This case was last updated from Santa Clara County Superior Courts on 05/18/2020 at 00:03:45 (UTC).

Johnson v. Buca, Inc., et al.

Case Summary

On 11/01/2018 Johnson filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against Buca, Inc . This case was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Courts, Downtown Superior Court located in Santa Clara, California. The Judges overseeing this case are Kuhnle, Thomas and Lucas, Patricia M. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ******7071

  • Filing Date:

    11/01/2018

  • 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

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Johnson, Ronnell

Defendants

Buca, Inc.

Buca Restaurants 2, Inc.

Not Classified By Court

Superior Court of California

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Leviant, Howard Scott

Pao, William Matthew

Setareh, Shaun

McIntosh, Alexandra

Defendant Attorney

Caryl, Jesse Michael

Not Classified By Court Attorney

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

 

Court Documents

Notice

Notice CMC 6-21-19 at 10am in D5: Comment: CMC set for 6/21/19 at 10am in D5

Letter Received

Remand Order and Docket Entries: Comment: Letter Received from USDC Northern District of California, enclosing (1) certified copy of docket entries, and (2) certified copy of Remand Order

Proof of Service

BUCA 2018 11 13 Proof of Service.pdf: Comment: Proof of Service

Notice

Notice Removal to Federal Court: Comment: Notice to the State Court of Removal of the Civil Action by Defendant Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332, 1441, and 1446

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 2/15/19 at 10am in D5; assigned to Hon. Thomas E. Kuhnle

Civil Case Cover Sheet

Civil Case Cover Sheet: Comment: COMPLEX

Summons: Issued/Filed

Summons Issued Filed:

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies):

Notice

Notice CMC reset to 7-17-20: Comment: CMC reset from 5/1/20 to 7/17/20

Notice

Notice CMC 5-1-20 at 10am in D3: Comment: CMC set for 5/1/20 at 10am in D3

Minute Order

Minutes Non-Criminal:

Statement: Case Management Conference

Joint CMC Statement HRG 1-31-20: Comment: Joint Case Management Conference Statement

Order

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/PML

Notice

Notice CMC reset from 11-15-19 to 1-31-20: Comment: CMC reset from 11/15/19 to 1/31/20

Notice

Notice CMC reset from 9-20-19 to 11-15-19: Comment: CMC reset from 9/20/19 to 11/15/19

Statement: Case Management Conference

Joint CMC Statement HRG 9-20-19: Comment: Joint Case Management Statement

Answer: Amended Complaint

Answer Amended Complaint: Comment: ATTY CARYL

11 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/17/2020
  • DocketConference: Case Management - Judicial Officer: Lucas, Patricia M; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Comment: (3rd CMC) Proposed Wage and Hour Class Action * Discovery and responsive pleading deadline stayed, as of 11/7/18, when the case was deemed complex. Removed to Federal Court on 12/5/18. First Amended Complaint filed 1/4/19 (while at Federal Court). Remand Order issued 3/15/19. Responsive pleadings due by 7/19/19. Discovery deemed open at the 6/21/19 CMC. At the CMC held on 1/31/20, defendant was ordered to provide supplemental discovery responses by 3/2/20.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketNotice - Notice CMC reset to 7-17-20: Comment: CMC reset from 5/1/20 to 7/17/20

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketNotice - Notice CMC 5-1-20 at 10am in D3: Comment: CMC set for 5/1/20 at 10am in D3

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketConference: Case Management - First Amended Complaint filed in the Federal Court: Joint CMC Statement HRG 1-31-20: Minutes Non-Criminal: Judicial Officer: Lucas, Patricia M; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Result: Held; Comment: (2nd CMC)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketMinute Order - Minutes Non-Criminal:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketStatement: Case Management Conference - Joint CMC Statement HRG 1-31-20: Comment: Joint Case Management Conference Statement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2019
  • 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/PML

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketNotice - Notice CMC reset from 11-15-19 to 1-31-20: Comment: CMC reset from 11/15/19 to 1/31/20

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketStatement: Case Management Conference - Case Management Statement: Comment: Joint Case Management Conference Statement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketNotice - Notice CMC reset from 9-20-19 to 11-15-19: Comment: CMC reset from 9/20/19 to 11/15/19

    Read MoreRead Less
8 More Docket Entries
  • 05/15/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketNotice - Notice CMC 6-21-19 at 10am in D5: Comment: CMC set for 6/21/19 at 10am in D5

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketLetter Received - Remand Order and Docket Entries: Comment: Letter Received from USDC Northern District of California, enclosing (1) certified copy of docket entries, and (2) certified copy of Remand Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2019
  • DocketConference: Case Management - Judicial Officer: Kuhnle, Thomas; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Cancel Reason: Vacated; Comment: (1st CMC) Proposed Wage and Hour Class Action. Discovery and responsive pleading deadline stayed, as of 11/7/18, when the case was deemed complex.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketNotice - Notice Removal to Federal Court: Comment: Notice to the State Court of Removal of the Civil Action by Defendant Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332, 1441, and 1446

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketProof of Service - BUCA 2018 11 13 Proof of Service.pdf: Comment: Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2018
  • 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
  • 11/01/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketCivil Lawsuit Notice - Civil Lawsuit Notice: Comment: 1st CMC set for 2/15/19 at 10am in D5; assigned to Hon. Thomas E. Kuhnle

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet: Comment: COMPLEX

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketSummons: Issued/Filed - Summons Issued Filed:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketComplaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies):

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

E-FILED

11/1/2018 2:47 PM Clerk of Court

Shaun Setareh (SBN 204514) | Superior Court of CA,

shaun(@setarehlaw.com

H. Scott@Leviant (SBN 200834) County of Santa Clara scott(@setarehlaw.com 18C V 337071

William M. Pao (SBN 219846) Reviewed By: R. Walker wilham@setarehlaw.com

SETAREH LAW GROUP

315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315

Beverly Hills, California 90212

Telephone (310) 888-7771

Facsimile (310) 888-0109

Attorneys for Plaintiff RONNELL M. JOHNSON

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

RONNELL M. JOHNSON, on behalf of Case No. 18c V337O7 1

himself, all others similarly situated,

CLASS ACTION

Plaintiff,

COMPLAINT

VS. 1. Failure to Provide Meal Periods (Lab. Code BUCA, INC., a Minnesota corporation; BUCA §§ 204, 223, 226.7, 512 and 1198); RESTAURANTS 2, INC., a Minnesota 2. Failure to Provide Rest Periods (Lab. Code corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, §§ 204, 223, 226.7 and 1198); inclusive, 3. Failure to Pay Hourly Wages (Lab. Code §§ 223,510,1194,1194.2, 1197, 1997.1 and Defendants. 1198);

4. Failure to Provide Accurate Written Wage Statements (Lab. Code §§ 226(a));

5. Failure to Timely Pay All Final Wages (Lab. Code §§ 201, 202 and 203); S o 0 3

11 12 13

28

COMES NOW, Plaintiff RONNELL M. JOHNSON (“Plaintiff™), on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, complains and alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff brings this class action against Defendant BUCA, INC., a Minnesota corporation; BUCA RESTAURANTS 2, INC., a Minnesota corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive (collectively referred to as “Defendants™) for alleged violations of the Labor Code and Business and Professions Code. As set forth below, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have: (1) failed to provide him and all other similarly situated individuals with meal periods; (2) failed to provide them with rest periods; (3) failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods; (4) failed to pay them reporting time pay based upon hours scheduled each day; (5) failed to provide them with accurate written wage statements; and (6) failed to pay them all of their final wages following separation of employment. Based on these alleged Labor Code violations, Plaintiff now brings this class action to

recover unpaid wages, restitution and related relief on behalf of himself, all others similarly

situated.

JURISDICTON AND VENUE

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case because the monetary

damages and restitution sought by Plaintiff from Defendants conduct exceeds the minimal jurisdiction of the Superior Court of the State of California.

3. Venue 1s proper in the County of Santa Clara pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 395(a) and 395.5 in that liability arose this county because at least some of the transactions that are the subject matter of this Complaint occurred therein and/or each defendant is found, maintains offices, transacts business and/or has an agent therein.

4. Venue 1s proper in Santa Clara County because Defendants’ principal place of

SO 0

County, and has not registered a California place of business with the California Secretary of State. As such, venue is proper in any county in California.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff RONNELL M. JOHNSON is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein, an individual residing in the State of California.

6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that Defendant BUCA, INC. 1s, and at all relevant times mentioned herein, a Minnesota corporation doing business in the State of California.

7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that Defendant BUCA RESTAURANTS 2, INC. 1s, and at all relevant times mentioned herein, a Minnesota corporation doing business in the State of California.

8. Plaintiff 1s ignorant of the true names and capacities of the defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of the DOE defendants when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that each of the fictitiously named defendants are responsible in some manner for the occurrences, acts and omissions alleged herein and that Plaintiff’s alleged damages were proximately caused by these defendants, and each of them. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege both the true names and capacities of the DOE defendants when ascertained.

9. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that, at all relevant times mentioned herein, some or all of the defendants were the representatives, agents, employees, partners, directors, associates, joint venturers, principals or co-participants of some or all of the other defendants, and in doing the things alleged herein, were acting within the course and scope of such relationship and with the full knowledge, consent and ratification by such other defendants.

10. Plaintiff 1s informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that, at all relevant times mentioned herein, some of the defendants pursued a common course of conduct, acted in concert and conspired with one another, and aided and abetted one another to accomplish the occurrences,

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

11. This action has been brought and may be maintained as a class action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 382 because there is a well-defined community of interest among the persons who comprise the readily ascertainable classes defined below and because Plaintiff is unaware of any difficulties likely to be encountered in managing this case as a class action.

12. Relevant Time Period: The relevant time period is defined as the time period beginning four years prior to the filing of this action until judgment is entered.

Hourly Employee Class: All persons employed by Defendants and/or any staffing agencies

and/or any other third parties in hourly or non-exempt positions in California during the

Relevant Time Period.

Meal Period Sub-Class: All Hourly Employee Class members who worked in a shift in excess of five hours during the Relevant Time Period.

Rest Period Sub-Class: All Hourly Employee Class members who worked a shift of at least three and one-half (3.5) hours during the Relevant Time Period.

Wage Statement Penalties Sub-Class: All Hourly Employee Class members employed by Defendants in California during the period beginning one year before the filing of this action and ending when final judgment is entered.

Waiting Time Penalties Sub-Class: All Hourly Employee Class members who separated from their employment with Defendants during the period beginning three years before the filing of this action and ending when final judgment is entered. Reporting Time Pay Sub-Class: All Hourly Employee Class members who reported to work but were not furnished with at least half of their scheduled shift hours during the Relevant Time Period

UCL Class: All Hourly Employee Class members employed by Defendants in California

during the Relevant Time Period.

13. Reservation of Rights: Pursuant to Rule of Court 3.765(b), Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or modity the class definitions with greater specificity, by further division into sub- classes and/or by limitation to particular issues.

14. Numerosity: The class members are so numerous that the individual joinder of each individual class member is impractical. While Plaintiff does not currently know the exact number of class members, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that the actual number

exceeds the minimum required for numerosity under California law.

15. Commonality and Predominance: Common questions of law and fact exist as to 1

all class members and predominate over any questions which affect only individual class members.

2 || These common questions include, but are not limited to:

3 +}

A.

Whether Defendants maintained a policy or practice of failing to provide employees with their meal periods;

Whether Defendants maintained a policy or practice of failing to provide employees with their rest periods;

Whether Defendants failed to pay premium wages to class members when they have not been provided with required meal and/or rest periods; Whether Defendants failed to pay class members for reporting time pay; Whether Defendants failed to provide class members with accurate written wage statements as a result of providing them with written wage statements with inaccurate entries for, among other things, amounts of gross and net wages, and total hours worked;

Whether Defendants applied policies or practices that result in late and/or incomplete final wage payments;

Whether Defendants are liable to class members for waiting time penalties under Labor Code section 203;

Whether class members are entitled to restitution of money or property that

Defendants may have acquired from them through unfair competition;

16. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the other class members’ claims.

Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Defendants have a policy or practice of

failing to comply with the Labor Code and Business and Professions Code as alleged in this

Complaint.

17. Adequacy of Class Representative: Plaintiff is an adequate class representative in

that he has no interests that are adverse to, or otherwise conflict with, the interests of absent class

members and is dedicated to vigorously prosecuting this action on their behalf. Plaintiff will fairly

and adequately represent and protect the interests of the other class members.

18. Adequacy of Class Counsel: Plaintiff’s counsel are adequate class counsel in that they have no known conflicts of interest with Plaintiff or absent class members, are experienced in wage and hour class action litigation, and are dedicated to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of Plaintiff and absent class members.

19. Superiority: A class action is vastly superior to other available means for fair and efficient adjudication of the class members’ claims and would be beneficial to the parties and the Court. Class action treatment will allow a number of similarly situated persons to simultaneously and efficiently prosecute their common claims in a single forum without the unnecessary duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual actions would entail. In addition, the monetary amounts due to many individual class members are likely to be relatively small and would thus make I difficult, if not impossible, for individual class members to both seek and obtain relief. Moreover, a class action will serve an important public interest by permitting class members to effectively pursue the recovery of monies owed to them. Further, a class action will prevent the potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments inherent in individual litigation.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

20. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly employee from

approximately June 2017 through November 13, 2017. Missed Meal Periods

21. Plaintiff and the putative class members were not provided with meal periods of at least thirty (30) minutes for each five (5) hour work period due to (1) Defendants’ policy of not scheduling each meal period as part of each work shift; (2) chronically understaffing each work shift with not enough workers; (3) imposing so much work on each employee such that it made it unlikely that an employee would be able to take their breaks if they wanted to finish their work on time; and (4) no formal written meal and rest period policy that encouraged employees to take their meal and rest periods.

22 As aresult of Defendants’ policy, Plaintiff and the putative class were regularly not provided with uninterrupted meal periods of at least thirty (30) minutes for each five (5) hours worked due to complying with Defendants’ productivity requirements that required Plaintiff and

the putative class to work through their meal periods in order to complete their assignments on 10 11

18

28

time. Missed Rest Periods

23. Plaintiff and the putative class members were not provided with rest periods of at least ten (10) minutes for each four (4) hour work period, or major fraction thereof, due to (1) Detendants’ policy of not scheduling each rest period as part of each work shift; (2) chronically understaffing each work shift with not enough workers; (3) imposing so much work on each employee such that it made it unlikely that an employee would be able to take their breaks if they wanted to finish their work on time; and (4) no formal written meal and rest period policy that encouraged employees to take their meal and rest periods.

24. Asaresult of Defendants’ policy, Plaintiff and the putative class were regularly not provided with uninterrupted rest periods of at least ten (10) minutes for each four (4) hours worked due to complying with Defendants’ productivity requirements that required Plaintiff and the putative class to work through their rest periods in order to complete their assignments on time.

Reporting Time Pay

25. Plaintiff and the putative class were not notified of changes to their work schedules in a timely manner due to Defendants’ policy of making last minute changes to the staffing schedule that were not posted in a conspicuous and easily accessible manner available to all employees.

26. Asaresult of Defendants’ policy of changing employees’ schedule without timely notification, Plaintiff and the putative class have reported to work and were not provided with at least half of their scheduled work hours before they were sent home without the payment of any additional compensation. Accordingly, Defendants’ policy did not afford employees a reasonable opportunity to learn of their work schedule beforehand as well as any changes and modifications by management.

27. Based on the above, Defendants policy did not comply with Section 5 of the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order by paying Plaintiff and the putative class for half of their scheduled work hours, but in no event for less than two hours nor more than four

~ O W

Inaccurate Wage Statements

28. Plaintiff and the putative class were not provided with accurate wage statements as mandated by law pursuant to Labor Code section 226.

29. Defendants failed to comply with Labor Code section 226(a)(1) as “gross wages earned” were not accurately reflected in that:

a. any and all reporting time pay were not included; b. any and all meal/rest period premium wages were not paid;

30. Defendants failed to comply with Labor Code section 226(a)(2) as “total hours worked by the employee” were not accurately reflected in that:

a. any and all reporting time pay were not included;

31. Detendants failed to comply with Labor Code section 226(a)(5) as “net wages earned” were not accurately reflected in that:

a. any and all reporting time pay were not included; b. any and all meal/rest period premium wages were not paid.

32. Defendants failed to comply with Labor Code section 226(a)(9) as “all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee™ were not accurately reflected in that:

a. any and all reporting time pay were not included.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIODS

(Lab. Code §§ 004, 223, 226.7, 512 and 1198) (Plaintiff and Meal Period Sub-Class)

33. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully alleged herein.

34, At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the Meal Period Sub-Class members have been non-exempt employees of Defendant entitled to the full meal period protections of both the Labor Code and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order.

35. Labor Code section 512 and Section 11 of the applicable Industrial Welfare 10 11 12 13 14

Commussion Wage Order impose an affirmative obligation on employers to provide non-exempt employees with uninterrupted, duty-free meal periods of at least thirty minutes for each work period of five hours, and to provide them with two uninterrupted, duty-free meal periods of at least thirty minutes for each work period of ten hours.

36. Labor Code section 226.7 and Section 11 of the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order (“Wage Order’) both prohibit employers from requiring employees to work during required meal periods and require employers to pay non-exempt employees an hour of

premium wages on each workday that the employee is not provided with the required meal period.

37. Compensation for missed meal periods constitutes wages within the meaning of Labor Code section 200. 38. Labor Code section 1198 makes it unlawful to employ a person under conditions that

violate the applicable Wage Order.

39. Section 11 of the applicable Wage Order states:

“No employer shall employ any person for a work period of more than five (5) hours without a meal period of not less than 30 minutes, except that when a work period of not more than six (6) hours will complete the day’s work the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of the employer and employee. Unless the employee is relieved of all duty during a 30 minute meal period, the meal period shall be considered an ‘on duty’ meal period and counted as time worked. An ‘on duty’ meal period shall be permitted only when the nature of the work prevents an employee from being relieved of all duty and when by written agreement between the parties an on-the-job paid meal period is agreed to. The written agreement shall state that the employee may, in writing, revoke the agreement at any time.”

40. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was not subject to a valid on-duty meal period agreement. Plaintiff is informed and believes that, at all relevant times, Meal Period Sub-Class members were not subject to valid on-duty meal period agreements with Defendants.

41. Plaintiff alleges that, at all relevant times during the applicable limitations period, Defendants maintained a policy or practice of not providing Plaintiff and members of the Meal Period Sub-Class with uninterrupted, duty-free meal periods for at least thirty (30) minutes for each five (5) hour work period, as required by Labor Code section 512 ad the applicable Wage Order.

42. Plaintiff alleges that, at all relevant times during the applicable limitations period,28

Defendants maintained a policy or practice of failing to pay premium wages to Meal Period Sub- Class members when they worked five (5) hours without clocking out for any meal period.

43. Plaintiff alleges that, at all relevant times during the applicable limitations period, Defendants maintained a policy or practice of not providing Plaintiff and members of the Meal Period Sub-Class with a second meal period when they worked shifts of ten or more hours and failed to pay them premium wages as required by Labor Code 512 and the applicable Wage Order.

44, Moreover, Defendants written policies do not provide that employees must take their first meal period before the end of the fifth hour of work, that they are entitled to a second meal period if they work a shift of over ten hours, or that the second meal period must commence before the end of the tenth hour of work, unless waived.

45. At all relevant times, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Meal Period Sub- Class members additional premium wages, and/or were not paid premium wages at the employees’ regular rates of pay when required meal periods were not provided.

46. Pursuant to Labor Code section 204, 218.6 and 226.7, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Meal Period Sub-Class members, seek to recover unpaid premium wages, interest thereon, and costs of suit.

47. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1194, Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, the substantial benefit doctrine, and/or the common fund doctrine, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Meal Period Sub-Class members, seek to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST PERIODS

(Lab. Code §§ 204, 223, 226.7 and 1198) (Plaintiff and Rest Period Sub-Class)

48. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully alleged herein.

49, At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the Rest Period Sub-Class members have been non-exempt employees of Defendants entitled to the full rest period protections of both the Labor

Code and the applicable Wage Order. 50. Section 12 of the applicable Wage Order imposes an affirmative obligation on employers to permit and authorize employees to take required rest periods at a rate of no less than ten minutes of net rest time for each four hour work period, or major fraction thereof, that must be in the middle of each work period insofar as practicable.

51. Labor Code section 226.7 and Section 12 of the applicable Wage Order both prohibit employers from requiring employees to work during required rest periods and require employers to pay non-exempt employees an hour of premium wages at the employees’ regular rates of pay, on each workday that the employee is not provided with the required rest period(s).

52. Compensation for missed rest periods constitutes wages within the meaning of Labor Code section 200.

53. Labor Code section 1198 makes it unlawful to employ a person under conditions that violate the Wage Order.

54. Plaintiff alleges that, at all relevant times during the applicable limitations period, Defendants maintained a policy or practice of not providing members of the Rest Period Sub-Class with net rest period of at least ten minutes for each four hour work period, or major fraction thereof, as required by the applicable Wage Order.

55. Atall relevant times, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Rest Period Sub- Class members additional premium wages when required rest periods were not provided.

56. Specifically, Defendants written policies do not provide that employees may take a rest period for each four hours worked, or major fraction thereof, and that rest periods should be taken 1n the middle of each work period insofar as practicable.

57. Pursuant to Labor Code section 204, 218.6 and 226.7, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and Rest Period Sub-Class members, seek to recover unpaid premium wages, interest thereon, and costs of suit.

58. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1194, Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, the substantial benefit doctrine, and/or the common fund doctrine, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and Rest Period Sub-Class members, seek to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees.

/1]

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PAY HOURLY AND OVERTIME WAGES

(Lab. Code §§ 223, 510, 1194, 1197 and 1198) (Plaintiff, Hourly Employee Class and Reporting Time Pay Sub-Class)

59. Plamtiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully alleged herein.

60. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class and Reporting Time Pay Sub-Class members are or have been non-exempt employees of Defendants entitled to the full protections of the Labor Code and the applicable Wage Order.

61. Section 2 of the applicable Wage Order defines “hours worked™ as “the time during which an employee is subject to the control of the employer, and includes all the time the employee 1s suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so.”

62. Section 4 of the applicable Wage Order requires an employer to pay non-exempt employees at least the minimum wage set forth therein for all hours worked, which consist of all hours that an employer has actual or constructive knowledge that employees are working.

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

64. Labor Code section 1194.2 entitles non-exempt employees to recover liquidated damages 1n amounts equal to the amounts of unpaid minimum wages and interest thereon in addition to the underlying unpaid minimum wages and interest thereon.

65. Labor Code section 1197 makes it unlawful for an employer to pay an employee less than the minimum wage required under the applicable Wage Order for all hours worked during a payroll period.

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

67. Labor Code section 1198 makes it unlawful for employers to employ employees under conditions that violate the applicable Wage Order.

68. Labor Code section 204 requires employers to pay non-exempt employees their earned wages for the normal work period at least twice during each calendar month on days the employer designates in advance and to pay non-exempt employees their earned wages for labor performed in excess of the normal work period by no later than the next regular payday.

69. Labor Code section 223 makes it unlawful for employers to pay their employees lower wages than required by contract or statute while purporting to pay them legal wages.

70. Labor Code section 510 and Section 3 of the applicable Wage Order require employees to pay non-exempt employees overtime wages of no less than one and one-half times their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of eight hours in one workday, all hours worked in excess of forty hours in one workweek, and/or for the first eight hours worked on the seventh consecutive day of one workweek.

71. Labor Code section 510 and Section 3 of the applicable Wage Order also require employers to pay non-exempt employees overtime wages of no less than two times their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of twelve hours in one workday and for all hours worked 1n excess of eight hours on a seventh consecutive workday during the workweek.

72. Plaintiff is informed and believes that, at all relevant times, Defendants have applied centrally devised policies and practices to her and Hourly Employee Class and Reporting Time Pay Sub-Class members with respect to working conditions and compensation arrangements.

73. At all relevant times, Defendants failed to pay hourly wages to Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class and Reporting Time Pay Sub-Class members for all time worked, including but not limited to, overtime hours at statutory and/or agreed rates.

74. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1194, Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, the substantial benefit doctrine, and/or the common fund doctrine, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and Hourly Employee Class and Reporting Time Pay Sub-Class members, seek to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees.

/1]

18

20 2]28

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE WRITTEN WAGE STATEMENTS

75.

herein.

76.

71,

(Lab. Code § 226) (Plaintiff and Wage Statement Penalties Sub-Class)

Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully alleged

Labor Code section 226(a) states:

“An employer, semimonthly or at the time of each payment of wages, shall furnish to his or her employee, either as a detachable part of the check, draft, or voucher paying the employee’s wages, or separately if wages are paid by personal check or cash, an accurate itemized statement in writing showing (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee, except as provided in subdivision (j), (3) the number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece rate if the employee is paid on a piece-rate basis, (4) all deductions, provided that all deductions made on written orders of the employee may be aggregated and shown as one item, (5) net wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the name of the employee and only the last four digits of his or her social security number or an employee identification number other than a social security number, (8) the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer and, if the employer 1s a farm labor contractor, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1682, the name and address of the legal entity that secured the services of the employer, and (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee and, beginning July 1, 2013, if the employer is a temporary services employer as defined in Section 201.3, the rate of pay and the total hours worked for each temporary services assignment. The deductions made from payment of wages shall be recorded in ink or other indelible form, properly dated, showing the month, day, and year, and a copy of the statement and the record of the deductions shall be kept on file by the employer for at least three years at the place of employment or at a central location within the State of California. For purposes of this subdivision, ‘copy’ includes a duplicate of the itemized statement provided to an employee or a computer-generated record that accurately shows all of the information required by this subdivision.”

The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE™) has sought to harmonize

the “detachable part of the check™ provision and the “accurate itemized statement in writing”™

provision of Labor Code section 226(a) by allowing for electronic wage statements so long as each

employee retains the right to elect to receive a written paper stub or record and that those who are

provided with electronic wage statements retain the ability to easily access the information and

convert the electronic statements into hard copies at no expense to the employee. (DLSE Opinion

Letter July 6, 2006).

78.

Plaintiff is informed and believes that, at all relevant times during the applicable 1 || limitations period, Defendants have failed to provide Wage Statement Penalties Sub-Class 2 {| members with written wage statements as described above. 3 79. Plantiff is informed and believes that Defendants’ failure to provide her and Wage

4 || Statement Penalties Sub-Class members with accurate written wage statements were intentional in

W

that Defendants have the ability to provide them with accurate wage statements but have

6 || intentionally provided them with written wage statements that Defendants have known do not

7 || comply with Labor Code section 226(a).

8 80. Plaintiff and Wage Statement Penalties Sub-Class members have suffered injuries, 9 || in that Defendants have violated their legal rights to receive accurate wage statements and have

0 || misled them about their actual rates of pay and wages earned. In addition, inaccurate information 11 || on their wage statements have prevented immediate challenges to Defendants’ unlawful pay

12 |f practices, has required discovery and mathematical computations to determine the amount of wages 13 || owed, has caused difficulty and expense in attempting to reconstruct time and pay records, and/or 14 || has led to the submission of inaccurate information about wages and deductions to federal and state 15 {| government agencies.

16 81. Pursuant to Labor Code section 226(¢), Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and Wage

17 || Statement Penalties Sub-Class members, seek the greater of actual damages or $50.00 for the

18 || initial pay period in which a violation of Labor Code section 226(a) occurred, and $100.00 for each 19 || subsequent pay period in which a violation of Labor Code section 226(a) occurred, not to exceed an 20 || aggregate penalty of $4000.00 per class member, as well as awards of reasonable attorneys” fees

21 || and costs.

22 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 23 FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY ALL FINAL WAGES

24 (Lab. Code §§ 201-203)

25 (Plaintiff and Waiting Time Penalties Sub-Class)

26 82. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully alleged 27 || herein. o 3 O

10

12 13 14 15 16

28

have been entitled, upon the end of their employment with Defendants, to timely payment of all wages earned and unpaid before termination or resignation.

84. At all relevant times, pursuant to Labor Code section 201, employees who have been discharged have been entitled to payment of all final wages immediately upon termination.

85. At all relevant times, pursuant to Labor Code section 202, employees who have resigned after giving at least seventy-two (72) hours notice of resignation have been entitled to payment of all final wages at the time of resignation.

86. At all relevant times, pursuant to Labor Code section 202, employees who have resigned after giving less than seventy-two (72) hours notice of resignation have been entitled to payment of all final wages within seventy-two (72) hours of giving notice of resignation.

87. During the applicable limitations period, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff all of her final wages in accordance with the Labor Code by failing to timelyfinal wages.

88. Plaintiff 1s informed and believes that, at all relevant time during the applicable limitations period, Defendants have failed to timely pay Waiting Time Penalties Sub-Class members all of their final wages in accordance with the Labor Code.

89. Plaintiff 1s informed and believes that, at all relevant times during the applicable limitations period, Defendants have maintained a policy or practice of paying Waiting Time Penalties Sub-Class members their final wages without regard to the requirements of Labor Code sections 201 or 202 by failing to timely pay them all final wages.

90. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Defendants” failure to timely pay all final wages to her and Waiting Time Penalties Sub-Class members have been willful in that Defendants have the ability to pay final wages in accordance with Labor Code sections 201 and/or 202 but have intentionally adopted policies or practices that are incompatible with those requirements.

91. Pursuant to Labor Code sections 203 and 218.6, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and Waiting Time Penalties Sub-Class members, seek waiting time penalties from the dates that their final wages have first become due until paid, up to a maximum of thirty days, and interest thereon. I || and/or the common fund doctrine, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and Waiting Time Penalties Sub-

2 ]| Class members, seek awards of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

3 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 4 UNFAIR COMPETITION

5 (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.)

6 (Plaintiff and UCL Class)

7 93. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully alleged 8 || herein.

9 94. Business and Professions Code section 17200 defines “unfair competition™ to

10 || include any unlawful business practice.

11 93. Business and Professions Code section 17203-17204 allow a person who has lost

12 || money or property as a result of unfair competition to bring a class action in accordance with Code 13 || of Civil Procedure section 382 to recover money or property that may have been acquired from

14 || similarly situated persons by means of unfair competition.

15 96. California law requires employers to pay hourly, non-exempt employees for all hours 16 || they are permitted or suffered to work, including hours that the employer knows or reasonable

17 || should know that employees have worked.

18 97. Plaintiff and the UCL Class members re-alleges and incorporates the FIRST,

19 || SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH and FIFTH causes of action herein.

20 08. Plaintiff lost money or property as a result of the aforementioned unfair competition. 21 99. Defendants have or may have acquired money by means of unfair competition. 22 100. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that by committing the

23 || Labor Code violations described in this Complaint, Defendants violated Labor Code sections 215, 24 {1216, 225, 226.6, 354, 408, 553, 1175, 1199 and 2802, which make it a misdemeanor to commit the 25 || Labor Code violations alleged herein.

26 101. Detendants have committed criminal conduct through their policies and practices of, 27 || inter alia, failing to comport with their affirmative obligations as an employer to provide non-

28 || exempt employees with uninterrupted, duty-free meal periods of at least thirty minutes for each work period of five or more hours, by failing to provide non-exempt employees with a paid, ten- minute rest period for every four hours worked or major fraction thereof, by failing to pay non- exempt employees for all reporting time pay.

102. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and UCL Class members have been non-exempt employees and entitled to the full protections of both the Labor Code and the applicable Wage Order.

103. Defendants’ unlawful conduct as alleged in this Complaint amounts to and constitutes unfair competition within the meaning of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. Business and Professions Code sections 17200 ef seq. protects against unfair competition and allows a person who has suffered an injury-in-fact and has lost money or property as a result of an unfair, unlawful or fraudulent business practice to seek restitution on her own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated persons in a class action proceeding.

104. Asaresult of Defendants’ violations of the Labor Code during the applicable limitations period, Plaintiff has suffered an injury-in-fact and has lost money or property in the form of earned wages. Specifically, Plaintiff has lost money or property as a result of Defendants’ conduct.

105. Plaintiff is informed and believes that other similarly situated persons have been subject to the same unlawful policies or practices of Defendants.

106. Due to the unfair and unlawful business practices in violation of the Labor Code, Detendants have gained a competitive advantage over other comparable companies doing business in the State of California that comply with their legal obligations.

107. California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) permits civil recovery and injunctive for “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice,” including if a practice or act violates or is considered unlawful under any other state or federal law.

108. Accordingly, pursuant to Bus. & Prof. Code sections 17200 and 17203, Plaintiffs request the issuance of temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Defendants, and each of them, and their agents and employees, from further violations of the Labor

Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders; and upon a final hearing seek an order permanently enjoining Defendants, and each of them, and their respective agents and

2 || employees, from further violations of the Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare 3 || Commission Wage Orders. 4 109. Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17203, Plaintiff, on behalf of 5 || himself and UCL Class members, seek declaratory relief and restitution of all monies rightfully 6 || belonging to them that Defendants did not pay them or otherwise retained by means of its unlawful 7 || and unfair business practices. 8 110. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, the substantial benefit doctrine 9 || and/or the common fund doctrine, Plaintiff and UCL Class members are entitled to recover 10 || reasonable attorneys’ fees in connection with their unfair competition claims.

11 | PRAYER FOR RELIEF

12 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, prays for relief 13 || and judgment against Defendants as follows: 14 (1) An order that the action be certified as a class action; 15 (2) An order that Plaintiff be appointed class representative; 16 (3) An order that counsel for Plaintiff be appointed class counsel; 17 (4) Unpaid wages; 18 %) Actual damages; 19 (6) Liquidated damages; 20 (7) Restitution; 21 (8) Declaratory relief; 22 (9) Pre-judgment interest; 23 (10) Statutory penalties; 24 (11) Civil penalties; 25 (12) Costs of suit; 26 (13) Reasonable attorneys’ fees; and 27 (14) Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

28 || ///

1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2 Plaintiff, on behalf of himself, all other similarly situated, hereby demands a jury trial on all 3 || 1ssues so triable.

4

5 || DATED: November 1, 2018 SETAREH LAW GROUP

6 7

8

SHAUN SETAREH