On 11/08/2018 Hernandez-Martinez filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against Ruby Thai Valley Fair, 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 Kuhnle, Thomas. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
RubThai Valley Fair, LLC, a California Corporation
Ruby Thai UTC, LLC
Ruby Thai Valley Fair, LLC
Ruby Thai Bakersfield, LLC
Chicken Wow Valley Fair, LLC
Ruby Thai Santa Anita, LLC
Ruby Thai South Bay, LLC
Ruby Thai Oakridge, LLC
Chiou, Yuh Mei
Ruby Thai Roseville, LLC
Superior Court of California
Booke, Victoria L H
Heimlich, Nicholas Donovan
Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara
Proof of Service: Comment: Proof of Service
Notice-Corrected HRG 8-23-19: Comment: Notice-Corrected
Proof of Service Electronic:
Proposed Order: Comment: RE: Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint
Declaration In Support:
Memorandum of Points & Authorities:
Answer Response Denial Demurrer - First Appearance: Comment: DEMURRER to seconded amended complaint; Atty Heimlich, 8/23/2019, 9AM, D5
Notice: Comment: Of Demurrer to Second Amedned Complaint
Ruby Thai second AMENDED Complaint: Comment: Second Amended Complaint - Claim Amount Unchanged (No Fee)
Notice CMC reset from 2-22-19 to 3-29-19: Comment: CMC reset from 2/22/19 to 3/29/19
Plaintiff CMC Statement: Comment: Case Management Statement
Summons Issued Filed: Comment: Amended Summons
First Amended Complaint: Comment: Amended Complaint - Claim Amount Unchanged (No Fee)
Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline: Comment: Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline signed/TEK
Civil Lawsuit Notice: Comment: 1st CMC set for 2/22/19 at 10am in D5; assigned to Hon. Thomas E. Kuhnle
Civil Case Cover Sheet.pdf: Comment: COMPLEX
Summons Issued Filed:
Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies):
Conference: Case Management - Judicial Officer: Kuhnle, Thomas; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Comment: (4th CMC) Proposed Wage and Hour Class Action. Discovery and responsive pleading deadline stayed, as of 11/29/18, when the case was deemed complex. First Amended Complaint filed 2/5/19. Stay on responsive pleading lifted on 4/5/19. Second Amended Complaint filed 5/6/19.Read MoreRead Less
Hearing: Demurrer - Ruby Thai second AMENDED Complaint: Judicial Officer: Kuhnle, Thomas; Hearing Time: 9:00 AM; Comment: Demurrer by Defendants Ruby Thai Valley Fair, LLC, Ruby Thai Oakridge, LLC, Ruby Thai South Bay, LLC, Ruby Thai UTC, LLC, Ruby Thai Roseville, LLC, Ruby Thai Santa Anita, LLC, Ruby Thai Bakersfield, LLC, Chicken Wow Valley Fair, LLC and You Mei Chiou to the Second Amended ComplaintRead MoreRead Less
Proof of Service - Proof of Service: Comment: Proof of ServiceRead MoreRead Less
Notice - Notice-Corrected HRG 8-23-19: Comment: Notice-CorrectedRead MoreRead Less
Proof of Service: Electronic - Proof of Service Electronic:Read MoreRead Less
Order: Proposed - Proposed Order: Comment: RE: Demurrer to Second Amended ComplaintRead MoreRead Less
Declaration: In Support - Declaration In Support:Read MoreRead Less
Memorandum: Points and Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities:Read MoreRead Less
Answer (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Answer Response Denial Demurrer - First Appearance: Comment: DEMURRER to seconded amended complaint; Atty Heimlich, 8/23/2019, 9AM, D5Read MoreRead Less
Notice - Notice: Comment: Of Demurrer to Second Amedned ComplaintRead MoreRead Less
Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - RT Valley Fair POS.pdf: Comment: Proof of Service of Summons/Complaint to Defendant RT Valley FairRead MoreRead Less
Notice - Notice CMC reset from 2-22-19 to 3-29-19: Comment: CMC reset from 2/22/19 to 3/29/19Read MoreRead Less
Statement: Case Management Conference - Plaintiff CMC Statement: Comment: Case Management StatementRead MoreRead Less
Summons: Issued/Filed - Summons Issued Filed: Comment: Amended SummonsRead MoreRead Less
Amended Complaint Filed - No Fee - First Amended Complaint: Comment: Amended Complaint - Claim Amount Unchanged (No Fee)Read MoreRead Less
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/TEKRead MoreRead Less
Civil Lawsuit Notice - Civil Lawsuit Notice: Comment: 1st CMC set for 2/22/19 at 10am in D5; assigned to Hon. Thomas E. KuhnleRead MoreRead Less
Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet.pdf: Comment: COMPLEXRead MoreRead Less
Summons: Issued/Filed - Summons Issued Filed:Read MoreRead Less
Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies):Read MoreRead Less
606 N. 1°T St.
SAN JOSE, CA 95112
Telephone: (408) 466-5845 Facsimile: (408) 280-7111
VICTORIA L.H. BOOKE SB#142518
0606 North First Street
San Jose, California 95112
Telephone: (408) 286-7000 Facsimile: (408) 280-7111
Email: vhooke@ bookelaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
11/8/2018 1:13 PM Clerk of Court
Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara
Reviewed By: R. Walker
caseNo,. 18CV 337264
an individual, JUAN JOSE VILLA ALVARADO, an individual,
RUBY THAI VALLEY FAIR,11C, a California Carporation, Y UH MEI CHIOU, an individual, and Does 1 through 30, indusive
1) Failure to Pay all Wages Including California Overtime Wages
2)Failure to Pay all Wages at the End of Employment
3)Failure to Provide A ccurate California Itemized Employee W age Statements
4)Failure to Provide Breaks
5)Violation of California Unfair Competition Law for unlawful and/or unfair act in violation of California Law
This is a class action on behalf of fast-food restaurant workers employed by Defendants for wage and hour violations of federal and state law. Defendants failed to pay its non-exempt fast-food restaurant employees at the correct overtime rate when they worked more than eight hours in one day or forty hours in one week. The Plaintiffs file this class action for wages and penalties owed under California state law. Finally, the Plaintiffs seek restitution of wages for the past four years due to Defendants’ unfair business practices in failing to pay wages to their employees in adherence to state and federal law.
1. This Court is a proper venue, since all events giving rise to this lawsuit have occurred in this district. 2. Subject matter jurisdiction of this action of this Court is based upon the California Labor Code.
3. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff Marcelino Hernandez-M artinez, hereinafter “Plaintiff”
is a resident of Santa Clara County in California.
4, At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff Juan Jose Villa Alvarado, hereinafter “Plaintiff” is a resident of Santa Clara County in California.
D. At all times mentioned Defendant Ruby Thai Valley Fair, LLC, hereinafter “Defendant” is a California Corporation with its headquarters in Santa Clara, Santa Clara County California.
0. At all times mentioned Defendant Yuh Mei Chiou, hereinafter “Defendant” is an individual owner and co-conspirator of Defendants.
7. All of the individual and entity Defendants listed in paragraphs 5-6 hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”.
8. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Ruby Thai V alley Fair employed Plaintiff Marcelino
Hernandez-Martinez, as a non-exempt fast-food restaurant worker. 9, At all times relevant herein, Defendant Ruby Thai Valley Fair, employed Plaintiff Juan Jose Villa Alvarado, as a non-exempt fast-food restaurant worker. 10. Each of the Defendants knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed among themselves to damage the Plaintiffs and other non-exempt laborer employees by depriving each of them of the benefits of wage and hour law. Pursuant to such conspiracy, and furtherance thereof, D efendants during the past four years did wrongfully and knowingly deprive the employees of their lawfully earned wages. 11. Atall times mentioned “Putative Plaintiffs” are the individual Plaintiffs’ co-workers employed by Defendants as non-exempt fast-food restaurant workers during the last four years from the day they filed this complaint. 12. Plaintiff Marcelino Hemandez-Martinez, Plaintiff Juan Jose Villa Alvarado, and Putative Plaintiffs shall be collectively known as “Plaintiffs”.
13. Atall times relevant herein, Defendants employed the Plaintiffs in the fast-food restaurant industry as fast-food restaurant laborers. 14. Plaintiffs’ job duties included cleaning, prepping food, cooking, working as a cashier, stacking and lifting of products, produce, and other restaurant-related inventory, and performing food service, preparation, and miscellaneous maintenance. 15. In performing the aforementioned job duties, the Plaintiffs reqularly worked more than eight hours in one day. 16. In performing the aforementioned job duties, the Plaintiffs reqularly worked more than forty hours in one week. 17. Defendants paid the Plaintiffs per hour to perform the aforementioned job duties. 18. Defendants failedtime the Plaintiffs spent on the job. 19. Defendants paid Plaintiffs to provide labor and service for their fast-food restaurant. 20. Plaintiffs were picked up from the Defendants’ provided housing and driven to the job site. 21. Defendants did not pay the Plaintiffs for all the time spent providing labor and service to the Defendants. 22. Plaintiffs’ typical business hours started at approximately 9:30 am.
23. Plaintiffs typically worked 6 to 7 days a week.
24. Plaintiffs typically worked 12 hours a day and periodically received a 30-minute lunch.
Sometimes, the Defendants had the Plaintiffs punchlunch break but had Plaintiff’s
continue to work during the purported lunch break.
25. Defendants would not pay the Plaintiffs for all the time the Plaintiffs spent working.
206. Attimes, the Plaintiffs worked through their 30-minute lunch breaks and the Defendants
automatically deducted thirty minutes from their pay regardless of whether they worked through the
lunch period or not.
27. Defendants regularly deducted or “shaved” work hours from the Plaintiffs’ paychecks so that the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiffs for all the regular hours they actually worked for the Defendants.
28. Defendants reqularly deducted or “shaved” work hours from the Plaintiffs’ paychecks so that
the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiffs for all the overtime hours they actually worked for the
29. Defendants did not pay the Plaintiffs at the rate of one and a half times their regular rate of
pay for every hour they worked more than eight in one day.
30. Defendants did not pay the Plaintiffs at the rate of one and half times their reqular rate of pay
when they worked more than forty hours in one week.
31. Defendants did not pay the Plaintiffs minimum wages when they shaved time from their
32. The Defendants intentionally failed to provide the Plaintiffs with a thirty-minute
uninterrupted meal period when they worked six hours or more in one day.
33. Defendants provided the Plaintiffs with paystubs that did not always reflect the hours they
worked in an accurate manner, and the paystubs did not include the hours the Defendants shaved
from the time cards of the Plaintiffs.
35. Plaintiffs seek to represent the following class: All non-exempt hourly employees who are employed or have been employed by D efendants as fast-food restaurant workers in California within four (4) years of the filing of this Complaint engaged in restaurant-related labor through the date of
final disposition of this action and who suffered the following:
a. Were not paid overtime wages; b. W ere not paid for all hours worked; C. W ere not paid minimum wages for all hours worked; d. Were not provided meal periods or if they were provided late meal periods, nor were they paid for the missed meal periods; e. W ere not provided with proper paystubs; f. W ere not provided with rest breaks. 36. Plaintiffs seek to represent the following sub-class:
All non-exempt hourly employees whose employment ended in California within four (4) years of the filing of this Complaint engaged in restaurant-related labor for the Defendants as nonexempt restaurant workers through the date of final disposition of this action and who were not fully paid their wages within seventy-two hours of the end of their employment;
37. Oninformation and belief, the legal and factual issues are common to the class and affected all putative members of the class. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend or modify the class description with greater specificity or further division into subclasses or limitation to particular 1ssues.
38. The potential members of the Class as defined are so numerous that joinder of all the
members of the class is impracticable. While the precise number of class members has not been determined now, Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants during the relevant time periods likely employed over 50 workers in California who are, or have been, affected by D efendants' unlawful practices as alleged herein. 39. Joinder of all members of the proposed class is not practical. B. Commonality 40. There are questions of law and fact common to the class predominating over any questions affecting only individual class members. These common questions of law and fact include, without limitation: a. Whether D efendants violated the California Labor Code and Wage Orders as a result of the allegations described in this complaint; b. W hether D efendants violated the California Labor Code and Wage Orders by compensating Plaintiffs and other putative class members at rates below the required overtime rate; C. W hether D efendants violated the California Labor Code and Wage Orders by failing to permit and authorize meal periods for Plaintiffs and putative class members and failing to compensate said employees for failure to do so, in violation of California law; d. Whether D efendants violated the California Labor Code and Wage Orders by failing to, among other things, maintain accurate records of Plaintiffs and other putative class members' earned wages and itemize all wages eamned, and accurately maintain other records; e. W hether D efendants violated the California Labor Code and Wage Orders by failing to pay all earned wages due and/or premium wages due and owing at the time that the employment of any putative class members, including Plaintiffs ended; f. W hether D efendants violated §§ 17200 et seq. of the Business and Professions Code by the violation of California Law; g. W hether Plaintiffs and other putative class members are entitled to damages,
restitution, wages, statutory penalties, premium wages, declaratory, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees, interest, and costs, and other relief pursuant to California Labor Code and Wage Orders, Business and Professions Code section
17200 et seq.
41. There are no individualized factual or legal issues for the court to resolve that would prevent this case from proceeding as a class action.
42. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class. Plaintiffs and all members of the class sustained injuries and damages arising out of and caused by Defendants' common course of conduct in violation of California laws, regulations, and statutes as alleged herein.
D. A dequacy of Representation
43. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the members of the class. Plaintiffs have no interests which are adverse to the class. Counsel who represent Plaintiffs are competent and experienced in litigating large employment class actions.
E. Superiority of Class A ction
44, A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Individual joinder of all class members is not practicable, and questions of law and fact common to the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the class. Each member of the class has been damaged and is entitled to recovery due from Defendants' unlawful policy and/or practices described herein.
45. Class action treatment will allow those similarly situated persons to litigate their claims in the manner that is most efficient and economical for the parties and the judicial system. Plaintiffs are unaware of any difficulties that are likely to be encountered in the management of this action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action.
46. For the same reasons, this Class A ction should be certified; the Plaintiffs should be allowed
Violation of California Labor Code §§ 510, 1194, 1197, 1771 and 1774 Failure to Properly Pay Minimum and Overtime W ages 47. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1-46 as if fully stated herein. 48. Atall times mentioned herein, California Labor Code §510 governed the D efendants’ employment of Plaintiffs. 49. Pursuant to Labor Code §510, Defendants had a duty to pay its employees, including Plaintiffs, no less than one and one-half times their reqgular rate of pay for all hours worked more than 8 hours a day or 40 hours a week. 50. Pursuant to Labor Code § 1194, Plaintiffs and all similarly situated workers seek all unpaid overtime wages and unpaid regular wages. 51. Plaintiffs request an award of pre-judgment interest on the unpaid wages set forth herein. 52. Asaresult of Defendants violations of statutory duties, as more fully set forth above, Plaintiffs earned but were not paid wages in an amount above the jurisdictional limits of this court. 53. Plaintiffs seek all unpaid wages including the difference between the amount actually paid and the amount in overtime wages or regular wages owed. Plaintiffs continue to conduct audits and investigations, however, based upon our initial calculations, the amounts claimed are above the jurisdictional minimum requirements of this court. Plaintiffs will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint according to proof at the time of trial. 54. Plaintiffs also seek liquidated damages under to California Labor Code § 1194.2 for all unpaid minimum wages. 50. Plaintiffs have incurred, and will continue to incur, attorneys' fees in the prosecution of this action and therefore demands such reasonable attorney's fees and costs as set by the court pursuant to California Labor Code § 1194.
Violation of California Labor Code Sections 201, 202 & 203 Failure to Pay Wages Due and "W aiting Time" Penalties 50. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1-46 as though fully set forth herein. 57. At the time Plaintiffs' employments ended with Defendants, Plaintiffs were terminated and Defendants owed Plaintiffs certain unpaid overtime wages as previously alleged and such wages owed to Plaintiffs were ascertainable at the time of termination. 58. Failure to pay wages owed at the time an employee is terminated as required by Labor Code §201 or 202 subjects the employer the payment of a penalty equaling up to 30 days wages, as provided forin Labor Code § 203. 59. Asof this date, Defendants have failed and refused, and continue to fail and refuse, to pay the amount due, thus making Defendants liable to Plaintiffs for penalties equal to thirty (30) days wages, in an amount to be determined at trial. 60. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1194, Plaintiffs request that the court award Plaintiffs reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in this action. 61. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 218.6, Plaintiffs request that the court award interest on all due and unpaid wages, at the legal rate specified by Civil Code Section 3289(b), accruing from the date the wages were due and payable.
Violation of California Labor Code § 226 Failure to Provide A ccurate Wage Stubs 62. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1-46 as if fully stated herein. 63. Atall times relevant hereto, Defendants were subject to the provisions of California Labor Code §§ 226, which requires an employer to provide each employee with written periodic wage payment setting forth, among other things, the dates of labor for which payment of wages are made, the total hours of work for the pay period, the gross and net wages paid, all deductions from those wages, the name and address of the employer, and the address of the employer’s state bank address. 64. Defendants knowingly and intentionally failed to provide Plaintiffs with accurate, itemized
wage statements in compliance with Labor Code §226. Such failures of Defendants to provide Plaintiffs with any wage statement that should show, among other things, the rate of pay, the hours worked, the rate for overtime hours worked and amount of overtime pay, in each pay period and/or a report of gross wages earned. 65. Asa direct result, Defendants did not separate Plaintiffs’ reqular hours from their overtime hours because Defendants did not want to pay Plaintiffs overtime pay. The Plaintiffs are entitled to recover an amount to be proven at trial for actual damages, including that measured by the unpaid wages, of not less than $50.00 for an initial violation and $100.00 for a subsequent for each violation up to $4,000.00. 66. Plaintiffs have incurred, and will continue to incur attorney fees in the prosecution of this action.
Failure To Provide Meal Periods Or Compensation In Lieu Thereof (Labor Code §§ 203, 226, 226.7, 512, 1194)
67. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1-46 of the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 68. Defendants failed to comply with the requirement under California law regarding meal periods. Plaintiffs were not afforded meal periods as required by California law, since meal periods were not scheduled. Plaintiffs were routinely required to work without thirty-minute uninterrupted meal periods, and Plaintiffs and co-workers were not compensated for missed meal periods. 69. California Labor Code §226.7 states:
(a) 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.
(b) If an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period or rest period in accordance with an applicable order of the Industrial W elfare Commission, the employer shall pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee's reqular rate of compensation for each work day that the
meal or rest period is not provided. 70. Plaintiffs did not voluntarily or willfully waive meal periods. Any express or implied waivers obtained from Plaintiffs were not willfully obtained or voluntarily agreed to, but rather were a condition of employment or part of an unlawful contract of adhesion. 71. Plaintiffs were scheduled and required to work for periods of six or more hours without an off-duty meal period of at least 30 minutes, and Defendants violated California law by failing to comply with the meal period requirements mandated by Labor Code §226.7 and the applicable Wage Orders. As such, Defendants are liable for one hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each workday that meal periods were not provided.
Violation of California Business & Professions Code §17200 Restitution for Unfair Business Practices 72. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1-46 as though fully set forth herein. 73. Atall times relevant herein, Plaintiffs' employment with D efendants was subject to the California Labor Code and applicable Wage Orders promulgated by the California Industrial Welfare Commission, which required all employees to be paid certain wages, overtime for work performed more than 40 hours per week or 8 hours per day unless specifically exempted by the law. 74. At all times mentioned the Defendants were subject to Fair Labor Standards A ct 29 U.S.C. §§ 207, 216(b), and 255(a) requiring they pay the Plaintiffs overtime at one point five times their regular rate of pay for every hour they work more than forty in one week. 75. Atall times relevant herein, the employers of Plaintiffs, Defendants, were subject to the California Unfair Trade Practices A ct (California Business and Professions Code § §17000 et seq.), but failed to pay the Plaintiffs, including similarly situated workers who are members of the public, certain overtime pay as required by applicable state and federal laws, to all of which Plaintiffs were legally entitled, with Defendants keeping the amount which should have been paid to Plaintiffs. 76. In doing so, Defendants violated California Unfair Trade Practices A ct, Business and Professions Code §17200, et seq. by committing acts prohibited by applicable California Labor Code
provisions, IWC Wage Orders, and thus giving them a competitive advantage over other employers and businesses with whom D efendants were in competition and who were in compliance with the law. 77. A's a direct and proximate result of Defendants' violations and failure to pay the required wages and overtime pay, the Plaintiffs’ rights under the law were violated and the Plaintiffs incurred losses in the form of unpaid wages in amounts to be proven at trial. 78. Defendants had been aware of the existence and requirements of the Unfair Trade Practices A ct and the requirements of state and federal wage and hour laws, but willfully, knowingly, and intentionally failed to pay Plaintiffs, certain wages and overtime pay due. 79. Plaintiffs, having been illegally deprived overtime pay to which they were legally entitled, herein seeks restitution of such unpaid wages pursuant to the Business and Professions Code §17203.
1. For compensatory damages per Cal. Labor Code §§ 510. 1194 for unpaid overtime
wages in an amount to be determined;
2. For liquidated damages for all minimum wages owed under Cal. Labor Code § 1194.2; 3. For restitution of unpaid overtime pay pursuant to California Business and
Professions Code §17203 in an amount to be determined at trial;
4, For equitable and injunctive relief under California Business and Professions Code §17200, et seq. including but not limited to equitable accounting of all Plaintiffs work hours and overtime wages owed,;
D. For waiting time penalty damages of thirty days wages to Plaintiffs, pursuant to California Labor Code § 203 in an amount to be determined at trial;
0. Damages and penalties for not providing pay statements pursuant to California Labor Code Section 226 in an amount to be determined at trial;
7. For pre-judgment interest of 10% on the unpaid overtime compensation and unpaid
salaries pursuant to California Labor Code §1194(a); 8. Plaintiffs asks the court to award reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to California Labor Code §1194(a); 9. For costs of suit herein; and
10. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
Dated: November 1, 2018 /s/James Dal Bon
A ttorney for Plaintiffs
Dated: November 1, 2018 /s/Victoria Booke
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases