal Office, P.C. Stephen Noel Ilg (SBN 275599) Tracy T. Scanlan (SBN 253930) Frank J. Zeccola (SBN 308875) 505 14™ Street, Ninth Floor Oakland, CA 94612

Tel: (415)580-2574

Fax: (415)735-3454

Email: silg@ilglegal.com Email: tscanlan@ilglegal.com Email: fzeccola@ilglegal.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Estela Magana

Electronically Filed

by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 5/11/2018 4:06 PM Reviewed By: R. Walker Case #18CV327348 Envelope: 1511467

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

Estela Magana, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public,

Plaintiff, VS.

Mas Mac, Inc., a California Corporation, Mas Mac II, Inc., a California Corporation, Mas Mac III, Inc., a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 18CV 327348

CLASSACTION FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTI

1. VIOLATIONOF CHILDIABOR LAWS (Lab. Code §§ 1391, 1288);

2. FAILURE TO COMPENSATE FOR

ALL HOURS WORKED (Lab. Code

§§ 200-204, 216, 223, 225.5, 500, 510,

558, 1197, 1194, 1198; IWC Wage

Orders);

FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME

WAGES (Lab. Code §§ 200-204, 210,

216, 223, 225.5, 500, 510, 558, 1194,

1198; IWC Wage Orders);

FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM

WAGE (Lab. Code §§ 223, 1194 et

seq.);

FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL

AND REST PERIODS (Lab. Code §§ 226.7, 512; IWC Wage Orders);

-1-

7. FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ACCURATE RECORDS (Lab. Code §§ 1174, 1174.5);

8 FAILURE TO FURNISH WAGE

AND HOUR STATEMENIS (Lab. Code §§ 226(e), 226.3);

. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF;

10. PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT (Lab. Code §§ 2698 et seq.);

11. UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.).

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

This Complaint is brought by Plaintiff Estela Magana (“Plaintiff” and/or “Ms. Magana”), on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, against her former employers, Defendants Mas Mac, Inc., Mas Mac I, Inc., and Mas Mac III, Inc. (collectively “Mas Mac”), and DOES 1-100, inclusive (“DOE Defendants”) (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all causes of action. Plaintiff alleges the following:

PLAINITFF

1. At all times material herein, Plaintiff Magana was and is a resident of the State of California, County of Santa Clara. Plaintiff began working for Defendants as a Crew Member in 2017.

2. Plaintiff is currently 18 years old. She began her employment with Defendants on or around A pril 2017, when she was 17 years old.

3. While she was employed with Defendants, Plaintiff attended Freedom Community School in Watsonville, California from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. daily. Plaintiff would work for Defendants after school from 4:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. five days a week. Plaintiff was a minor child the entire time she worked for Defendants.

DEFENDANIS

4, At all times material herein, Defendant Mas Mac, Inc. was and is a California

Corporation registered to do business in the State of California, with its corporate headquarters

located in Watsonville, CA. DefendantQuick Service Restaurant industry. On - information and belief, Defendant Mas Mac operates a chain of McDonald’s restaurants. At all relevant times alleged herein, Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant Mas Mac is authorized to and does conduct business in the State of California in the Quick Service Restaurant industry.

d. At all times material herein, Defendant Mas Mac II, Inc. was and is a California Corporation registered to do business in the State of California, with its corporate headquarters located in Watsonville, CA. DefendantQuick Service Restaurant industry. On information and belief, D efendant Mas Mac operates a chain of McDonald’s. At all relevant times alleged herein, Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant Mas Mac is authorized to and does conduct business in the State of California in the Quick Service Restaurant industry..

6. At all times material herein, Defendant Mas Mac IlI, Inc. was and is a California Corporation registered to do business in the State of California, with its corporate headquarters located in Watsonville, CA. DefendantQuick Service Restaurant industry. On information and belief, D efendant Mas Mac operates a chain of McDonald’s. At all relevant times alleged herein, Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant Mas Mac is authorized to and does conduct business in the State of California in the Quick Service Restaurant industry.

7. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that, within the Class Period, Defendants conducted business within the Quick Service Restaurant industry. In so doing, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals in recent years alone who qualify to participate as a Class Member in this action.

8. The defendants identified as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, were, at all times herein-mentioned, agents, business affiliates, successors- and/or predecessors-in-interest, officers, directors, partners, and/or managing agents of some or each of the remaining defendants. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, on that basis, alleges that, at all times herein-mentioned, each of the defendants identified as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, employed, and/or exercised control over the conditions of Plaintiff and Class Members which led to the instant lawsuit and which are described herein. In doing the acts herein alleged, each Defendant is liable and

responsible to Plaintiff and Class Members for the acts of every other Defendant. The true names

-3-

9. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, unless otherwise indicated, each Defendant was the agent and/or employee of every other Defendant within the course and scope of said agency and/or employment, with the knowledge and/or consent of said Defendant.

10. Totheextent any allegation contradicts another allegation, they are to be construed as “alternative” theories.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11. This Court is the proper Court, and this action is properly filed in the County of Santa Clara for the Superior Court of California, because D efendants Mas Mac transacts business within this county. Plaintiff and Class Members suffered damages resulting from the legal violations that are the subject of this Complaint in the County of Santa Clara.

12. Atall times material herein, Plaintiff Magana was and is a resident of the State of California, County of Santa Clara.

13. This Court has jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ claims for damages, interest thereon, related penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, restitution of ill-gotten benefits arising from Defendants’ unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business practices, and attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to, inter alia., California Business and Professions Code sections 17200-17208, and the statutes cited herein.

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

14. Pursuant to California Labor Code section 2699.5, Plaintiff has exhausted all administrative remedies and satisfied all private, administrative and judicial prerequisites to the institution of this action, insofar as such prerequisites pertain to Plaintiff’s cause of action brought et seq. Plaintiff has complied with the procedures for bringing suit specified in California Labor Code section 2699.3. Plaintiff has given written notice, by certified mail, to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) and to Defendants of the specific provisions of the California Labor Code alleged to have been violated, including the facts and theories to support those violations. More than 65 days have passed, and no response has been received from the LWDA. Accordingly, Plaintiff has satisfied all prerequisites to pursing PAGA claims.

15. Plaintiff has satisfied all private, administrative and judicial prerequisites to the institution of this action.

16. The California Workers’ Compensation A ct does not preempt this action because Defendants’ unlawful practices, as alleged herein, are not risks or conditions of employment. Plaintiff is not required to satisty any further private, administrative, or judicial prerequisites to the institution of this action, insofar as such prerequisites pertain to any of the remaining causes of action in this complaint.

FACTS REGARDING PLAINITFF'S CLASS ACTION CAUSES OF ACTION

17. All policies and practices described herein were in place at all of Defendants’ business locations in California. As such, all members of the classes were subject to these same unlawful policies and practices in violation of California law. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants knowingly engaged in the unlawful acts alleged herein, thereby enjoying a significant competitive edge over other companies within its industry. In many, if not all cases, these common practices have led to willful violations of California and federal law, entitling Plaintiff and Class Members to a recovery, pursuant to, inter alia, the statutes cited herein.

18. Plaintiff and Class Members were minor children, attending school, while employed by Defendants.

19. Plaintiff and Class Members were employed to work more than four days a day on schooldays.

20. Plaintiff and Class Members were employed to work before 5:00 a.m. or after

10:00 p.m. on days preceding schooldays.

-5-

22. Plaintiff and Class Members were not paid for overtime hours despite routinely and consistently working more than 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week.

23. Instead, Plaintiff and Class Members were paid the same “salary” regardless of the number of hours actually worked. Defendants’ policy and practice of not maintaining time records for its employees violates California law on its face. Defendants’ failure to record hours also resulted in substantial off-the-work, including overtime hours, since employees were required to work shifts in excess of 8 hours per day and sometimes in excess of 12 hours per day. Defendants’ failure to pay for all hours worked, including overtime hours, resulted in part from Defendants’ failure to record all hours worked. Defendants’ failure to pay for all hours worked, including overtime hours, resulted in payroll records such as wage statements that were not accurate or legally compliant, in violation of California Labor Code sections 226 and/or 1174(d).

24, Plaintiff and Class Members were not consistently authorized or permitted to take meal and rest breaks as required by California law. Pursuant to California law, an employee is entitled to one ten-minute rest period if required to work at least three and one-half hours, two ten-minute rest periods if required to work more than six hours, and three ten-minute rest periods if required to work more than ten hours. Pursuant to California law, an employee is entitled to one thirty-minute meal period if required to work at least five hours and two thirty-minute meal periods if required to work at least ten hours. Defendants did not consistently provide the meal and rest periods to which Plaintiff and Class Members were entitled because business needs took precedence, routinely interfering with her breaks. If Plaintiff or Class Members failed to address business needs at any time, including during breaks, they were subject to discipline, up to and including termination. Despite these policies and practices, Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that Defendants have not paid missed meal or rest period premiums to Plaintiff or Class Members. Defendants failed to provide meal and rest periods and failed to make premium payments to Plaintiff and Class Members for missed meal and rest breaks. Defendants’ failure to

record all breaks and failure to pay applicable premiums, resulted in part from Defendants’ failure

-6-

25. Even after Plaintiff or Class Members were terminated or voluntarily resigned, Defendants refused to pay owed wages despite California Labor Code sections 201-204, inclusive. More than 30 days has passed since certain individuals left Defendants’ employ, entitling those individuals to the maximum penalties.

26. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and as a class action on behalf of the following Employee Class:

All employees who worked for Mas Mac, while they were minors (under 18 years of age), in the State of California at any time on or after the date that is four years

prior to when the Complaint was filed.

Class Members can be identified through Defendants’ records including employee timekeeping and payroll records.

27. Defendants and their officers and directors are excluded from any class defined in the preceding paragraphs.

28. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action under California Code of Civil Procedure section because there is a well-defined community of interest in the litigation and the proposed Classes are easily ascertainable. The Class and subclass

defined herein satisty all class action requirements:

a. Numerosity: A class action is the only available method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. The members of the Plaintiff Classes are so numerous that %'oinder of all members is impractical, if not impossible, insofar as Plaintiff is informed and believes and, on that basis, alleges that the total number of Class Members is, at least, in the hundreds, if not thousands of individuals. Membership in the Classes will be

determined by and upon analysis of records maintained by Defendants.

o} Commonality: Plaintiff and Class Members share a community of interests in that there are numerous common questions and issues of fact and law

-7-

1) Whether Defendants violated one or more of California’s Wage Orders, the California Labor Code and/or California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq. by failing to pay all wages due to Plaintiff and Class Members;

W hether Defendants violated one or more of California’s Wage Orders, the California Labor Code and/or California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq. by failing to pay overtime wages due to Plaintiff and Class Members;

Whether Defendants violated and/or continues to violate, California Labor Code section 1174 by failing to keep accurate records of Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ hours of work:

Whether Defendants violated, and continues to violate California Labor Code sections 201-204 by failing to pay all wages due and owing at the time particular Class Members’ employment with D efendants terminated,;

Whether Defendants violated California Labor Code section 227.3 by failing to pay Plaintiff and Class Members for the value of their accrued but unused PTO on termination;

Whether Defendants violated and/or continues to violate California Labor Code section 226 by failing to provide semi- monthly itemized wage statements to Plaintiff and Class Members of total hours worked and all applicable hourly rates in effect during each relevant pay period.

Whether Defendants violated and/or continues to violate California Labor Code section 1194 by failing to pay minimum wage;

TFQicaligg: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of Class Members. Plaintiff and Class M embers sustained injuries and damages arising out of and caused by Defendants’ common course of conduct in violation of state law, as alleged herein.

Superiority of Class Action: Since the damages suffered by individual Class Members, while not inconsequential, may be relatively small, the expense and burden of individual litigation by each member makes, or may make it, impractical for Class Members to seek redress individually for the wrongful conduct alleged herein. Should separate actions be brought or be required to be brought by each individual Class Member, the resulting multiplicity of lawsuits would cause undue hardship and expense for the Court and the litigants. The prosecution of separate actions would also create a risk of inconsistent rulings, which might be dispositive of the interests of other Class Members who are not parties to the adjudications and/or may substantially impede their ability to adequately protect their interests.

A dequacy of Representation: Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Plaintiff Classes, in that Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of Class Members, and Plaintiff has the same interests in the litigation of this case as Class Members. Plaintiff is committed to vigorous prosecution of this case and has retained competent counsel experienced in litigation of this nature. Plaintiff is not subject to any individual defenses unique from those

DO N—

o N—

=

o1

~—~—

&)

~ N conceivably zapplicable to the class as a whole. Plaintiff anticipates no management ditficulties in this litigation.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF CHILD LABOR LAWS

(Lab. Code §§ 1391, 1288) (On behalf of Plaintiff and all Class Members against all D efendants)

29. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein.

30. Labor Code section 1391 makes it unlawful for an employer to employ a minor between the agesmore than four hours on a day when school is in session.

31. Labor Code section 1391 makes it unlawful for an employer to employ a minor between the ages of 16 or 17 years of age for more than eight hourshours or more than 48 hours in one week, or before 5 a.m., or after 10 p.m. on any day preceding a schoolday. On evenings preceding a nonschoolday, minors may be employed until 12:30 a.m. of the nonschoolday.

32. Labor Code section 1288 prescribes penalties for the violation of Labor Code section 1391.

33. As alleged throughout this complaint, Defendants consistently employed minors in violation of Labor Code sections 1391 and 1288.

34. Defendants employed Plaintiff and Class Members over four hours a day on schooldays.

35. Defendants employed Plaintiff and Class Members for more than eight hours in one day and/or 48 hours in one week.

36. Defendants employed Plaintiff and Class Members before 5:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. on days preceding schooldays.

37. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, as set forth herein, Plaintiff and Class Members have sustained damages in an amount to be established at trial.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO COMPENSATE FOR ALL HOURS WORKED -0-

38. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein.

39. D efendants were required to compensate Plaintiff and Class Members forall hours worked pursuant to the Industrial Welfare Commission Order 1-2001, California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Chapter 5, Section 11070 and Labor Code sections 200-204, 225.5, 500, 510, 558 1197, 1198.

40. Labor Code section 1194 invalidates any agreement between an employer and an employee to work for less than the minimum or overtime wage required under the applicable Wage Orders.

41. Labor Code section 1194.2 entitles non-exempt employees to recover liquidated damages in amounts equal to the amounts of unpaid minimum wages and interest thereon in addition to the underlying unpaid minimum wages and interest.

42. Labor Code section 1197 makes it unlawful for an employer to pay an employee less than the minimum wage required under the applicable Wage Orders for all hours worked.

43. Labor Code section 1197.1 provides that it is unlawful for any employer or any other person acting either individually or as an officer, agent, or employee of another person, to pay an employee, or cause an employee to be paid, less than the applicable minimum wage.

44, Labor Code section 223 provides, “Where any statute or contract requires an employer to maintain the designated wage scale, it shall be unlawful to secretly pay a lower wage while purporting to pay the wage designated by statute or by contract.

45, Plaintiff and Class Members routinely performed work “off-the-clock.” Thus, Defendants are liable for an additional violation to the extent Defendants are in fact secretly paying less than the designated wage scale.

46. As alleged throughout this Complaint, Defendants failed to track their hours

worked and refused to compensate Plaintiff and Class Members for some and/or all of the wages

-10-

47. Atall relevant times, D efendants were aware of, and were under a duty to comply with the wage and overtime provisions of the California Labor Code, including, but not limited to California Labor Code sections 200-204, 216, 225.5, 500, 510, 558 1197, 1198. Plaintiff and Class Members are not exempt from the requirements of the Employment Laws and Regulations. Plaintiff and Class Members have been deprived of her rightfully earned compensation as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ failure and refusal to pay said compensation. Under California employment laws and regulations, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to recover compensation for all hours worked, in addition to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit.

48. Labor Code section 216 provides, “In addition to any other penalty imposed by this article, any person, or an agent, manager, superintendent, or officer thereof is guilty of a misdemeanor, who: (a) Having the ability to pay, willfully refuses to pay wages due and payable after demand has been made. (b) Falsely denies the amount or validity thereof, or that the same is due, with intent to secure for himself, his employer or other person, any discount upon such indebtedness, or with intent to annoy, harass, oppress, hinder, delay, or defraud, the person to whom such indebtedness is due.”

49. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, as set forth herein, Plaintiff and Class Members have sustained damages, including loss of earnings for hours worked, including overtime hours worked, on behalf of Defendants, in an amount to be established at trial, and are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES

(Lab. Code §8§ 200-204, 210, 216, 223, 225.5, 500, 510, 558, 1194, 1198; IWC Wage Orders) (On behalf of Plaintiff and all Class Members against all D efendants)

50. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action each and every allegation of the

preceding paragraphs, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein.

-11-

52. Labor Code section 510 defines a day’s work s 8 hours and states that any work in excess of 8 hours in one workday and any work in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek must be compensated at the rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1194(a), a plaintiff may bring a civil action for overtime wages to recover wages, interest, penalties, attorney’s fees and costs.

53. Plaintiff and Class Members are not exempt from receiving overtime compensation. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants treated Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons as exempt from the right to be paid overtime hours.

54. Defendants required Plaintiff and Class Members to work in excess of 8 hours per day, and/orin excess of 40 hours per week. Defendants misclassified Plaintiff and Class Members as exempt from California’s overtime laws. Defendants did so despite the fact that Plaintiff and Class Members did not meet the exemption criteria because, among other things, Plaintiff and Class Members, were not employees exempt from the right to overtime because, inter alia, they were not primarily engaged in the management of the enterprise in which they are/were employed or of a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof, were not customarily and regularly directing the work of at least two other full-time employees or the equivalent, did not have authority to hire other employees, did not have the authority to fire other employees, did not customarily and regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment, and spent less than fifty percent of their time engaged in managerial work. Furthermore, Plaintiff and Class Members were not independent contractors because, inter alia, they did not have the freedom to choose how to perform tasks, Defendants had authority to control how tasks were performed, and Defendants were not engaged in a distinct business from Defendants and, instead, performed the very tasks

that are the core of Defendants’ business.

-12-

56. As auniform practice, Defendants failed to keep the records of hours worked by its employees as required by California’s wage orders. However, records of the rates of pay for Plaintiff and Class Members are in the possession or within Defendants’ custody and control.

57. Plaintiff and Class Members were entitled to receive one-and-one half times the hourly wage for each hour worked past 8 hours in one day, one-and-one half times the hourly wage for each hour worked past 40 hours in one week, and twice the hourly wage for each hour worked past 12 hourshours over 8 during her seventh consecutive day of work in one week.

58. In many instances, Plaintiff and Class Members were entitled to twice her reqular rate of pay for the work performed, as Plaintiff and Class Members were often (1) working shifts that lasted more than 12 hours in length or (2) working shifts for Defendants of 8 hours or more on a seventh consecutive day of work.

59. Atall relevant times, Defendants were aware of, and were under a duty to comply with the wage and overtime provisions of the California Labor Code, including, but not limited to California Labor Code sections 200 et seq., 510, 1194 and 1198 and IWC wage orders. As a consequence, Defendants are subject to all applicable penalties, the exact amount to be proven at trial.

60. Defendants violated Labor Code section 204 when they failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members minimum wage and failed to pay all wages earned for labor in excess of the normal work period no later thannext regular payroll period. A s a consequence for violating Labor Code section 204, Defendants are subject to all applicable penalties including those specified pursuant to Labor Code section 210. The exact amount of the applicable penalties will be proven at trial.

6l. Labor Code section 223 provides, “Where any statute or contract requires an

employer to maintain the designated wage scale, it shall be unlawful to secretly pay a lower wage

13-

62. Labor Code section 216 provides, “In addition to any other penalty imposed by this article, any person, or an agent, manager, superintendent, or officer thereof is guilty of a misdemeanor, who: (a) Having the ability to pay, willfully refuses to pay wages due and payable after demand has been made. (b) Falsely denies the amount or validity thereof, or that the same is due, with intent to secure for himself, his employer or other person, any discount upon such indebtedness, or with intent to annoy, harass, oppress, hinder, delay, or defraud, the person to whom such indebtedness is due.”

63. During the last four years, and at all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants intentionally refused to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and Class Members in order to receive an economic benefit in violation of Labor Code section 216. As a consequence for violating Labor Code section 216, Defendants are subject to all applicable civil penalties including those specified pursuant to Labor Code section 225.5. The exact amount of the applicable penalties will be proven at trial.

064. Atall times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants were and are the employers of Plaintiff and Class M embers within the meaning of Labor Code section 558 and violated or caused to be violated a provision or provisions of Part 2, Chapter 1, of the Labor Code regulating hours and days of work and, as such, are liable to each Class Member for each such violation as set forth in Labor Code section 558, in addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages. The exact amount of the applicable penalties will be proven at trial.

65. Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to interest on all due and unpaid wages pursuant to Labor Code section 218.6.

66. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1194, Plaintiff and Class Members seek to recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount of the unpaid overtime compensation,

including interest thereon, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.

-14-

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGE

(Lab. Code §§ 223, 1194 et seq.) (On behalf of Plaintiff and all Class Members against all D efendants)

67. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 68. Atall relevant times, Defendants were aware of and were under a duty to comply with California Labor Code section 1194 et seq. 69. California Labor Code section 1194(a) in relevant part provides: Notwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage, any employee receiving less than the legal minimum wage or the legal overtime compensation applicable to the employee is entitled to recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount of

this minimum wage or overtime compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.

70. Moreover, California Labor Code section 1197 provides:

The minimum wage for employees fixed by the commission is the minimum wage to be paid to employees, and the payment of a less wage than the minimum so fixed is unlawful.

71. Finally, California Labor Code section 1194.2(a) provides:

In any action under Section 1193.6 or Section 1194 to recover wages because of the payment of a wage less than the minimum wage fixed by an order of the commission, an employee shall be entitled to recover liquidated damages in an amount equal to the wages unlawfully unpaid and interest thereon.

72. Labor Code section 223 provides, “Where any statute or contract requires an employer to maintain the designated wage scale, it shall be unlawful to secretly pay a lower wage while purporting to pay the wage designated by statute or by contract. Plaintiff and Class Members routinely performed work “off-the-clock.” Thus, Defendants are liable for an additional violation to the extent Defendants are in fact secretly paying less than the designated wage scale.

73. During the Class Period, Defendants employed Plaintiff and Class Members, each

of whom did not receive the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked on D efendants’

-15-

74, As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, as set forth herein, Plaintiff and Class Members have sustained damages, including loss of earnings for hours worked on behalf of Defendants, in an amount to be established at trial, and are entitled to recover attormeys’ fees and costs of suit.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL AND REST PERIODS

(Lab. Code §§ 226.7, 512; IWC Wage Orders) (On behalf of Plaintiff and all Class Members against all D efendants)

75. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein.

76. Atall relevant times, Defendants were aware of and were under a duty to comply with California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512 and applicable sections of the IWC Wage Order.

77. California Labor Code section 226.7 provides:

No employer shall require any employee to work during any meal or rest period mandated by an applicable order of the Industrial W elfare Commission.

If an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period or rest period in accordance with an applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, the employer shall pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each work day that the meal or rest period is not provided.

78. Moreover, California Labor Code section 512 provides:

An employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more than five hours per day without providing the employee with a meal period of not less than 30 minutes, except that if the total work period per day of the employee is no more than six hours, the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of both the employer and employee. An employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more than 10 hours per day without providing the employee with a second meal period of not less than 30 minutes, except that if the total hours worked is no more than 12 hours, the second meal period may be waived by mutual consent of the

-16-

79. Section 11 of the applicable Wage Order provides:

a. No employer shall employ any person for a work period of more than five (5) hours without a meal period of not less than 30 minutes....

b. An employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more than ten (10) hours per day without

roviding the employee with a second meal period of not ess than 30 minutes....

C. If an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period in accordance with the applicable provisions of this order, the employer shall pay the employee one (1) hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal period is not provided.

80. Moreover, section 12 of the applicable Wage Order provides:

a. Every employer shall authorize and permit all employees to take rest Per.iods, which insofar as practicable shall be in the middle of each work period. The authorized rest period time shall be based on the total hours worked daily at the rate of ten (10) minutes net rest time per four (4) hours or major fraction thereof ....

b. If an employer fails to provide an employee a rest period in accordance with the applicable provisions of this order, the employer shall pay the employee one (1) hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday that the rest period is not provided.

81. Defendants routinely required Plaintiff and Class Members to work at least three and one-half hours without a rest period of at least 10 minutes and failed to compensate the Plaintiff and Class Members for said missed rest periods, as required by California Labor Code sections 226.7 and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

82. Defendants routinely required Plaintiff and Class Members to work more than six hours without a second rest period of at least 10 minutes and failed to compensate Plaintiff and Class Members for said missed rest periods, as required by California Labor Code sections 226.7 and Industrial Welfare Commission W age Orders.

83. Defendants routinely required Plaintiff and Class Members to work more than ten hours without a third rest period of at least 10 minutes and failed to compensate the Plaintiff and Class Members for said missed rest periods, as required by California Labor Code sections 226.7 and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

-17-

85. Defendants routinely required Plaintiff and Class Members to work more than ten hours without a second meal period of at least 30 minutes and failed to compensate the Plaintiff and Class Members for said missed meal periods, as required by California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512, and Industrial W elfare Commission W age Orders.

86. By requiring Plaintiff and Class members to attend to business and failing to consistently (1) provide meal breaks within the first five hours of a work shift, (2) provide uninterrupted thirty-minute meal periods, and/or (3) authorize and permit ten-minute rest periods to Class Members, Defendants violated the California Labor Code and sectionsapplicable IWC Wage Order.

87. Even where Defendants’ records specifically evidence that no meal and/or rest periods were provided to Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendants refuse to provide these employees with one hour of compensation for these respective violations as mandated by California law. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, on that basis, alleges that D efendants have never paid the one hour of compensation to any worker.

88. Plaintiff and Class Members are not exempt from the meal and rest period requirements of the aforementioned Employment Laws and Regulations.

89. Plaintiff and Class Members did not willfully waive, through mutual consent with Defendants, any such meal and rest periods.

90. Defendants did not pay premium payments to Plaintiff or Class Members for missed meal periods. Similarly, Defendants did not pay premium payments to Plaintiff or Class Members for missed rest periods.

91. Plaintiff and Class Members have been deprived of her rightfully eamed compensation for rest periods as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ failure and refusal

to pay said compensation. Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to recover such amounts

-18-

92. Plaintiff and Class Members have been deprived of her rightfully earmed compensation for meal periods as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ failure and refusal to pay said compensation. Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to recover such amounts pursuant to California Labor Code section 226.7(b), plus interest thereon, attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.

93. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, as set forth herein, Plaintiff and Class Members have sustained damages, including lost compensation resulting from missed meal and/or rest periods, in an amount to be established at trial. A s a further direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, as set forth herein, certain Class Members are entitled to recover “waiting time” and other penalties, in an amount to be established

at trial, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs, and restitution, pursuant to statute.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PAY FINAL WAGES ONTIME

(Lab. Code §§ 201-204) (On behalf of Plaintiff and all Class Members against all D efendants)

94. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein.

95. California Labor Code section 201 provides that all earned and unpaid wages of an employee who is discharged are due and payable immediately at the time of discharge. Section 202 provides that all earned and unpaid wages of an employee who resigns are due and payable immediately if the employee provided at least seventy-two hours’ notice; otherwise, wages of an employee who resigns are due within seventy-two hours of resignation.

96. Atall relevant times herein, Defendants failed to implement a policy and practice to pay Plaintiff and Class Members accrued wages and other compensation due immediately upon termination or within seventy-two hours of resignation, as required by the California Labor Code.

As a result, Class Members whose employment has ended have not been paid all compensation

-10-

97. Defendant willfully failed to pay all final wages on time.

98. Defendants willfully failed to pay all final wages to involuntarily terminated employees at the time of discharge even though California Labor Code section 201 requires that employers provide immediate payment of all final wages at the time of termination.

99. Defendants willfully failed to pay all final wages on time to employees who voluntarily resigned. Defendants were made aware of each terminated employee’s preference with respect to an election of whether to receive final wages by tender in person or by delivery. Those who elected to receive tender in person were present at the workplace to collect payment. A ccordingly, California Labor Code section 202 has been satisfied.

100. Plaintiff and Class Members are not exempt from these requirements of the Employment Laws and Regulations.

101. Based on Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein, D efendants are liable for statutory penalties pursuant to California Labor Code section 203 and other applicable provision of the Employment Laws and Regulations in amounts to be established at trial, as well as attorneys’ fees

and costs, pursuant to statute.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ACCURATE RECORDS

(Lab. Code §§ 1174, 1174.5) (On behalf of Plaintiff and all Class Members against all D efendants)

102. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein.

103. California Labor Code section 1174(d) provides:

Every person employing labor in this state shall ... [k]eep, at a central location in the state ... payroll records showing the hours worked daily by and the wages paid to ... employees.... These records shall be kept in accordance with rules established for this purpose by the commission, but in any case shall be kept on file for not less than two years.

220-

105. Plaintiff and Class Members were injured by Defendants’ failure to maintain accurate records, because, as alleged above, Plaintiff and Class Members did not receive pay for all hours worked, and thus suffered monetary damages due to Defendants’ policies described above.

106. Plaintiff and Class Members are not exempt from the requirements of the Employment Laws and Regulations.

107. Based on Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein, Defendants are liable for damages and statutory penalties pursuant to California Labor Code sections 1174, 1174.5, and other applicable provisions of the Employment Laws and Regulations in amounts to be established at

trial, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to statute.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO FURNISH WAGE AND HOUR STATEMENIS

(Lab. Code §§ 226(e), 226.3) (On behalf of Plaintiff and all Class Members against all D efendants)

108. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein.

109. California Labor Code section 226(a) provides:

Every employer shall, semimonthly or at the time of each payment of wages, furnish each of her employees, either as a detachable part of the check, draft, or voucher paying the employee’s wages, or separately when wages are paid by personal check or cash, an accurate itemized statement in writing showing (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee, except for any employee whose compensation is solely based on a salary and who is exempt from payment of overtime under subdivision (a) of Section 515 or any applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, (3) the number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece rate if the employee is paid on a piece-rate basis, (4) all deductions, provided that all deductions made on written orders of the employee may be aggregated and shown as one item, (5) net wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the name of the employee and her social security number, except that by January 1, 2008, only the last four digits of her social security number or an employee identification number other

=2 1=

110. California Labor Code section 226(e)(1) provides:

An employee suffering injury as a result of a knowing and intentional failure by an employer to comply with subdivision (a) is entitled to recover the greater of all actual damages or fifty dollars ($50) for the initial pay period in which a violation occurs and one hundred dollars ($100) per employee for each violation in a subsequent pay period, not to exceed an aggregate penalty of four thousand dollars ($4,000), and is entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.

111. California Labor Code section 226(e)(2) provides:

(A) An employee is deemed to suffer injury for purposes of this subdivision if the employer fails to provide a wage statement.

(B) An employee is deemed to suffer injury for purposes of this subdivision if the employer fails to provide accurate and complete information as required by any one or more of items (1) to (9), inclusive, of subdivision (a) and the employee cannot promptly and easily determine from the wage statement alone one or more of the following:

(1) The amount of the gross wages or net wages paid to the employee during the pay period or any of the other information required to be provided on the itemized wage statement pursuant to items (2) to (4), inclusive, (6), and (9) of subdivision (a).

(i1) Which deductions the employer made from gross wages to determine the net wages paid to the employee during the pay period. Nothing in this subdivision alters the ability of the employer to aggregate deductions consistent with the requirements of item (4) of subdivision (a).

(iii) The name and address of the employer and, if the employer is a farm labor contractor, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1682, the name and address of the legal entity that secured the services of the employer during the pay period. (iv) The name of the employee and only the last four digits of her social security number or an employee identification number other than a social security number.

112. California Labor Code section 1174(d) provides:

Every person employing labor in this state shall . . . [k]eep, at a central location in the state . . . payroll records showing the hours worked daily by and the wages paid

to . . . employees employed at the respective plants or establishments. These records shall be kept in accordance with rules established for this purpose by the -7 commission, but in any case shall be kept on file for not less than three years. An employer shall not prohibit an employee from maintaining a personal record of hours worked, or, if paid on a piece-rate basis, piece-rate units eamed.

113. Defendants knowingly failed to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with timely and accurate wage and hour statements showing the inclusive dates of the pay period, gross wages earned, total hours worked, all deductions made, net wages earned, the name and address of the legal entity employing them, all applicable hourly rates in effect during each pay period, and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate. Plaintiff and Class Members in fact never received accurate wage statements at all, as Defendants did not employ a timekeeping system that actually tracked all hours their workers worked.

114. Plaintiff and Class Members were injured by Defendants’ failure to provide accurate wage statements, because, as alleged above, Plaintiff and Class Members could not determine whether they were paid properly and/or did not receive pay for all hours worked, and thus suffered monetary damages due to Defendants’ policies described above.

115. Plaintiff and Class Members are not exempt from the requirements of the Employment Laws and Regulations.

116. Based on Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein, D efendants are liable for damages and statutory penalties pursuant to California Labor Code section 226, and other applicable provisions of the Employment Laws and Regulations and other applicable provisions of the Employment Laws and Regulations in amounts to be established at trial, as well as attorneys’ fees

and costs, pursuant to statute.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

117. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein.

118. Asaresult of the unlawful and wrongful conduct alleged above, in the absence of injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from employing minors in violation of Labor Code

sections 1391 and 1288, Plaintiff has been and will continue to be irreparably harmed.

2)3-

injunctive relief, and Plaintiff has a reasonable probability of success on the merits.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION LABOR CODE PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT

(Lab. Code §§ 2698 et seq.) (On behalf of Plaintiff and all Class Members against all D efendants)

119. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein.

120. Plaintiff provided written notice by certified mail to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency of the specific provisions of this code alleged to have been violated as required by Labor Code section 2699.3. More than thirty-three days have passed with no response. A's a result, Plaintiff may now commence a civil action pursuant to Labor Code section 2699.

121. The policies, acts and practices heretofore described violate the applicable Labor Code sections listed in Labor Code section 2699.5 and thereby give rise to statutory penalties as a result of such conduct. Plaintiff and Class Members, as aggrieved employees, hereby seek recovery of civil penalties as prescribed by the Labor Code Private A ttorney General A ct of 2004 on behalf of themselves and all other aggrieved employees against whom one or more of the aforementioned violations of the Labor Code was committed and other applicable provisions of the Employment Laws and Regulations in amounts to be established at trial, as well as attorneys’

fees and costs, pursuant to statute.

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES

(Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.) (On behalf of Plaintiff and all Class Members against all D efendants)

122. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein.

123. Plaintiff brings this cause of action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.

124. Defendants’ violations of California law, including Defendants’ violations of the violation of California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq because they were done repeatedly, over a significant period of time, and in a systematic manner to the detriment of Plaintiff and Class Members.

125. In addition, Plaintiff brings this cause of action seeking equitable and statutory relief to stop Defendants’ misconduct, as complained of herein, and to seek restitution of the amounts Defendants acquired through the unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices described herein.

126. Defendants’ knowing conduct, as alleged herein, constitutes an unlawful and/or fraudulent business practice, as set forth in California Business and Professions Code sections 17200-17208. Specifically, D efendants conducted business activities while failing to comply with the legal mandates cited herein.

127. Asaresult of Defendants’ unfair business practices, D efendants have reaped unfair benefits at Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ expense.

128. Defendants’ business practices were unfair as set forth herein, providing an independent basis to support this claim.

129. Defendants’ business practices were also fraudulent, as set forth herein, providing yet another independent basis to support the claim.

130. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that the fictitious Defendants named as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, aided, abetted, incited, compelled, coerced, or conspired to commit one or more of the acts alleged in this Cause of A ction.

131. Defendants have clearly established a policy of accepting a certain amount of collateral damage as incidental to its business operations, rather than accepting the alternative costs of full compliance with fair, lawful, and honest business practices, ordinarily borne by its responsible competitors and as set forth in legislation and the judicial record. Defendants’ policy is confirmed by Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ damages as herein alleged.

132. Defendants’ unfair business practices entitle Plaintiff and Class Members to seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and other restitutionary relief, including but not

limited to orders that Defendants account for and restore unlawfully withheld compensation to

-)5-

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all issues and causes of action.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the following forms of relief on behalf of all others similarly situated:

1. Certification of this action as a class action on behalf of the classes defined herein and designation of Plaintiff as representative of the classes and her counsel as counsel for the classes;

2. For penalties pursuant to all provisions of the Labor Code referenced herein which

provide for penalties as a result of the conduct alleged herein;

3. For costs of suit incurred herein and attorneys’ fees pursuant to the statutes cited herein;

4, For compensatory damages;

5. Compensation for all hours worked but not paid;

0. For general damages in amounts according to proof and in no event in an amount

less than the jurisdictional limit of this court;

7. For special damages according to proof;

8. For punitive damages where allowed by law;

9. For restitution of all monies due to Plaintiff from the unlawful business practices of Defendants;

10. For injunctive relief; 11. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law; and

12. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

-26-

ALPERS LAW GROUP, INC. Signed: May 11th, 2018 ILG Legal Office, P.C.

Stephen Noel Ilg, Esq Attorneys for Plaintiffs

2)7-