This case was last updated from Santa Clara County Superior Courts on 04/20/2020 at 21:09:20 (UTC).

Gaytan v. Samaritan, LLC

Case Summary

On 09/26/2018 Gaytan filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against Samaritan, LLC. This case was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Courts, Downtown Superior Court located in Santa Clara, California. The Judge overseeing this case is Walsh, Brian C. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ******5311

  • Filing Date:

    09/26/2018

  • 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

Gaytan, Rebecca

Defendant

Samaritan, LLC

Not Classified By Court

Superior Court of California

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Haines, Walter L

Shkodnik, Roman

Yeremian, David Harmik

Defendant Attorneys

Habib, Hilary Ann

Hamilton, Melanie Maureen

Kearnaghan, Jason Wade

Simmons, Richard J

Not Classified By Court Attorney

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

 

Court Documents

Declaration

Roman Shkodnik Declaration HRG 2-8-19: Comment: HRNG 02/08/19 Declaration of Roman Shkodnik in Support of Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

Motion: Leave

Motion Leave to File First Amended Complaint HRG 2-8-19: Comment: HRNG 02/08/19 Notice of Motion and Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

Notice: Entry of Order

Notice Entry of Order: Comment: Notice of Order Deeeming Case Complex and Setting CMC

Notice

Notice CMC reset from 1-11-19 to 1-18-19: Comment: CMC reset from 1/11/19 to 1/18/19

Answer (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

Answer to Complaint: Comment: Answer to Plaintiff Rebecca Gaytan's Unverified 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

2203856-01_546CIVILC: Comment: COMPLEX

Summons: Issued/Filed

Summons Issued Filed:

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies):

Statement: Case Management Conference

Joint CMC Statement HRG 12-20-19: Comment: Joint Case Management Statement

Conference: Case Management

Joint CMC Statement HRG 11-15-19: CV-5100 HRG 11-15-19: Minutes Non-Criminal: Judicial Officer: Walsh, Brian C; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Result: Held; Comment: (4th CMC)

Separate Statement

Separate Statement: Comment: Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Compliance as to Requests for Production of Documents

Separate Statement

Separate Statement: Comment: Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Requests for Production of Documents

Motion: Compel

Motion Compel Further Responses (Request for Production) HRG 12-20-19: Comment: HRG 12/20/19 Notice of Motion to Compel Requests for Production of Documents

Notice

Notice IDC reset from 8-20-19 to 9-16-19 at 330pm in D1: Comment: Informal Discovery Conference reset from 8/20/19 to 9/16/19 at 3:30pm in D1

Declaration

Roman Shkodnik Declaration: Comment: Declaration of Roman Shkodnik in Support of Motion to Compel Requests for Production and Special Interrogatories

Separate Statement

Separate Statement: Comment: Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Request for Production

Notice

Notice CMC 11-15-19 at 10am in D1: Comment: CMC set for 11/15/19 at 10am in D1

52 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/14/2020
  • DocketConference: Case Management - Judicial Officer: Walsh, Brian C; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Comment: (6th CMC) Proposed Wage and Hour Class Action. Discovery and responsive pleading deadline stayed, as of 10/18/18, when the case was deemed complex. Samaritan LLC's Answer to Complaint filed 10/29/18. First Amended Class Action Complaint filed 3/15/19; response thereto due by 4/15/19. Stay on discovery was lifted on 3/15/19 (in phasing - as to merits and class certification).

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2020
  • DocketMinute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketMotion: Compel - Notice of Taking Plaintiff's MTC Off Calendar HRG 2-14-20: Judicial Officer: Walsh, Brian C; Hearing Time: 9:00 AM; Cancel Reason: Vacated; Comment: [Reset from 12/20/19, by Stipulation & Order] Motions by Plaintiff Rebecca Gaytan to Compel Defendant Samaritan, LLC's Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $2,160

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketNotice - Notice of Taking Plaintiff's MTC Off Calendar HRG 2-14-20: Comment: Notice of Taking Motion to Compel RFP Off Calendar

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/24/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketNotice - Notice CMC 4-24-20 at 10am in D1: Comment: CMC set for 4/24/20 at 10am in D1

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketConference: Case Management - Joint CMC Statement HRG 12-20-19: CV-5100 HRG 12-20-19: Judicial Officer: Walsh, Brian C; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Result: Held; Comment: (5th CMC)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketMotion: Compel - Notice Motion Taken Off Calendar HRG 12-20-19: Stipulation and Order to Continue Hearing on Motion to Compel RFP: Judicial Officer: Walsh, Brian C; Hearing Time: 9:00 AM; Cancel Reason: Vacated; Comment: Motions by Plaintiff Rebecca Gaytan to (1) Compel Defendant Samaritan, LLC's Compliance to Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, in the amount of $2,160; (2) Compel Defendant Samaritan, LLC's Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the amount of $2,160; (3) Compel Defendant Samaritan, LLC's Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $2,160

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketStipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore - CV-5100 HRG 12-20-19: Comment: HRG 12/20/19 - signed/BCW

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/09/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketStatement: Case Management Conference - Joint CMC Statement HRG 12-20-19: Comment: Joint Case Management Statement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/09/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketStipulation and Order - Stipulation and Order to Continue Hearing on Motion to Compel RFP: Comment: to Continue Hearing on Motion to Compel RFP - signed/BCW

    Read MoreRead Less
58 More Docket Entries
  • 11/30/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketDeclaration - Roman Shkodnik Declaration HRG 2-8-19: Comment: HRNG 02/08/19 Declaration of Roman Shkodnik in Support of Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketMotion: Leave - Motion Leave to File First Amended Complaint HRG 2-8-19: Comment: HRNG 02/08/19 Notice of Motion and Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketNotice: Entry of Order - Notice Entry of Order: Comment: Notice of Order Deeeming Case Complex and Setting CMC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketNotice - Notice CMC reset from 1-11-19 to 1-18-19: Comment: CMC reset from 1/11/19 to 1/18/19

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/29/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketAnswer (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Answer to Complaint: Comment: Answer to Plaintiff Rebecca Gaytan's Unverified Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketOrder: 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
  • 09/28/2018
  • DocketProof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - Comment: Proof of Service Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/26/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet - 2203856-01_546CIVILC: Comment: COMPLEX

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/26/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketSummons: Issued/Filed - Summons Issued Filed:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/26/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketComplaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies):

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

E-FILED

DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 9/26/2018 12:28 PM

David Y eremian (SBN 226337) Llerk or Lol

david@ yeremianlaw.com Superior Court of CA, Roman Shkodnik (SBN 285152) County of Santa Clara roman(@ yeremianlaw.com 18CV335311

535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705 Reviewed By: R. Walker

Glendale, California 91203 Telephone: (818) 230-8380 Facsimile: (818) 230-0308

UNITED EMPLOY EES LAW GROUP, PC W alter Haines (SBN 71075)

whaines@ uelg.com

5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201

Huntington Beach, CA 92649

Telephone: (310) 652-2242

Attorneys for Plaintiff REBECCA GAYTAN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated

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

REBECCA GAYTAN, on behalf of herself Case No. 18c V3353 1 1 and others similarly situated,

CLASS ACTION

Plaintiff,

A ssigned for All Purposes To: VS. Hon.

SAMARITAN, LLC dba GOOD

SAMARITAN HOSPITAL, a Delaware CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR:

limited liability company; and DOES 1

through 50, inclusive, Failure to Pay Minimum W ages;

Failure to Pay Wages and Overtime

Under Labor Code § 510;

lg/lz%al-Period Liability Under Labor Code § s

E{Zegt-Break Liability Under Labor Code § 7

Violation of Labor Code § 226(a);

Violation of Labor Code § 221;

Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code § 203;

Violation of Business & Professions Code §

17200 et seq.

Defendants.

P = BB DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff REBECCA GAYTAN, (hereinafter “Plaintiff”’) on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated (collectively, “Employees”; individually, “Employee”) complains of Defendants, and each of them, as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all current and former Employees within the State of California who, at any time four (4) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit, are or were employed as non-exempt, hourly employees by Defendants SAMARITAN, LLC dba GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL, and DOES 1 through 50 (all defendants being collectively referred to herein as “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, and each of them, violated various provisions of the California Labor Code, relevant orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) and California Business & Professions Code, and seeks redress therefore,

2. Plaintiff is a resident of California and during the time period relevant to this Complaint was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt hourly employee within the State of California at Defendants’ facilities and offices in San Jose, California. Plaintiff and the other Class members worked for Defendants as certified nurse assistants in Santa Clara County, and in other nonexempt positions, throughout California and, and consistently worked at Defendants’ behest without being paid all wages due. More specifically, Plaintiff and the other similarly situated Class members were employed by Defendants and worked at Defendants’ offices and other facilities where the conduct giving rise to the allegations in this Class A ction Complaint occurred. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff was employed by Defendants and (1) shared similar job duties and responsibilities, (2) was subjected to the same policies and practices, and (3) endured similar violations at the hands of Defendants as the other Employee Class members who served in similar and related positions.

3 Defendants required Plaintiff and the Employees in the Class to perform work while remaining under Defendants’ control before and after being on the clock for their daily work shift, and Defendants further failed to accurately record time worked by Plaintiff and the Employee Class members by rounding hours worked to the nearest quarter hour to their detriment. Defendants thus failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class members for all hours worked, and provided them with inaccurate wage statements that prevented Plaintiff and the Class from learning of these unlawful pay practices. Defendants also failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class with lawful meal and rest periods, as employees were not provided with the opportunity to take timely, uninterrupted, and duty-free meal and rest periods as required by the Labor Code.

THE PARTIES

A. The Plaintiff

4, Plaintiff REBECCA GAYTAN has resided in California and during the time period relevant to this Complaint was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt hourly employee within the State of California at Defendants’ facilities and offices in San Jose, California.

B. The Defendants

. Defendant SAMARITAN, LLC dba GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL (“GSH”) is a Delaware corporation with its principle executive office in San Jose, California, and has been listed as the employer on the wage statements issued to Plaintiff during the relevant time period. GSH lists a California address in San Jose, California with the California Secretary of State, and employs Plaintiff and the Class members in Santa Clara County, including at Defendants’ offices and facilities in Santa Clara, California, and throughout California and conducts business throughout California.

0. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or whatever else, of the Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 50, inclusive, are currently unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names under Code of Civil Procedure § 474. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that D efendants designated herein as Does 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, are legally responsible in some manner for the unlawful acts referred to herein. Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to reflect the true names and capacities of the Defendants designated herein as Does 1 through 50 when their identities become known. out a joint scheme, business plan, or policy in all respects pertinent hereto, and that the acts of each Defendant are legally attributable to the other Defendants. Furthermore, Defendants acted in all respects as the employers or joint employers of Employees. Defendants, and each of them, exercised control over the wages, hours or working conditions of Employees, or suffered or permitted Employees to work, or engaged, thereby creating a common law employment relationship, with Employees. Therefore, Defendants, and each of them, employed or jointly employed Employees.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. This Court has jurisdiction over this A ction pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 410.10 and California Business & Professions Code § 17203. This A ction is brought as a Class A ction on behalf of similarly situated Employees of Defendants pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 382. Venue as to Defendants is also proper in this judicial district pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 395 et seq. Upon information and belief, the obligations and liabilities giving rise to this lawsuit occurred at least in part in Santa Clara County and Defendants maintain and operate company offices and facilities in Santa Clara County, and employ Plaintiff and other Class members in Santa Clara County and throughout California.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

9. The Employees who comprise the Class and Collective, including Plaintiff, are nonexempt employees pursuant to the applicable Wage Order of the IWC. Defendants hire Employees who work in nonexempt positions at the direction of Defendants in the State of California. Plaintiff and the Class members were either not paid by Defendants for all hours worked or were not paid at the appropriate minimum, regular and overtime rates. Plaintiff contends that D efendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class members all wages due and owing, including by unlawfully rounding to their detriment or under-recording of hours worked and made unlawful deductions from their pay, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, and failed to furnish accurate wage statements, all in violation of various provisions of the California Labor Code and applicable Wage Orders. Defendants, they were not paid all wages they were owed, including for all work performed and for all overtime hours worked and were forced to work during their meal and rest breaks to keep labor budgets low. Defendants required the Employee Class members to clock in and out using Defendants’ time clock. The timekeeping system thus permitted Defendants to record clock in and clock out times to the real-time minute. However, rather than paying Plaintiff and the Class members for all hours and minutes they actually worked, Defendants followed a uniform policy and practice of rounding all time entries to the nearest quarter hour (i.e., to the nearest 15 minute time increment), and generally did so to the detriment of the Employees, and these unlawfully rounded time entries were inputted into Defendants’ payroll system from which wage statements and payroll checks were created. Defendants did so with the ostensible intent of paying Class members only for the hours they were scheduled to work, rather than the hours they were actually under Defendants’ control. Plaintiff contends this policy is not neutral and results, over time, to the detriment of the Class members by systematically undercompensating them.

11. Defendants had also either failed to maintain timekeeping records for Plaintiff that would permit her to discover the nature and extent of Defendants’ unlawful rounding or has refused to produce them to Plaintiff in response to her timely request to be provided with them. they were not compensated, in violation of the California Labor Code, applicable IWC Wage Orders.

13. Asaresult of the above described unlawful rounding the failure to calculate and pay wages at the correct rates, the daily work demands and pressures to work through breaks, and the other wage violations they endured at Defendants’ hands, Plaintiff and the Class members were not properly paid for all wages earned and for all wages owed to them by Defendants, including when working more than eight (8) hours in any given day and/or more than forty (40) hours in any given week. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful policies and practices, Plaintiff and Class members incurred overtime hours worked for which they were not adequately and completely compensated. To the extent applicable, Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class members at an overtime rate of 1.5 times the regular rate for the first eight hours of the seventh consecutive work day in a week and overtime payments at the rate of 2 times the regular rate for hours worked over eight (8) on the seventh consecutive work day, as required under the Labor Code, applicable IWC Wage Orders.

14. Therefore, from at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and continuing to the present, Defendants had a consistent policy or practice of failing to pay Employees for all hours worked, and failing to pay minimum wage for all time worked as required by California Law.

15. Additionally from at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and continuing to the present, Defendants had a consistent policy or practice of failing to pay Employees overtime compensation at premium overtime rates for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours a day and/or forty (40) hours a week, and double-time rates for all hours worked in excess of twelve (12) hours a day, in violation of Labor Code § 510 and the corresponding sections of IWC Wage Orders. periods of not less than thirty minutes; nor did Defendants pay Employees “premium pay,” i.e. one hour of wages at each Employee’s effective hourly rate of pay, for each meal period that Defendants failed to provide or deficiently provided.

17. From at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and continuing to the present, Defendants have consistently failed to provide Employees with paid rest breaks of not less than ten (10) minutes for every work period of four (4) or more consecutive hours; nor did Defendant pay Employees premium pay for each day on which requisite rest breaks were not provided or were deficiently provided.

18. Additionally from at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and continuing to the present, Defendants have consistently and unlawfully collected or received wages from Employees by making automatic deduction from Employees’ wages for alleged meal periods which Employees were consistently denied.

19. Additionally from at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit, and continuing to the present, Defendants have consistently failed to provide Employees with timely, accurate, and itemized wage statements, in writing showing the correct rate of pay and total hours worked., as required by California wage-and-hour laws. The wage statements provided to Employees were confusing as failed to include the above requirements enumerated above.

Employees’ wage statements did not include: the total hours worked in violation of Labor Code §

226(a)(2) and failed to accurately set forth all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay

period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each such rate in violation of Labor Code § 226 (a)(9). The wage statements provided to Employees were confusing and required

Employees to engage in discovery and refer to outside sources to verify whether their pay was correct and potentially resulting in a miscalculation by the Employees. Moreover, the wage statements given to Employees by Defendants failed to accurately account for wages, overtime, and premium pay for deficient meal periods and rest breaks, and automatically deducted wages for alleged meal periods, all of which Defendants knew or reasonably should have known were owed to Employees, as alleged hereinabove.

20. Additionally from at least four (4) years prior to filing this lawsuit and continuing to the present, Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay all wages fur and owed to Employees at the time of their termination of within seventy-two (72) hours of their resignation, as required by California wage-and- hour laws.

21. Inlight of the foregoing, Employees bring this action pursuant to, inter alia, Labor Code 8§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1182.12, 1185, 1194, 1194.2 1197, 1194.2, and 1199.

22. Furthermore, pursuant to Business and Professions Code §§ 17200-17208, Employees seek injunctive relief, restitution, and disgorgement of all benefits Defendants have enjoyed from their violations of Labor Code.

CLASSALLEGATIONS

23. Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of herself an all others similarly situated pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 382. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class defined as follows: all individuals employed by Defendants, at any time within four (4) years of the filing of this lawsuit, and have been employed by Defendants within the State of California.

24. Further, plaintiff seeks to represent the following Subclasses composed of and defined as follows:

a. Subclass 1. Minimum Wages Subclass. All Class members who were not compensated for all hours worked for Defendants at the applicable minimum wage.

b. Subclass 2. Wages and Overtime Subclass. All Class members who were not compensated for all hours worked for Defendants at the required rates of pay, including for all hours worked in excess of eight in a day and/or forty in a week.

C. Subclass 3. Meal Period Subclass. All Class members who were subject to Defendants’ policy and/or practice of failing to provide unpaid 30-minute uninterrupted and duty free meal periods or one hour of pay at the Employee’s regular rate of pay in lieu thereof.

d. Subclass 4. Rest Break Subclass. All Class members who were subject to Defendants’ policy and/or practice of failing to authorize and permit Employees to take uninterrupted, duty-free, 10-minute rest periods for every four hours worked, or major fraction thereof, and failing to pay one hour of pay at the Employee’s regular rate of pay in lieu thereof. €. Subclass 5. Wage Statement Subclass. All Class members who, within the applicable limitations period, were not provided with accurate itemized wage statements.

f. Subclass 6. Unauthorized D eductions from Wages Subclass. All Class members who were subject to Defendants’ policy and/or practice of automatically deducting 30-minutes worth of wages from Employees for alleged meal periods they were denied and/or by understating the hours worked by Employees.

d. Subclass 8. Termination Pay Subclass. All Class members who, within the applicable limitations period, either voluntarily or involuntarily separated from their employment and were subject to Defendants’ policy and/or practice of failing to timely pay wages upon termination.

h. Subclass 9. UCL Subclass. All Class members who are owed restitution as a result of Defendants’ business acts and practices, to the extent such acts and practices are found to be unlawful, deceptive, and/or unfair.

25. Plaintiff reserves the right under California Rule of Court 3.765 to amend or modify the class description with greater particularity or further division into subclasses or limitation to particular issues.

26. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure § 382 because there is a well-defined community of interest in litigation and proposed class is easily ascertainable.

A. Numerosity

27. The potential members of the class as defined are so numerous that joinder of all the member of the class is impracticable. While the precise number of class member has not been determined at this time, Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants employ or, during the time period relevant to this lawsuit, employed more than 100 individuals were employed by Defendant’s within the State of California.

28. Accounting for employee turnover during the relevant time period increases this number substantially. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ employment records will provide information as to the number and location of all class members. B.

29.

Commonality

There are questions of law and fact common to the class that predominate over any

questions affecting only individual class members. These common questions of law and fact

include: a. b.

C.

C.

30.

Whether Defendants failed to pay Employees minimum wages;

Whether Defendants failed to pay Employees wages for all hours worked; Whether D efendants failed to pay Employees overtime as required under Labor Code § 510;

W hether D efendants violated Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512, and the applicable IWC Wage Orders, by failing to provide Employees with requisite meal periods or premium pay in lieu thereof;

Whether Defendants violated Labor Code §8§ 226.7, and the applicable IWC Wage Orders, by failing to provide Employees with requisite rest breaks or premium pay in lieu thereof;

Whether D efendants violated Labor Code § 226(a);

Whether D efendants violated Labor Code § 221;

Whether D efendants violated Labor Code §8§ 201, 202, and 203 by failing to pay

wages and compensation due and owing at the time of termination of employment; Whether D efendants violated Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.; and Whether Employees are entitled to equitable relief pursuant to Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.

Typicality

The claims of the named plaintiff are typical of those of the other Employees.

Employees all sustained injuries and damages arising out of and caused by Defendant’s common

course of conducts in violation of statutes, as well as regulations that have the force and effect of

law, as alleged herein.

D.

31.

Adequacy of Representation Counsel who represents Employees are experienced and competent in litigating employment class actions.

E. Superiority of Class A ction

32. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Individual joinder of all Employees is not practicable, and questions of law and fact common to all Employees predominate over any questions affecting only individual Employees. Each Employee has been damaged and is entitled to recovery by reason of Defendants’ illegal policies or practices of failing to compensate Employees properly.

33. Class action treatment will allow those persons similarly situated to litigate their claims in the manner that is most efficient and economical for the parties and the judicial system. Plaintiff is unaware of any difficulties in managing this case that should preclude class action.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES

(Against All Defendants)

34. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in full herein. applicable to the Class as a whole, as a result of implementing a uniform policy and practice that denied accurate compensation to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class as to minimum wage pay.

36. California Labor Code § 1197, entitled “Pay of Less Than Minimum Wage” states:

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.

37. The applicable minimum wages fixed by the commission for work during the relevant period is found in the Wage Orders. Pursuant to the Wage Orders, Employees are therefore entitled to double the minimum wage during the relevant period.

38. The minimum wage provisions of California Labor Code are enforceable by private civil action pursuant to California Labor Code § 1194(a) which states:

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.

39. Asdescribed in California Labor Code §§ 1185 and 1194.2, any action for wages incorporates the applicable Wage Order of the California Industrial W elfare Commission.

40. California Labor Code § 1194.2 also provides for the following remedies:

In any action under Section 1194 . . . to recover wages because of the payment of a wage less than the minimum wages 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.

41. Defendants have the ability to pay minimum wages for all time worked and have willfully refused to pay such wages with the intent to secure for Defendants a discount upon this indebtedness with the intent to annoy, harass, oppress, hinder, delay, or defraud Employees.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PAY WAGES AND OVERTIME UNDER LABOR CODE § 510

(Against All Defendants)

43. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in full herein.

44. By their conduct, as set forth herein, Defendants violated California Labor Code § 510 (and the relevant orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission) by failing to pay Employees: (a) time and one-half their regular hourly rates for hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a workday orin excess of forty (40) hours in any workweek or for the first eight (8) hours worked on the seventh day of work in any one workweek; or (b) twice their reqular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of twelve (12) hours in any one (1) day or for hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours on any seventh day of work in a workweek. Defendants had a consistent policy of not paying Employees wages for all hours worked. Employees regularly worked over 8 hours on a given day without receiving overtime compensation. A dditionally, Defendants consistently improperly rounded down, changed, adjusted Employees time records, paid Employees less than their time records showed as demonstrated by Employees’ timesheets which reveal little variance between the hours worked by employees on a daily basis.

45. Defendants’ failure to pay compensation in a timely fashion also constituted a violation of California Labor Code § 204, which requires that all wages shall be paid semimonthly. From four (4) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit to the present, in direct violation of that provision of the California Labor Code, Defendants have failed to pay all wages and overtime compensation earned by Employees. Each such failure to make a timely payment of compensation to Employees constitutes a separate violation of California Labor Code § 204.

46. Employees have been damaged by these violations of California Labor Code §§ 204 and 510 (and the relevant orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission).

47. Consequently, pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 204, 510, and 1194 (and the

relevant orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission), Defendants are liable to Employees for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

MEAL-PERIOD LIABILITY UNDER LABOR CODE § 226.7 (Against All Defendants)

48. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in full herein.

49. Employees regularly worked shifts greater than five (5) hours and greater than ten (10) hours. Pursuant to Labor Code § 512 an employer may not employ someone for a shift of more than five (5) hours without providing him or her with a meal period of not less than thirty (30) minutes or for a shift of more than ten (10) hours without providing him or her with a second meal period of not less than thirty (30) minutes.

50. Defendants failed to provide Employees with meal periods as required under the Labor Code. Employees were consistently required to work through their meal periods which they were consistently denied. Employees were also required to take meal periods after working well beyond the five (5) hour shifts. .

51. Moreover, Defendants failed to compensate Employees for each meal period not provided or inadequately provided, as required under Labor Code § 226.7.

52. Therefore, pursuant to Labor Code § 226.7, Employees are entitled to damages in an amount equal to one (1) hour of wages at their effective hourly rates of pay for each meal period not provided or deficiently provided, a sum to be proven at trial.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

REST-BREAK LIABILITY UNDER LABOR CODE § 226.7 (Against All Defendants)

53. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in full herein. 50. Defendants failed to provide Employees with timely rest breaks of not less than ten (10) minutes for each consecutive four (4) hour shift.

56. Moreover, Defendants did not compensate Employees with an additional hour of pay at each Employee’s effective hourly rate for each day that Defendants failed to provide them with adequate rest breaks, as required under Labor Code § 226.7.

57. Therefore, pursuant to Labor Code § 226.7, Employees are entitled to damages in an amount equal to one (1) hour of wages at their effective hourly rates of pay for each day worked without the required rest breaks, a sum to be proven at trial.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 226(a) (Against All Defendants)

58. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in full herein.

59. California Labor Code § 226(a) requires an employer to furnish each of his or her employees with an accurate, itemized statement in writing showing the gross and net earnings, total hours worked, and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate; these statements must be appended to the detachable part of the check, draft, voucher, or whatever else serves to pay the employee’s wages; or, if wages are paid by cash or personal check, these statements may be given to the employee separately from the payment of wages; in either case the employer must give the employee these statements twice a month or each time wages are paid.

60. Defendants failed to provide Employees with accurate itemized wage statements in writing, as required by the Labor Code. Specifically, the wage statements given to Employees, by Defendants, failed to include the above requirements enumerated above. Employees’ wage

statements did not include: the total hours worked in violation of Labor Code § 226(a)(2) and

failed to accurately set forth all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each such rate in violation of Labor Code § 226 (a)(9).

The wage statements provided to Employees were confusing and required Employees to engage in resulting in a miscalculation by the Employees. Moreover, the wage statements given to Employees by Defendants failed to accurately account for wages, overtime, and premium pay for deficient meal periods and rest breaks, and automatically deducted wages for alleged meal periods, all of which Defendants knew or reasonably should have known were owed to Employees, as alleged hereinabove.

6l1. As adirect and proximate cause of Defendants’ violation of Labor Code § 226(a), Employees suffered injuries, including among other things confusion over whether they received all wages owed them, the difficulty and expense involved in reconstructing pay records, and forcing them to make mathematical computations to analyze whether the wages paid in fact compensated them correctly for all hours worked.

62. Pursuant to Labor Code §§ 226(a) and 226(e), Employees are 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) for each violation in a subsequent pay period, not exceeding an aggregate penalty of four thousand dollars ($4,000). They are also entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 221

(Against All Defendants)

63. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in full herein.

64. Labor Code § 221 provides, “It shall be unlawful for any employer to collect or receive from an employee any part of wages theretofore paid by said employer to said employee.” 65. Defendants unlawfully received and/or collected wages from employees by implementing a policy of automatically deducting 30 minutes worth of vested wages, from

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 203

(Against All Defendants)

67. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in full herein.

68. Numerous Employees are no longer employed by Defendants; they either quit Defendants’ employ or were fired therefrom.

69. Defendants failed to pay these Employees all wages due and certain at the time of termination or within seventy-two (72) hours of resignation.

70. The wages withheld from these Employees by Defendants remained due and owing for more than thirty (30) days from the date of separation of employment.

71. Defendants’ failure to pay wages, as alleged above, was willful in that Defendants knew wages to be due but failed to pay them; this violation entitles these Employees to penalties under Labor Code § 203, which provides that an employee’s wages shall continue until paid for up to thirty (30) days from the date they were due.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 ET SEQ. (Against All Defendants)

72. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in full herein.

73. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself, Employees, and the general public, brings this claim pursuant to Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. The conduct of Defendants as alleged in this Complaint has been and continues to be unfair, unlawful, and harmful to Employees and the general public. Plaintiff seeks to enforce important rights atfecting the public interest within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5. relief, restitution, and other appropriate equitable relief.

75. Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. prohibits unlawful and unfair business practices.

76. Wage-and-hour laws express fundamental public policies. Paying employees their wages and overtime, providing them with meal and rest periods, etc., are fundamental public policies of California. Labor Code § 90.5(a) articulates the public policies of this State vigorously to enforce minimum labor standards, to ensure that employees are not required or permitted to work under substandard and unlawful conditions, and to protect law-abiding employers and their employees from competitors who lower costs to themselves by failing to comply with minimum labor standards.

77. Defendants have violated statutes and public policies. Through the conduct alleged in this Complaint Defendants have acted contrary to these public policies, have violated specific provisions of the Labor Code, and have engaged in other unlawful and unfair business practices in violation of Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.; which conduct has deprived Plaintiff, and all persons similarly situated, and all interested persons, of the rights, benefits, and privileges guaranteed to all employees under the law.

78. Defendants’ conduct, as alleged hereinabove, constitutes unfair competition in violation of the Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.

79. Defendants, by engaging in the conduct herein alleged, by failing to pay wages and overtime, failing to provide meal and rest periods, etc., either knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that their conduct was unlawful; therefore their conduct violates the Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.

80. As aproximate result of the above-mentioned acts of Defendants, Employees have been damaged,proven at trial. prohibited by the Business & Professions Code, including but not limited to the disgorgement of such profits as may be necessary to restore Employees to the money Defendants have unlawfully failed to pay.

RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

1. For an order certifying this action as a class action;

2. For compensatory damages in the amount of the unpaid minimum wages for work performed by Employees and unpaid overtime compensation from at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action, as may be proven;

3. For liquidated damages in the amount equal to the unpaid minimum wage and interest thereon, from at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action, according to proof;

4, For compensatory damages in the amount of the hourly wage made by Employees for each missed or deficient meal period where no premium pay was paid therefor from four (4) years prior to the filing of this action, as may be proven;

d. For compensatory damages in the amount of the hourly wage made by Employees for each day requisite rest breaks were not provided or were deficiently provided where no premium pay was paid therefor from at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action, as may be proven;

0. For penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 226(e) for Employees, as may be proven;

7. For restitution and/or damages for all amounts unlawfully withheld from the wages for all class members in violation of Labor Code § 221, as may be proven;

8. For penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 203 for all Employees who quit or were fired in an amount equal to their daily wage times thirty (30) days, as may be proven;

9. For restitution for unfair competition pursuant to Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq., including disgorgement or profits, as may be proven; 11.

For all general, special, and incidental damages as may be proven;

12. Foran award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;

13. Foran award providing for the payment of the costs of this suit;

14. For an award of attorneys’ fees; and

15. Forsuch other and further relief as this Court may deem proper and just. DATED: September 26, 2018 DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

By fi@mw _______ avid Y eremian

Roman Shkodnik

A ttorneys for Plaintiff

REBECCA GAYTAN

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands trial of her claims by jury to the extent authorized by law.

DATED: September 26, 2018 DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Roman Shkodnik

A ttorneys for Plaintiff

REBECCA GAYTAN