This case was last updated from Santa Clara County Superior Courts on 07/01/2020 at 16:17:05 (UTC).

Howell v. Drybar Holdings LLC

Case Summary

On 07/18/2018 Howell filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against Drybar Holdings LLC. This case was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Courts, Downtown Superior Court located in Santa Clara, California. The Judges overseeing this case are Kuhnle, Thomas, Lucas, Patricia M and Folan, Maureen A. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ******1580

  • Filing Date:

    07/18/2018

  • 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

Judges

Kuhnle, Thomas

Lucas, Patricia M

Folan, Maureen A

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

Howell, Caneisha

Perera, Nurith

Defendant

Drybar Holdings LLC

Not Classified By Court

Superior Court of California

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Ricasa, Jonathan DeLeon

Defendant Attorney

Iradjpanah, Kevin Kayvan

Not Classified By Court Attorney

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

 

Court Documents

Notice

Notice CMC reset from 11-9-18 to 11-30-18: Comment: CMC reset from 11/9/18 to 11/30/18

Stipulation and Order

Stipulation and Order to Continue CMC from 11-9-18 to 11-30-18: Comment: Stipulation & Order to Continue CMC from 11/9/18 to 11/30/18 - signed/TEK

Notice

2018-08-31 Notice of order (to file).pdf: Comment: Notice of Civil Lawsuit and Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery

Notice: Related Cases

Notice of Related Case: Comment: (1) Perera v. Drybar Holdings, LLC, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC703413, complaint filed 4/23/18; pending; (2) Katie Robatto v. Drybar Holdings, LLC, Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-14-540275; complaint filed 6/27/14; disposed by judgment; (3) Rodriguez v. Drybar Holdings, LLC, Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-18-568067; complaint filed 7/12/18; pending.

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/TEK

Civil Lawsuit Notice

Civil Lawsuit Notice: Comment: 1st CMC set for 11/9/18 at 10am in D5; assigned to Hon. Thomas E. Kuhnle

Summons: Issued/Filed

Summons Issued Filed:

Civil Case Cover Sheet

2018-07-18 Civil case cover sheet (to file).pdf: Comment: COMPLEX

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

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

Order

Order & Notice of Reassignment of Case: Comment: Order & Notice of Reassignment of Case to D6, Hon. Maureen A. Folan presiding; CMC reset to 1/5/21 at 10am in D6 - signed/Civil Supervising Judge Beth McGowen. This document was e-served on all parties on 6/2/20; Envelope #4404063.

Order

Order After 2-14-20 CMC; Case Deemed No Longer Complex: Comment: Order After 2/14/20 CMC; Case Deemed No Longer Complex - signed/PML

Statement: Case Management Conference

Joint CMC Statement: Comment: HRG 2/14/20 Case Management Conference Statement

Notice

Notice CMC reset from 1-17-20 to 2-14-20: Comment: CMC reset from 1/17/20 to 2/14/20

Stipulation and Order

Stipulation and Order to Continue 1-17-20 CMC: Comment: to Continue CMC from 1/17/20 to 2/14/20 - signed/TEK

Notice

Notice CMC reset from 11-15-19 to 1-17-20: Comment: CMC reset from 11/15/19 to 1/17/20

Statement: Case Management Conference

Joint CMC Statement HRG 11-15-19: Comment: HRG 11/15/19 Joint Case Management Conference Statement

Notice

Notice CMC 11-15-19 at 10am in D5: Comment: CMC set for 11/15/19 at 10am in D5

Statement

Joint CMC Statement HRG 9-6-19: Comment: HRG 09/06/19 Joint Case Management Conference Statement

21 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/05/2021
  • DocketConference: Case Management - Judicial Officer: Folan, Maureen A; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2020
  • DocketConference: Case Management - Judicial Officer: Lucas, Patricia M; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Cancel Reason: Vacated; Comment: (5th CMC) Proposed Wage and Hour Class Action * Employment * Discovery and responsive pleading deadline stayed, as of 7/19/18, when the case was deemed complex. RELATED CASES: (1) Perera v. Drybar Holdings, LLC, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC703413, complaint filed 4/23/18; pending; (2) Katie Robatto v. Drybar Holdings, LLC, Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-14-540275; complaint filed 6/27/14; disposed by judgment; (3) Rodriguez v. Drybar Holdings, LLC, Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-18-568067; complaint filed 7/12/18; pending. Amended Complaint to be filed by 2/28/20. Stay on responsive pleading and discovery was lifted, in its entirety, on 2/14/20. At the CMC on 2/14/20, the parties agreed that this matter would be deemed no longer complex.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketOrder - Order & Notice of Reassignment of Case: Comment: Order & Notice of Reassignment of Case to D6, Hon. Maureen A. Folan presiding; CMC reset to 1/5/21 at 10am in D6 - signed/Civil Supervising Judge Beth McGowen. This document was e-served on all parties on 6/2/20; Envelope #4404063.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketOrder - Order After 2-14-20 CMC; Case Deemed No Longer Complex: Comment: Order After 2/14/20 CMC; Case Deemed No Longer Complex - signed/PML

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketNotice - Notice CMC 6-12-20 at 10am in D3: Comment: CMC set for 6/12/20 at 10am in D3

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketMinute Order - Minutes Non-Criminal:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketConference: Case Management - Minutes Non-Criminal: Judicial Officer: Lucas, Patricia M; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Result: Held; Comment: (4th CMC)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketStatement: Case Management Conference - Joint CMC Statement: Comment: HRG 2/14/20 Case Management Conference Statement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketOrder - Order and Notice of Reassignment of Case to D3 PML: Comment: Order & Notice of Reassignment of Case to D3, Hon. Patricia M. Lucas presiding signed/TCZ

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketNotice - Notice CMC reset from 1-17-20 to 2-14-20: Comment: CMC reset from 1/17/20 to 2/14/20

    Read MoreRead Less
21 More Docket Entries
  • 10/23/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketStipulation and Order - Stipulation and Order to Continue CMC from 11-9-18 to 11-30-18: Comment: Stipulation & Order to Continue CMC from 11/9/18 to 11/30/18 - signed/TEK

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketNotice - Notice of Appearance: Comment: Notice of Appearance. Atty:Iradjpanah.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2018
  • DocketFirst Paper Filed - Fee - Comment: Taken on Notice of appearance. Atty:Iradjpanah.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketNotice - 2018-08-31 Notice of order (to file).pdf: Comment: Notice of Civil Lawsuit and Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketNotice: Related Cases - Notice of Related Case: Comment: (1) Perera v. Drybar Holdings, LLC, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC703413, complaint filed 4/23/18; pending; (2) Katie Robatto v. Drybar Holdings, LLC, Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-14-540275; complaint filed 6/27/14; disposed by judgment; (3) Rodriguez v. Drybar Holdings, LLC, Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-18-568067; complaint filed 7/12/18; pending.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2018
  • 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/TEK

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketCivil Lawsuit Notice - Civil Lawsuit Notice: Comment: 1st CMC set for 11/9/18 at 10am in D5; assigned to Hon. Thomas E. Kuhnle

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketSummons: Issued/Filed - Summons Issued Filed:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet - 2018-07-18 Civil case cover sheet (to file).pdf: Comment: COMPLEX

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketComplaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies): Comment: Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

E-FILED

7/18/2018 12:49 PM

Jonathan Ricasa (SBN 223550) Clerk of Court

jricasa@ricasalaw.com

LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN RICASA Superior Court of CA, 15760 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 700 County of Santa Clara Los Angeles, California 90064 18CV 331580

Telephone: (818) 650-8077 Reviewed By: R. Walker

Facsimile: (818) 301-5151

Attorney for Plaintiff Caneisha Howell

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN SUPERIOR COURT (DTS) 18CV331580

Caneisha Howell, individually and on behalf Case No.

of all others similarly situated,

Unlimited Civil Case Over $25,000

Plaintiff,

COMPLAINT

V.

[CLASS ACTION]

Drybar Holdings LLC, and Does One

through Ten, 1. Cal. Lab. Code §§ 204, 218.5, 1198— Failure to Reporting Time Pay

Defendants.

2. Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201, 202 and 203—

Timely Payment of Final Wages

Disgorgement of Profits

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) % ) 3. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq— ) )

) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

1. Plaintiff Caneisha Howell is an individual who, during the time periods relevant to this Complaint, was employed by Defendant Drybar Holdings, LLC. Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company doing business in the State of California, including in the County of Santa Clara.

2. At all relevant times herein, Defendant served as the employer of Plaintiff and class members. Defendant employs in California many workers at any given time, and experiences high employee turnover.

3. Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated as a class action and representative action.

4. Plaintiff 1s ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Defendants sued herein as Does One through Ten, but Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities once they are ascertained. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff makes all allegations contained in this Complaint against all of the Defendants, including Does One through Ten.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

5. This Complaint asserts claims against Defendant for violations of California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 218.5, and 1198, violation of the Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) wage order No. 2-2001, and violations of section 17200 et seq. of the California Business and Professions Code.

6. Defendant is a California-based chain of salons that solely provide hair styling service,

also known as “blowouts.” According to Defendant’s websites, Defendant operates 30 locations in

California.

7. Plaintiff worked at Defendant’s locations in Palo Alto and San Jose. Plaintiff was paid hourly.

8. At its locations, Defendant employs non-exempt workers to perform various activities,

including without limitation, styling, cashiering, bartending, and other general customer service

activities. 9. All class members were subject to identical or nearly identical policies and procedures related to employee compensation. These systematic and companywide policies caused the illegal pay practices.

10. Class members were classified as non-exempt by Defendant and entitled to receive reporting time pay. Class members were paid an hourly wage.

11. Employees are entitled to reporting time pay when an employee is required to report for workwork. At all times relevant herein, the IWC wage order No. 2-2001, provided, in

relevant part:

5. REPORTING TIME PAY

(A) Each workday an employee 1s required to report for work and does report,work or is furnished less than half said employee’s usual or scheduled day’s work, the employee shall be paid for half the usual or scheduled day’s work, but in no event for less than two (2) hours nor more than four (4) hours, at the employee’s regular rate of pay, which shall not be less than the minimum wage.

(B) If an employee is required to report for work a second time in any one workday and is furnished less than two (2) hours of work on the second reporting, said employee shall be paid for two (2) hours at the employee’s regular rate of pay, which shall not be less than the minimum wage.

IWC wage order No. 2-2001.

12. On a frequent basis, Plaintiff was scheduled for work, reported to work, and after less than half of the scheduled day’s work, she was asked to return home.

13. Plaintiff was not provided with reporting time for each workday that she was dismissed though scheduled for work.

14. Defendant’s failure to pay reporting time pay systemically violated the mandatory requirements of sections 204, 218.5, and 1198 of the California Labor Code and IWC wage order No. 2- 2001, codified as section 11020 of 8 California Code of Regulations. As a result, Plaintiff was routinely denied proper compensation for reporting time pay.

15. Defendant’s employment records will reveal those instances during which Plaintiff was scheduled for work and dismissed from work on those respective days.

16. To track employees’ hours worked, Defendant used an electronic timekeeping system

that was the standard repository for all hours worked by employees. 17. Defendant’s practices violated section 1198 of the California Labor Code which

provided:

The maximum hours of work and the standard conditions of labor fixed by the commission shall be the maximum hours of work and the standard conditions of labor for employees. The employment of any employee for longer hours than those fixed by the order of under conditions of labor prohibited by the order is unlawful.

Cal. Lab. Code § 1198.

18. Plaintiff and class members are entitled to reporting time pay when they were required to report to work, did report, and were not put to work.

19. By not paying all reporting time pay that was owing, Defendant failed to tender all wages earned and violated California Labor Code sections 204, 218.5, and 1198, and/or IWC wage order No. 2-2001. Defendant’s failure to compensate its employees for all reporting time pay entitles Plaintiff and class members to damages in the amount of their unpaid reporting time pay.

20. In light of Defendant’s failure to pay for reporting time, Defendant willfully failed to pay wages promptly upon class members’ termination or resignation.

21. California Labor Code sections 201 and 202 provided that employees must receive wages earned and unpaid promptly upon termination or resignation. At all relevant times mentioned herein, the relevant portion of section 201(a) of the California Labor Code provided: “If an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge are due and payable immediately.” Cal. Lab. Code § 201(a).

22. Atall relevant times mentioned herein, the relevant portion of section 202(a) of the California Labor Code provided: “If an employee not having a written contract for a definite period quits his or her employment, his or her wages shall become due and payable not later than 72 hours thereafter. . . .” Cal. Lab. Code § 202(a).

23. At all relevant times mentioned herein, section 203 of the California Labor Code

provided:

If an employer willfully fails to pay, without abatement or reduction, in accordance with Sections 201, 201.3, 201.5, 201.9, 202, and 205.5, any wages of an employee who is discharged or who quits, the wages of the employee shall continue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or until an action therefor is commenced; but the wages shall not continue for more than 30 days. Cal. Lab. Code § 203.

24. Because class members who were separated from their employment did not receive all reporting time pay, they were not paid all their wages at the time of discharge. Class members who separated from their employment are entitled to the statutory maximum of thirty days of continuing wages under Labor Code section 203.

25. Defendant’s conduct of willfully failing to pay wages earned and unpaid promptly upon class members’ termination or resignation violates the California Labor Code and also constitutes unfair competition and unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent acts and practices within the meaning of section 17200

et sq. of the California Business and Professions Code.

26. Defendant’s employees used a centralized timekeeping system to record their hours worked.

27. Defendant’s timekeeping system records should readily be available on a class-wide basis.

28. Defendant engaged in systematic and uniform timekeeping practices that were unlawful,

unfair, and deceptive to its employees.

29. The net effect of Defendant’s policy and practice, instituted and approved by company managers, 1s that it willfully failed to compensate for reporting time pay. Defendant enjoyed 1ll-gained profits at the expense of its employees.

30. Defendant’s conduct of willfully failing to pay wages earned and unpaid promptly upon the discharge of class members violates the California Labor Code and also constitutes unfair competition and unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent acts and practices within the meaning of section 17200 et seq. of the California Business and Professions Code.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

31. Plaintiff brings this action individually and as a class action.

32. The class members are defined as follows: All persons employed by Defendant in the State of California who were paid on a non-exempt basis at any time from the date that is four years before the filing of this Complaint through the date of the filing of a motion for class certification in this case. 33. Plaintiff reserves the right to modify the class definition after further discovery.

34. Plaintiff contends Defendant, as to each class member, failed to provide reporting time pay on account of the services they performed for Defendant.

35. Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s failure to make wage payments within the time provided by section 201 and/or 202 of the California Labor Code has been and is “willful” within the meaning of section 203 of the California Labor Code and that, accordingly, each class member is entitled to the continuing wages provided for by section 203.

36. Numerosity. The number of class members is great, believed to be over 1000. It therefore 1s impractical to join each class member as a named plaintiff. Accordingly, utilization of a class action 1s the most economically feasible means of determining the merits of this litigation.

37. Ascertainability. Despite the size of the proposed classes, the class members are readily ascertainable through an examination of the records that Defendant 1s required by law to keep. Likewise, the dollar amount owed to each class member is readily ascertainable by an examination of those same records.

38. Commonality. Common questions of fact and of law predominate in the class member’s claims over individual issues regarding the money owed to each class member. The questions include, but are not limited to, the following;:

a. Whether Defendant’s policies and practices described in this Complaint were and are 1llegal. b. Whether class members were paid all of their reporting time pay, as required by

California Labor Code sections 204, 218.5, 1198, and/or IWC wage order No. 2-2001.

C. Whether Defendant failed to pay all wages in a timely fashion upon each and

every employee’s discharge from or resignation of employment in violation of sections 201

and/or 202 of the California Labor Code. f. Whether Defendant’s employees are entitled to restitution as a result of its conduct from not providing employees with all wages earned and unpaid promptly upon termination or resignation.

39. Community of Interest. There 1s a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact common to the class members.

40. Typicality. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the class members, which claims all arise from the same general operative facts, namely, Defendant did not compensate its employees as required by sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 218.5, and 1198 of the California Labor Code, 8 California Code of Regulations section 11020, and IWC wage order No. 2-2001. The Plaintiff has no conflict of interest with the other class members and is able to represent the class members’ interests fairly and adequately.

41. Superiority. A class action is a superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. The persons within the class are so numerous that joinder of all of them 1s impracticable. The disposition of all claims of the members of the class in a class action, rather than in individual actions, benefits the parties and the Court. The interest of the class members in controlling the prosecution of separate claims against Defendant 1s small when compared with the efficiency of a class action.

42. Adequacy of Representation. The Representative Plaintiff in this class action is an adequate representative of the class, in that the Representative Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the class and the Representative Plaintiff has the same interest in the litigation of this case as the class members. The Representative Plaintiff 1s committed to vigorous prosecution of this case and has retained competent counsel experienced in litigation of this nature. The Representative Plaintiff is not subject to any individual defenses unique from those conceivably applicable to the class as a whole.

43. Manageability. Although the number of class members 1s great, believed to be more than 1,000, the matter 1s manageable as a class action and the data required to establish liability and prove damages is readily available, and almost all of it is available in computerized databases.

44, In addition to asserting class-action claims, pursuant to California Business and

Professions Code section 17200 et seq., Plaintiff asserts a claim on behalf of the general public. Plaintiff seeks to require Defendant to pay restitution of all monies wrongfully obtained by them through its unfair, unlawful, and/or deceptive business practices. A representative action is necessary and

appropriate because Defendant has engaged in the wrongful acts described herein as a general business

practice.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Cal. Lab. Code §§ 204, 218.5, 1198—Failure to Reporting Time Pay) 45. Plaintiff re-pleads, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each and every allegation set

forth in this Complaint.

46. As alleged herein Plaintiff timely reported for work as scheduled and was fit for duty but was furnished less than half her usual or scheduled day’s work. The IWC wage order No. 2-2001 requires that for each workday an employee is required to report for work and does report,work or is furnished less than half said employee’s usual or scheduled day’s work, the employee shall be paid for half the usual or scheduled day’s work, but in no event for less than two hours nor more than four hours, at the employee’s regular rate of pay, which shall not be less than the minimum wage.

47. Defendant had a policy and practice of not paying reporting time pay in whole or in part.

48. Plaintiff and class members were not paid all of their reporting time pay, as required by California Labor Code sections 204, 218.5, and 1198, and/or IWC wage order No. 2-2001.

49. Accordingly, Plaintiff and class members are entitled to damages in the amount of their unpaid reporting time pay, with interest thereon, according to proof, as well as attorney’s fees and costs of suit.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201, 202, 203—Failure to Pay Final Wages Timely)

50. Plaintiff re-pleads, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in this Complaint.

51. At all times herein relevant, Labor Code sections 201 and 202 provided that employees must receive wages earned and unpaid promptly upon termination or resignation.

52. Because Defendant has willfully failed to pay wages earned and unpaid promptly upon

termination or resignation, Defendant 1s liable for continuing wages under Labor Code section 203. 53. Plaintiff and class members are therefore entitled to continuing wages from the date on which their final wages were due until the date on which Defendant makes payment of the wages, not to exceed thirty days.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq—Disgorgement of Profits)

54, Plaintiff re-pleads, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in this Complaint.

55. Plaintiff suffered direct harm from the illegal business practices herein alleged.

56. Beginning at an exact date unknown to Plaintiff, Defendant has committed acts of unfair business practice as defined in Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. by engaging in the following acts and practices: (1) failing to pay its employees reporting time pay in accordance with sections 204, 218.5, and 1198, and IWC wage order No. 2-2001; and (2) requiring its employees to work without paying wages earned and unpaid promptly upon termination or resignation, in violation of California Labor Code sections 201 and 202.

57. Defendant’s violation of the applicable wage order is in contravention of state law and, consequently, constitutes an unlawful business act or practice within the meaning of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.

58. Labor Code section 90.5(a) articulates the public policy of this State to enforce minimum labor standards vigorously.

59. Through the wrongful and illegal conduct alleged herein, Defendant has acted contrary to the public policy of this State.

60. Asaresult of Defendant’s violations of the UCL, Defendant has unjustly enriched itself at the expense of its employees.

61. To prevent this unjust enrichment, Defendant should be required to make restitution to its employees, as identified in this Complaint (and as will be identified through discovery into Defendant’s

books and records). 62. Plaintiff requests that the Court enter such orders or judgments as may be necessary to restore to any person in interest any money that may have been acquired by means of such unfair practices, as provided in section 17203 of the California Business and Professions Code.

63. In other words, Plaintiff and the other employees are entitled to restitution of their unpaid wages improperly withheld by Defendant; as such funds should be distributed to the individuals who are rightfully entitled to such monies.

64. Plaintiff is a “person” within the meaning of section 17204 of the California Business and Professions Code, and has standing to bring this claim of relief.

65. Pursuant to section 17203 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff requests restitution of all sums obtained by Defendant in violation of section 17200 et seq. of the California Business and Professions Code for the period of time from the four years preceding the filing of the Complaint.

66. The named Plaintiff 1s a person who has suffered damage as a result of Defendant’s unlawful actions herein alleged. Defendant’s actions herein alleged are in violation of statute, the applicable wage order and in contravention of established public policy, and, accordingly, a court order compelling them to make restitution is a vindication of an important public right. The extent to which Defendant has been unjustly enriched as a result of its unlawful and unfair business practices 1s a matter that can be ascertained by examination of the payroll and accounting records that Defendant is required by law to keep and maintain and that Defendant has kept and maintained.

67. Defendant’s conduct, as alleged herein, has been deleterious to Plaintiff and other employees. Plaintiff’s efforts in securing the requested relief will result “in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1021.5. Moreover, because “the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement . . . are such as to make [an attorney’s fee] award appropriate, and [because attorney’s] fees should not in the interest of justice be paid out of the recovery, if any,” id., Plaintiff requests that the Court also award reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to the provisions of section 1021.5 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.

68. Pursuant to section 17205, the remedies and penalties provided by section 17200 et seq.

are cumulative to the remedies and penalties available under all other laws of this state. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant as follows:

L. That, with respect to the First Cause of Action, that this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and class members in the amount of their unpaid reporting time pay, with interest thereon, according to proof, as well as attorney’s fees and costs of suit.

2, That, with respect to the Second Cause of Action, it be adjudged that the Defendant’s failure to make payment of wages within the time prescribed by sections 201 and/or 202 of the California Labor Code was “willful” within the meaning of section 203 of the California Labor Code and that this Court award Plaintiff and class members continuing wages in an amount according to proof.

3. That, under the Third Cause of Action, it be adjudged that Defendant’s violations of sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 218.5, and 1198, violate section 17200 et seq. of the California Business and Professions Code. Accordingly Plaintiff requests that the Court order Defendant to pay restitution in the form of unpaid reporting time pay and continuing wages unlawfully retained by Defendant, with interest. Finally, Plaintiff requests that the Court award Plaintiff her reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the prosecution of the Third Cause of Action pursuant to section 1021.5 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.

4. For such further relief as the Court may order.

Plaintiff requests a trial by jury as to all causes of action.

Dated: July 18,2018 Law Office of Jonathan Ricasa

W