This case was last updated from Santa Clara County Superior Courts on 08/14/2019 at 07:49:46 (UTC).

Jordan v. Arriaga & Associates, Inc. [Coordinated into Arriaga and Associates Wage and Hour Cases JCCP4980 Santa Clara]

Case Summary

On 03/26/2018 Jordan filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against Arriaga Associates, Inc Coordinated into Arriaga and Associates Wage and Hour Cases JCCP4980 Santa Clara. 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.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ******5541

  • Filing Date:

    03/26/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    Santa Clara County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Downtown Superior Court

  • County, State:

    Santa Clara, California

Judge Details

Judge

Kuhnle, Thomas

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

Jordan, George

Bidgoli, Rod

Riddle, Amanda L

Ryu, Young W

Berki, Steven M

Defendants and Cross Defendants

Arriaga & Associates, Inc.

Horowitt, Darryl J

Alvarnega, Dania M

Cross Plaintiffs

Humiston, Carol A

Bradley & Gmelich LLP

Other

Superior Court of California

Not Yet Classified

Manzoor, Sumble

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Leong, Rita

Other Attorney

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

 

Court Documents

Order

Order Authorizing Santa Clara PJ to Appoint a Coordination Motion Judge: Comment: Order Authorizing the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, to Appoint a Coordination Motion Judge

Order

Order Staying Action Due to Pending Coordination Proceedings: Comment: Order Staying Action Due to Pending Coordination Proceedings - signed/TEK

Notice

Jordan v. Arriaga Notice of Sub.pdf: Comment: Notice of Submission of Petition For Coordination

Proof of Service: Personal

Proof of Service Personal: Comment: Proof of Service of Order Deeming Case Complex

Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)

2018 03 28 POS re Service of Complaint - Copy.pdf: Comment: Against: Arriaga & Associates, Inc.

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

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies):

Summons: Issued/Filed

Summons Issued Filed:

Civil Case Cover Sheet

2018 03 26 Civil Case Cover Sheet.pdf: Comment: COMPLEXt

Proof of Service

HRG 12.7.18 Dec of Service - Appear Telephone.pdf: Comment: Proof of Service

Notice

HRG 12.7.18 Notice Appear by Telephone.pdf: Comment: Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone

Hearing: Petition

Order re Petition for Coordination: Judicial Officer: Kuhnle, Thomas; Hearing Time: 9:00 AM; Result: Heard: Granted; Comment: Petition by Petitioners Louis Christopher Arriaga and Arriaga & Associates, Inc. for Coordination of the following matters: (1) Giron, et al. v. Arriaga, et al., Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC667718; (2) Arriaga, et al. v. Lara, et al., Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Case No. 17CV310003; (3) Jordan v. Arriaga & Associates, et al., Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Case No. 18CV325541. ARRIAGA AND ASSOCIATES WAGE AND HOUR CASES, JCCP4980.

Advance jury fee (Nonrefundable)

Advance Jury Fee (Nonrefundable): Comment: Notice of Posting Jury Fees

Proof of Service

2018 10 09 POS.pdf: Comment: Proof of Service

Demand: Jury Trial

HRG 10-26-18 Ntc of Post Jury Fees.pdf: Comment: Notice of Posting Jury Fees

Notice

HRG 10-26-18 Ntc of Intent to Appear Tel.pdf: Comment: Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone

Order

Order Setting Petition for Coordination Hearing Date and Staying Included Actions: Comment: Order Setting Hearing Date on Petition for Coordination and Staying Included Actions Pending Coordination Hearing - signed/TEK

Order

PJ Order Assigning TEK as the Coordination Motion Judge: Comment: Order Assigning the Hon. Thomas E. Kuhnle as the Coordination MOTION Judge - signed/Presiding Judge Patricia M. Lucas

28 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/01/2019
  • Conference: Case Management - Judicial Officer: Kuhnle, Thomas; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Order - Order re Motion for Summary Adjudication: Comment: Order re Motion for Summary Adjudication - signed/TEK

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice CMC 11-1-19 at 10am in D5: Comment: CMC set for 11/1/19 at 10am in D5

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2019
  • Conference: Case Management - Judicial Officer: Kuhnle, Thomas; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Result: Continued: Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2019
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service - Proof of Service: Comment: Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice Intent to Appear by Telephone HRG 6-28-19: Comment: Notice of Intent to Appear

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Answer (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Answer to First Amended Complaint: Comment: Answer to First Amended Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • Conference: Case Progress - Judicial Officer: Kuhnle, Thomas; Hearing Time: 11:00 AM; Cancel Reason: Vacated; Comment: cont from 04-05-19

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice IDC 4-26-19 at 11am in D5 is off calendar: Comment: Informal Discovery Conference on 4/26/19 at 11am in D5 is taken off calendar by the Court.

    Read MoreRead Less
35 More Docket Entries
  • 09/04/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Order - Order Authorizing Santa Clara PJ to Appoint a Coordination Motion Judge: Comment: Order Authorizing the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, to Appoint a Coordination Motion Judge

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2018
  • Conference: Case Management - Judicial Officer: Kuhnle, Thomas; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Cancel Reason: Vacated; Comment: (1st CMC) Proposed Class Action * Employment * Discovery and responsive pleading deadline stayed, as of 3/28/18, when the case was deemed complex.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Order - Order Staying Action Due to Pending Coordination Proceedings: Comment: Order Staying Action Due to Pending Coordination Proceedings - signed/TEK

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Jordan v. Arriaga Notice of Sub.pdf: Comment: Notice of Submission of Petition For Coordination

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service: Personal - Proof of Service Personal: Comment: Proof of Service of Order Deeming Case Complex

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - 2018 03 28 POS re Service of Complaint - Copy.pdf: Comment: Against: Arriaga & Associates, Inc.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies):

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Summons: Issued/Filed - Summons Issued Filed:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet: Comment: COMPLEXt

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

E-FILED

3/26/2018 3:20 PM

GRAHAMHOLLIS APC Clerk of Court

gGhrafiar?@ S.P. Hollisl l('SBN 120577) Superior Court of CA, ollis@grahamhollis.com C fSanta Cl

Vilmerie Cordero (SBN 268860) ek

veoordero@grahamhollis.com . ,

thaLeong (SBN 30&)58) Reviewed By R. Walker

rieong@grahamhollis.com

3555 Fifth Avenue Suite 200

San Diego, California 92103 Telephone: 619.692.0800 Facsimile: 619.692.0822

Attomeys for Plaintiff GEORGE JORDAN

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

GEORGE JORDAN, individually and on caseNo. 18CV325541 behalf of current and former similarly situated employees of DEFENDANT'S in the State of Unlimited Civil California, Anpunt Denanded exceeds $25,000.00 Plaintiff,

CLASSACTION COMPLAINT

b [Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 382]

ARRIAGA & ASSOCIATES, INC., and

DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Failure to Provide Meal Periods;

Failure to Provide Rest Periods;

Failure to Pay Mininum and Regular Wages;

Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages;

Failure to Indemmnify All Necessary Expenditures;

Failure to Provide A ccurate Itemized Wage Statements;

Failure to Timely Pay All Wages Due Upon Separation of Employment;

Violation of Business & Professions Code §17200, et seq.; and

Failure to Produce Employment Records

Defendants.

© © N o Ok Wbk

- JURY TRIAL DEMANDED -

1 Plaintiff GEORGE JORDAN (“Plaintift”), individually and on behalf of all othersimilany situated employees of Defendant Amiaga & Associates, Inc., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, (collectively “Detendants” or “Amiaga”) alleges as follows:

I.INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff GEORGE JORDAN (“Plaintiff”) brings this individual and putative class action against Defendants ARRTIAGA & ASSOCIATES, INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, for engaging in a pattem of wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Orders.

2. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all current and former non-exenmpt employees who were employed by Defendants in the State of California and that worked as a security guard during the applicable relevant time period (hereinafter “similarly situated employees”).

3. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants decreased its employment-related costs by systematically violating California wage and hour laws and engaging in unlawful and unfair business practices.

4, Defendants’ systematic pattem of Labor Code and IWC Wage Order violations toward Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees in Califormia include, but are not limited to:

Failure to provide meal periods;

o o

Failure to provide rest periods; Failure to pay meal and rest premium wages;

o o

Failure to pay mininum and regular wages for all hours worked; e. Failure to pay overtime wages;

=h

Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; g. Failure to indemmnify employees forwork-related expenses incurred in discharging their duties; and h. Failure to timely pay all wages due upon separation of employment. D. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit seeking restitution, injunctive and monetary relief against

2 Defendants, on behalf of himself and all other similanly situated employees in California, to recover, among other things, unpaid wages, benefits, expenses, interest, attomey’s fees, damages, liquidated damages, and costs pursuant to Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 218.5, 218.6, 223, 225.5, 226, 226.3, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2802, the Business and Professions Code §§17200, et seq., and the provisions of the applicable IWC Wage Order.

0. Plaintiff reserves the right to name additional class representatives throughout the State of California.

II. PARTIES A. Plaintiff

7. Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants, who, at all relevant times, was employed as a non-exempt security guard and worked out of Defendants’ client facility in Cupertino, California.

8. Plaintiff is a resident of the State of California and cunrently resides in Contra Costa County.

9. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and, on information and belief, other similarly situated employees of Defendants in California were subject to the same policies, practices, and procedures goveming their employment and their payment of wages and hours worked.

B. Defendants

10. Defendant ARRIAGA & ASSOCIATES, INC. provides security services to varous businesses and properties throughout California.

11. Defendant ARRIAGA & ASSOCIATES, INC. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California, and has its principal place of business in Campbell, California. Defendant ARRIAGA & ASSOCIATES, INC. is doing business throughout the State of California, including the County of Santa Clara.

12. Defendants’ wrongful conduct, as alleged herein, occurred in the County of Santa Clara and in various counties throughout the State of California.

13. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each Defendant is, and at all relevant times was, authorized to do business and did business in the State of California, and was

3 Plaintiff’s and other similarly situated employees’ “employer” as defined in and subject to the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

14. Each of the fictitiously named Detendants participated in the acts alleged in this Complaint. The true names and capacities of the Defendants named as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are presently unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint, setting forth the true names and capacities of the fictitious Defendants, if and when their true names and capacities are ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that each of the fictitious Defendants participated in the acts alleged in this Complaint.

15. Defendants named DOES 1 through 50 were Plaintiff’ s employer as defined in and subject to the California Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage Order.

16. Plaintiff and all other similary situated employees are, and at all relevant times werg, employees of each Defendant, including DOES 1 through 50, within the meanings set forth in the California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order.,

17. Plaintiff is informed and believes that at all relevant times, each Defendant, whether named or fictitious, was the agent, employee or other person acting on behalf of every other Defendant, and, in participating in the acts alleged in this Complaint, acted within the scope of such agency or employment and ratified the acts of each other Detendant.

18. Plaintiff is informed and believes that at all relevant times, each Defendant, whether named orfictitious, exercised control over Plaintiff’ s and other similany situated employees’ wages, hours and/or working conditions.

19. Plaintiff is furtherinformed and believes that at all relevant times, each Defendant, whether named or fictitious, acted as the agent for the other Defendants, carried out a joint scheme, business plan or policy, and the acts of each Defendant are legally attributable to the other Defendants.

20. Each Defendant, whether named or fictitious, was the alter ego of each of the other Defendants at all relevant times herein.

21. A unity of interest and ownership between each Defendant, whether named or fictitious, exists such that all Defendants acted as a single employer of Plaintiff and all other similarly situated

4 employees. III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

22. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear this case because Plaintiff is informed and believes that the monetary damages and restitution sought herein for Defendants’ conduct exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits of the Superior Court.

23. Venueis properin Santa Clara County pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 395(a) and 395.5 because Defendants maintain an office and transact substantial business in Santa Clara County, Defendants employed Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees in Santa Clara County, and the unlawful acts alleged herein that arose in Santa Clara County have a direct effect on Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees within Santa Clara County.

IV.GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

24. Plaintiff JORDAN ARRIAGA is a former non-exempt employee of Defendants who worked as a security guard at the Apple Campus in Cupertino from September 2017 to November 2017.

25. Asasecurity guard at the Apple Campus, Plaintiff’s duties included, but were not limited to scanning peoplegates, patrolling the gates, staying at the assigned gates at all times, and moving to different gates when requested by Defendants.

20. Defendants compensated Plaintiff on an hourly rate of pay basis at all relevant times.

27. Plaintiff typically worked three to four days a week and worked over eight hours a day.

28. Detendants denied Plaintiff and, on information and belief, other similady situated employees of Defendants certain rights afforded to them under the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. Specifically, Defendants did not properly compensate Plaintiff and other similanly situated employees forall hours worked, failed to provide compliant meal and rest periods, failed to maintain accurate records, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failed to reimburse for all necessary expenses,wages due and owing by the times set forth by law.

29. Plaintiff and, on infonmation and belief, other similarly situated employees of Defendants did not sign avalid on-duty meal period agreement at any point during their employment with Defendants,

D nor did they properly waive any of their meal periods.

30. Nonetheless, Defendants had a pattermn and practice of not providing Plaintiff and, on information and belief, other similany situated employees with legally compliant off-duty meal periods, even though Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees typically worked more than six (6) hours during their workday.

31. Pursuant to Defendants’ policies and procedures, Plaintiff and, on information and belief, other similany situated employees of Defendants were regularly required to remain on duty at all times during their shift, including their meal and rest periods. Defendants required Plaintiff and, on infonmation and belief, other similarly situated employees, to stay at the job site at all times and they could not leave their posts unattended. Defendants required security guards, including Plaintiff, to remain at their posts and be available to scan peoplegate at all times.

32. In addition, Defendants have a policy and practice that requires all security guards, including Plaintiff, and on information and belief, other similarly situated employees of Defendants to stay on-duty at their post and to maintain and monitor their radios and/or personal cell phones at all times during their shifts for incoming calls from Defendants and be ready and available to immediately respond to any instructions.

33. Moreover, Detendants regularly scheduled Plaintiff’ s and, on information and belief, other similarly situated employees’ work schedules such that there was often no one to relieve them of all duties fora complaint 30-minute off-duty meal break before the end of theirfifth and tenth hour of work. Because Defendants only assigned enough security guards to a post and there were no other employees available to relieve Plaintiff and, on information and belief, other similarly situated employees of their duties so they could take off-duty meal and rest periods. Thus, Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were required to remain on duty and continue working through their meal periods.

34. Due to Defendants’ requirement that security guards remain on duty during their entire shift, Plaintiff and, on information and belief, other similarly situated employees were regularly required to work through their meal period. These on duty meal periods were not required due to the nature of the work, but rather were for the convenience of Defendants and its clients.

6 35. Thus, as a result of Defendants’ illegal policies, Plaintiff and, on information and belief, other similanly situated employees were denied the opportunity to take legally compliant meal periods, in violation of the applicable Wage Order.

306. Defendants similarly has a pattem and practice of failing to authorize and permit Plaintiff and, on infonmation and belief, other similarly situated employees to take legally compliant rest periods of at least 10 minutes for every four- hour work period, or major fraction thereof.

37. Thus, as aresult of Defendants’ illegal policies, Plaintiff and, on information and belief, other similanly situated employees were not authorized or permitted to take legally compliant rest periods and were not compensated separately for the missed rest periods, in violation of the applicable Wage Order.

38. Although Plaintiff and, on infornmation and belief, other similany situated employees’ meal and rest periods were regularly on duty, Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff and, on infonmation and belief, other similarly situated employees an additional hour of pay at theirregular rate of pay forthe times that Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not authorized or permitted to take a compliant and timely meal orrest period, in violation of Labor Code section 226.7.

39. Detendants failed to properly pay Plaintiff and, on information and belief, other similarly situated employees at least mininmum, regular and overtime wages owed for all time sutfered or penmitted to work. Defendants had a policy that required Plaintiff and, on information and belief, other similarly situated employees to stay at their posts after their scheduled shift end-times and to wait for a supervisor or rover to come and pick up their assigned scanner without receiving any compensation for their waiting times. In fact, Defendants had an illegal policy that only compensated Plaintiff and, on information and belief, other similarly situated employees, for their scheduled start time and end time and not the actual hours worked and under the control of Defendants. At all times, Defendants only compensated Plaintiff and, on information and belief, other similarly situated employees, for their scheduled hours, and not the actual hours he worked. On several occasions, Plaintiff had to remain on Defendants’ premises, and wait until Defendants picked up his scanner without receiving any compensation.

40. Furthenmore, Defendants sent text messages to Plaintiff and, on information and belief,

7 other similany situated employees, before and after their shifts to fill open shifts and to provide them with the shift times and posts they were assigned for the following day. Despite the fact that all time spent waiting and responding to Defendants’ text messages and performing other duties after the end or before the beginning of their shift was compensable hours worked because Plaintiff and, on information and belief, other similarly situated employees were subject to the control of Defendants during this working time, Defendants did not count this time as hours worked and paid no wages for this time.

4]1. Plaintiff and, on information and belief, other similarly situated employees of Defendants incurred expenses in direct consequence of the discharge of their duties of employment with Defendants, but Defendants failed to adequately reimburse them for such expenses. For exanple, Plaintiff and, on information and belief, other similarly situated employees were required to use their personal cell phones to commmmicate with supervisors, dispatchers, and co-workers. Plaintiff and, on infonmation and belief, other similarly situated employees were also required to maintain and monitor their personal cell phones at all times so they would be available to respond to instructions. Despite Defendants’ knowledge that Plaintiff and, on information and belief, other similarly situated employees were using their personal cell phones for work related purposes, Defendants failed to provide appropriate reimbursement for these expenses, in violation of Labor Code section 2802.

42. Asadirect consequence of Defendants’ illegal policies, Defendants did not keep accurate records of the actual hours that Plaintiff and, on infonmation and belief, other similanly situated employees were under the control of Defendants, including, but not limited to, time suffered and permitted to work before, during, and after a shift, as well as all wages eamed. On information and belief, Defendants failed to keep accurate records of Plaintiff’s and other similarly situated employees’ hours worked when Defendants failed to record the proper beginning and ending of each work and meal period, in addition to the total hours worked during the pay period, among others.

43. Defendants similarly failed to provide Plaintiff and, upon information and belief, other similarly situated employees with accurate itemized wage statements. For example, during the applicable statutory period, Defendants failed to fumish Plaintiff and, on information and belief, other similardy situated employees with itemized wage statements conrectly identifying, among other things, the total

8 regular and overtime hours worked during the pay period, as well as the comresponding gross and net wages eamed, all applicable hourly rates and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate, and the address of the legal entity. On information and belief, the wage statement omissions and inaccuracies were not a result of an isolated and unintentional payroll enror due to an inadvertent mistake, but rather a result of knowing and intentional omissions by Defendants. In addition, and as a result of these omissions and inaccuracies, Plaintiff and, on information and belief, other similardy situated employees were not promptly and easily able to determine the correct hours worked and/or detenmine the accurate wages due and owing without reference to other documents and information.

44. To this date, Defendants have not paid Plaintiff and, on information and belief, other similarly situated employees all wages owed, including all mininmum, regular and overtime wages, as well as all meal and rest period premium wages.

45. Defendants similarly maintained a pattem and practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees all wages due and owing at the time of their separation of employment within the time specified by Labor Code sections 201 and 202 because Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and, on information and belief, other similarly situated employees all wages due and owing at the time of tenmination of their empl oyment.

46. Based on the foregoing violations of the Labor Code and IWC Wage Order, Defendants engaged in unfair business practices in California and willingly and knowingly engaged in employment pattems and practices that violated Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq., and Plaintiff and, oninfonmation and belief, other similany situated employees sutfered damages due to Defendants’ unfair, unlawtul and/or fraudulent actions.

V.

CLASSACTION DESIGNATION

47. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

48. Plaintiff brings Causes of Action One through Eight as a class action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 382 on behalf of all himself and all current and former non-exempt employees

9 of Defendants who worked as a security guard and who were affected by Defendants’ Labor Code, Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., and IWC Wage Order violations, as alleged herein.

49. Plaintiff seeks to represent the following Class, which is defined as:

The Security Guard Class:

“All current and former non-exempt employees who worked for Defendants in the

State of California as security guards at any time from March 26, 2014 through the

present.”

50. Plaintiff also seeks to represent the following Subclass, which is defined as:

The Waiting Time Penalties Subclass: “All members of the Security Guard Class, whose employment with Defendants

ended at any time from March 26, 2015 through the present.”

51. Reservation of Rights: Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.765(b), Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or modify the Class and Subclass definitions with greater specificity, by further division into subclasses, and/or limitation to particularissues.

52. As to Causes of Action One through Eight, Plaintiff seeks to recover on behalf of the Classes all remedies available to the extent penmitted by law including, but not limited to, wages, damages, penalties, liquidated damages, interest, attomey’s fees, costs, other monies due and owing and injunctive relief.

53. Causes of Action One through Eight are appropriately suited for a class action pursuant to § 382 of the California Code of Civil Procedure because the following requirements are met:

A. Numerosity

54. The members of the Class are sufficiently numerous to render the joinder of all their members impracticable. While Plaintiff has not yet determined the precise number of members of the Class, Plaintiff is infonmed and believes that the Class likely consists of over 100 individuals. Although the exact number is currently unknown to Plaintiff, this information is easily ascertainable from Defendants’ time and payroll records and other personnel records.

10 B. Commonality and Predominance 55. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all class members and predominate over any

questions affecting only individual members of the Class or Subclass. The conmmon questions of law and

fact that predominate include, but are not limited to:

a.

o

O

Q.

®

=h

Q

=z

[ o

Whether Defendants failed to permit class members to take a duty-free, thirty- minute meal period before the commencement of the sixth hour of work;

Whether Defendants failed to permit class members to take a second duty-free, thirty-minute meal period before the commencement of the eleventh hour of work; Whether Defendants failed to permit class members to take off-duty rest periods of at least 10 minutes for every four hours worked, or mgjor fraction thereof; Whether Defendants failed to pay one additional hour of pay at the employees’ regular rate of compensation to class members when class members were not provided with compliant and timely meal and rest periods;

Whether Detendants failed to pay class members at least mininmum wages and/or all regular wages owed for all hours or fractions of an hour worked and under the control of Defendants;

Whether Defendants failed to pay class members all overtime wages for all hours, or fraction of hours, worked and under the control of Detendants;

Whether Defendants failed to indemmnify class members for necessary business expenses incurred in direct consequence of the discharge of their duties;

Whether Defendants failed to properly and accurately record and maintain records of all hours worked and wages eamed by class members;

Whether Defendants failed to provide class members with accurate itemized wage statements showing, among other things, the correct number of hours worked and the correct amount of gross and net wages eamed; and

Whether Defendants failed to pay class members all of their wages owed within the

required time frames upon separation of employment.

11 C. Typicality

56. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of all class members because Plaintiff and all class membars’ claims arise from the same event, practice and/or course of conduct of Defendants. Plaintiff and all class members sustained injuries and damages as a result of Defendants’ illegal policies, practices and/or comimon course of conduct in violation of Califormia wage and hour laws and/or illegal, unfair, or fraudulent business practices.

57. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s claims under the Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage Order are typical of the Class and Subclass because Defendants’ failure to comply with the provisions of California’s wage and hour laws entitles Plaintiff and each class member to similar pay, benefits, and otherrelief. Accordingly, the legal theories underlying each cause of action are the same and the remedies sought by Plaintiff and all class members are the same.

D. A dequacy of Representation

58. Plaintiff has no fundamental conflict of interest with the Class or Subclass he seeks to represent. Plaintiff will adequately protect the interests of all class members because it is in Plaintiff’s best interest to prosecute the claims alleged herein to obtain full compensation and penalties due to him, and putative class members.

59. Plaintiff retained attormeys who are experienced employment law litigators with significant wage and hour and class action experience.

E. Superiority of Class A ction

60. Plaintiff believes a class action is a superior method of litigation for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Individual joinder of all class members is not practicable. Class action treatment will allow similanly situated employees to litigate their claims in the manner that is most efficient and economical for the parties and the judicial system.

6l. Plaintiff knows of no difficulty that might be encountered in the management of this suit, which would preclude maintenance as a class action.

/1] /1]

12 VL

CAUSESOFACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTIONFAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIODS

(Violation of Labor Code sections 226.7, 512, and 1198 and the “Meal Periods” section of the Applicable IWC Wage Order) (Alleged By Plaintiff Individually and On Behalf of the Security Guard Class Against All Defendants)

62. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs above, as though fully set forth herein.

63. Plaintiff and Security Guard Class members were and are nonrexempt employees of Defendants in California within the meaning of the Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage Order.

64. Labor Code section 512(a) provides, in part, that employers, including Defendants, “may not employ an employee fora work period of more than five hours per day without providing an employee with a meal period of not less than 30 minutes” and “may not employ an employee for a work period of more than 10 hours per day without providing the employee with a second meal period of not less than 30 minutes.”

65. Labor Code section 226.7 requires that employers, including Defendants, provide their non-exempt employees with meal periods as mandated by the applicable Wage Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, and prohibits employers from requiring any employee “to work during any meal ... period mandated by an applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commmission.” Labor Code section 226.7(c) states, “[1]f an employerfails to provide an employee ameal ... period in accordance with a state law... the employer shall pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of conmpensation for each workday that the meal ... period is not provided.”

06. Labor Code section 1198 states that the “maximimm hours of work and standard conditions of labor fixed by the commission shall be the maxinmum 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 or under conditions of 1abor prohibited by the orderis unlawful.”

6/. The“Meal Peniods” section of the applicable IWC Wage Order states, “[n]o employer shall

13 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 conplete the day’s work the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of the employer and the employee.” It further states, “[aln empl oyermay not employ an employee fora work period of more than ten (10) hours per day without providing the employee with a second meal period of not less than 30 minutes, except that if the total hours worked is no more than 12 hours, the second meal period may be waived by mutual consent of employer and employee only if the first meal period was not waived.”

68. The “Meal Periods” section of the applicable IWC Wage Order also states, “[u]nless 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 meal period is agreed to and complies with Labor Code section 512.

69. The “Meal Periods” section of the applicable IWC Wage Order also states, “[i]f an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period in accordance with the applicable provisions of this order, the employer shall pay the employee one (1) hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of conmpensation for each workday that the meal period is not provided.”

70. Oninformation and belief Plaintiff and the Security Guard Class were subject to the same policies, practices, and procedures goveming the provision and scheduling of meal periods.

71. Oninformation and belief, Defendants have a pattem and practice of not providing Plaintiff and the Security Guard Class with legally compliant 30-minute off-duty meal periods during their shifts, even though they worked more than ten (10) hours during their workday.

72. Plaintiff and, on information and belief, the Security Guard Class were unable to take compliant meal periods because they were regularly required to remain on-duty at all times. In addition, on infonmation and belief, Defendants regularly scheduled Plaintiff and Security Guard Class members such that there was no one to relieve them of all duties during their meal period, thereby requiring Plaintift and Security Guard Class members to remain on duty and continue working though their meal periods.

14 Thus, as a result of Defendants’ policies, Plaintiff’s and Security Guard Class members’ meal periods were on duty.

73. Plaintiff and, on information and belief, the Security Guard Class members did not sign a valid on-duty meal period agreement at any point during their employment with Defendants.

74. Plaintiff and, on information and belief, the Security Guard Class typically worked more than five (5) orten (10) hoursproperly waive any of their meal periods.

75. Therefore, as a result of Defendants’ conduct, including the conduct alleged herein, Defendants violated Labor Code sections 226.7, 512, and 1198, as well as the applicable IWC Wage Order when Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and the Security Guard Class members a 30-minute, duty-free meal period before the commencement of their sixth hour of work, and a second 30-minute, duty-free meal period before the commencement of their eleventh hour of work.

76. Consequently, pursuant to Labor Code section 226.7(b) and the “Meal Periods” section of the applicable Wage Order; Detendants was required to pay Plaintiff and the Security Guard Class one additional hour of pay at their regular rate of compensation for each day that Defendants did not provide Plaintiff and the Security Guard Class with a 30-minute, duty-free meal period before the commencement of their sixth hour of work or a second 30-minute, duty-free meal period before the commencement of their eleventh hour of work.

77. Despite this obligation, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff and, on information and belief, the Security Guard Class one additional hour of pay at each employee’s regular rate of compensation for each day that Defendants did not provide Plaintiff and the Security Guard Class with a 30-minute, duty-free meal period before the commencement of their sixth hour of work or a second 30-minute, duty-free meal period before the commencement of their eleventh hour of work.

78. Instead, on infonmation and belief, Defendants had a common policy and practice of failing to compensate Plaintiff and the Security Guard Class with an hour of pay at their regular rate of pay for the times that Defendants did not provide Plaintiff and the Security Guard Class with a 30-minute, duty- free meal period before the commencement of their sixth hour of work or a second 30-minute, duty-free meal period before the commencement of their eleventh hour of work, as required by Labor Code section

15 226.7(b) and the applicable IWC Wage Order.

79. Thus, oninformation and belief, Defendants intentionally refused to performits obligations to provide meal periods and further failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Security Guard Class with all owed meal premium wages as set forth by Labor Code section 226.7(b) and the applicable IWC Wage Order.

80. Plaintiff and the Security Guard Class sutfered and continue to sutfer losses related to Defendants’ failure to pay an additional hour of pay for each day a legally compliant meal period was not provided and the associated use and enjoyment of compensation due and owing to them as a direct result of Defendants’ Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Order violations.

8l. Plaintiff seeks all available remedies for Defendants’ violations, including, but not limited to, all wages due, monies, and interest to the extent permitted by law.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter requested.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST PERIODS

(Violation of Labor Code sections 226.7 and 1198 and the “Rest Periods” section of the Applicable IWC Wage Order) (Alleged By Plaintiff Individually and On Behalf of the Security Guard Class Against All Defendants)

82. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs above, as though fully set forth herein.

83. Plaintiff and Security Guard Class members were and are non-exempt employees of Defendants in California within the meaning of the Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage Order.

84. Labor Code section 226.7 requires employers, including Defendants, to provide to thein non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff, paid rest periods as mandated by the applicable IWC Wage Orders.

85. Labor Code section 1198 states that the “maximimm hours of work and standard conditions of labor fixed by the commission shall be the maxinmum 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 or

16 under conditions of labor prohibited by the orderis unlawful.”

80. The “Rest Periods” section of the applicable IWC Wage Order states, “[e]very employer shall authorize and permit employees to take rest periods, which insofar as practicable shall be in the middle of each work period. ... The authorized rest period time shall be based on the total hours worked daily at the rate of ten (10) minutes net rest time per four (4) hours or major fraction thereof.” It

states, “[r]est periods need not be authonzed in limited circumstances when the disruption of continuous operations would jeopardize the product or process of the work. However, the employer shall make up the missed rest period within the same workday or compensate the employee for the missed ten (10) minutes of rest time at his/her regular rate of pay within the same pay period.” Furthenmore, “[i]f an employer fails to provide an employee a rest period in accordance with the applicable provisions of this order, the employer shall pay the employee one (1) hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of conpensation for each workday that the rest period is not provided.”

87. Oninformation and belief, Plaintiff and the Security Guard Class were subject to the same policies, practices, and procedures goveming the provision and scheduling of rest periods.

88. Plaintiff and, on information and belief, the Security Guard Class were not authorized and permitted to take compliant rest periods because they were regulanly required to remain on-duty at all times. On information and belief, Defendants regularly scheduled Plaintiff’s and Security Guard Class members such that there was often no one to relieve Plaintiff or Security Guard Class members of all duties during their rest periods, thereby requiring Plaintiff and Security Guard Class members to remain on duty and continue working though their rest periods. Thus, as a result of Defendants’ policies, Plaintift’s and Security Guard Class members’ rest periods were on duty.

89. Labor Code section 226.7(c) states, “[i]f an employer fails to provide an employee a ... rest ... period in accordance with a state law... the employer shall pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday that the .... rest ... period is not provided.”

90. Eventhough Plaintiff and, on information and belief, Security Guard Class members were not authorized and permitted to take off-duty rest periods, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff and the Security

17 Guard Class appropriate rest period premium wages for each day in which Defendants did not authorize and permit Plaintiff and the Security Guard Class to take compliant rest periods, in violation of Labor Code section 226.7 and the applicable IWC Wage Order.

91. On information and belief, Defendants have a conimon policy, pattem, and practice of failing to compensate Plaintiff and the Security Guard Class with an hour of pay at their regular rate of pay for the times that Plaintiff and the Security Guard Class were not authorized to take rest periods of at least 10 minutes for each four-hour work period, or major fraction thereof.

92. Plaintiff and the Secunity Guard Class suffered and continue to suffer losses related to Defendants’ failure to pay an additional hour of pay for each day a rest period was not provided and the associated use and enjoyment of compensation due and owing to them as a direct result of Defendants’ Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Order violations.

93. Plaintiff seeks all available remedies for Defendants’ violations including, but not limited to any and all wages due, monies, and interest, to the extent penmitted by law.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter requested.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM AND REGULAR WAGES

(Violation of Labor Code sections 1194, 1197, and 1198 and the “Minimum Wages” section of the Applicable IWC Wage Order) (Alleged By Plaintiff Individually and On Behalf of the Security Guard Class Against All Defendants)

9. Plantiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs above, as though fully set forth herein.

95. Plaintiff and the Security Guard Class were and are non-exempt employees of Defendants in California within the meaning of the Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage Order.

96. Labor Code section 1197 provides, “[t]he mininm wage for employees fixed by the conmmission is the mininum wage to be paid to employees, and the payment of a less wage than the mininum wage so fixed is unlawful.”

97. The “Minimum Wages” section of the applicable IWC Wage Order provides that an

18 employer may not pay non-exempt employees less than the applicable minimum for all hours worked.

98. The applicable IWC Wage Order defines the term “hours worked” as “the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer and includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so.”

90. Furthermore, pursuant to Labor Code section 1198, “[t]he maxinmumm hours of work and the standard conditions of labor fixed by the commission shall be the maxinum hours of work and the standard conditions of labor for employees. The employment of any employee forlonger hours than those fixed by the order or under conditions of 1abor prohibited by the orderis unlawful.”

100. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and, on infonmation and belief, Security Guard Class members at least minimum wages for all the time spent working and under the control of Defendants. For exanmple, Plaintiff, and on information and belief, Security Guard Class members were not compensated for the time that they spent on-duty during rest periods, on-duty waiting for a supervisor or rover to pick up the scanner after their scheduled shifts and commumicating with Defendants over text messages regarding their shifts and posts before and after their shifts.

101. Labor Code section 1194 provides, in part, that any employee receiving less than the legal mininmum wage is entitled to recoverin a civil action the unpaid balance of the minimum wage, including interest thereon, reasonable attomey’s fees, and costs of suit.

102. LaborCode section 1194.2 allows an employee to recover liquidated damages in an amount equal to the wages unlawfully unpaid and interest thereon for any action under Labor Code section 1194.

103. Plaintiff and the Security Guard Class suffered and continue to suffer losses related to the use and enjoyment of compensation due and owing to them as a direct result of Defendants’ unlawful acts and Labor Code violations in an amount to be shown according to proof at trial and within the junsdictional limitations of this Court.

104. Plaintiff seeks all available remedies for Defendants’ violations including, but not limited to, any and all wages due, monies, interest, liquidated damages, attormey’s fees, and costs to the extent penmmitted by law.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter requested.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PAY ALL OVERTIME WAGES

(Violation of Labor Code sections 510, 1194, and 1198 and the “Hours and Days of Work” section of the Applicable IWC Wage Order) (Alleged By Plaintiff Individually and On Behalf of the Security Guard Class Against All Defendants)

105. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs above, as though fully set forth herein.

100. Plaintiff and Security Guard Class members were and are non-exempt employees of Defendants in California within the meaning of the Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage Order.

107. Labor Code section 510 provides, “[a]ny work in excess of eight hours in one workday and any work in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek and the first eight hours worked on the seventh day of work in any one workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for an employee. Any work in excess of 12 hours in one day shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay for an employee. In addition, any work in excess of eight hours on any seventh day of a workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay of an employee.” The “Hours and Days of Work” sections of the applicable IWC Wage Order mandate the same requirements.

108. LaborCode section 1194 provides that any empl oyee receiving less than the legal overtime conpensation applicable to the employee is entitled to recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount of this overtime compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable attomey’s fees, and costs of suit.

109. Furthenmore, pursuant to Labor Code section 1198, “[t]he maximum hours of work and the standard conditions of labor fixed by the commission shall be the maxinmum hours of work and the standard conditions of labor for employees. The employment of any employee forlonger hours than those fixed by the order or under conditions of 1abor prohibited by the orderis unlawful.”

110. The applicable IWC Wage Order defines the termm “hours worked” as “the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer, and includes all the time the employee is

20 suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so.”

111. In Californiag, overtime is computed based on the regular rate of pay. The regular rate of pay includes all different types of remuneration, including hourly eamings, salary, piecework eamings, commissions, and non-discretionary bonuses, and the value of meals and lodging.

112. Plaintiff and, on information and belief, the Security Guard Class regularily worked over 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week while employed by Defendants. Plaintiff and, on information and belief, the Security Guard Class did not receive all overtime compensation owed for all overtime hours worked over 8 hours per day and/or 40 hours per week during their employment with Defendants.

113. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and, on information and belief, Security Guard Class members at the proper overtime rate for all the time spent working and under the control of Defendants. For example, Plaintiff and, on information and belief, Security Guard Class members were not conmpensated for the time that they spent on-duty during rest periods, on-duty waiting for a supervisor or rover to pick up the scanner after their scheduled shifts and commumicating with Defendants over text messages regarding their shifts and posts before and after their shifts.

114. Plaintiff and the Security Guard Class suffered and continue to sufferlosses related to the use and enjoyment of compensation due and owing to them as a direct result of Defendants’ unlawful acts and Labor Code violations in an amount to be shown according to proof at trial and within the junisdictional limitations of this Court.

115. Plaintiff seeks all available remedies for Defendants’ violations including, but not limited to any and all wages due, monies, interest, attormey’s fees, and costs to the extent permitted by law.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter requested.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO INDEMNIFY NECESSARY BUSINESS EXPENSES

(Violation of Labor Code section 2802) (Alleged By Plaintiff Individually and On Behalf of the Security Guard Class Against All Defendants)

116. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the

paragraphs above, as though fully set forth herein.

21 117. LaborCode section 2802 requires an enployer to indemnify its employees forall necessary expenditures orlosses incurred by an employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties of employment.

118. Labor Code section 2802(b) states, “[a]ll awards made by a court ... for reimbursement of necessary expenditures” shall carry interest, at the same rate as judgments in civil actions, and said interest will accrue from the date on which the employee incurred the necessary expenditure including, but not limited to, reasonable costs and attomey’ s fees incurred by the employee in enforcing their nghts granted pursuant to Labor Code section 2802. The exact amount of the necessary expenditures orlosses is in an amount to be proven at time of tral.

119. Furthermore, Labor Code section 2802(c) states, “[f]or the purposes of this section, the term ‘necessary expenditures or losses’ shall include all reasonable costs, including, but not limited to, attomey’ s fees incurred by the employee enforcing the rights granted by this section.”

120. Plaintiff and, on information and belief, members of the Security Guard Class incurred business expenses in direct consequence of their job duties through the use of their personal cell phones. On information and belief, Plaintiff and the Security Guard Class were required to use their personal cell phone in the performance of their work duties to commmmicate with supervisors, dispatchers, and co- workers, and they were also required to maintain and monitor their personal cell phones at all times when they were on a shift so they would be available to respond to instructions. Despite Defendants’ knowledge that Plaintiff and members of the Security Guard Class were using their personal cell phones for work related purposes, Defendants failed to provide appropriate reimbursement for these expenses, in violation of Labor Code section 2802.

121. As a direct result of Defendants’ violations alleged herein, Plaintiff and members of the Security Guard Class suffered and continue to suffer, substantial losses related to Defendants’ failure to indenmify them for the expenses and losses, including the use and enjoyment of such monies, lost interest on such monies and expenses, and attomey’s fees and costs in seeking to compel Defendants to fully perform its obligations under state law, all to their respective damage in amounts according to proof at tnal and within the jurisdictional limitations of this Court.

22 122. Plaintiff seeks to recover in a civil action to the fullest extent permissible all available remedies including but not limited to the unpaid balance of the indemmification from Defendants’ violations, interest thereon permitted by Labor Code section 2802(b), reasonahle attomey’ s fees and costs of suit, declaratory relief, and any other permitted remedies including those permitted pursuant to Labor Code sections 2802 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. The exact amount of reimbursements, interest, costs and attomey’ s fees will be in an amount to be proved at time of trial.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter requested.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE WAGE STATEMENTS

(Violation of Labor Code sections 226 and 1198 and the “Records” section of the Applicable IWC Wage Order) (Alleged By Plaintiff Individually and On Behalf of the Security Guard Class Against All Defendants)

123. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs above, as though fully set forth herein.

124. Plaintiff and Security Guard Class members were and are non-exempt employees of Defendants in California within the meaning of the Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage Order.

125. Labor Code section 226(a) requires that employers, including Defendants, fumish their employees with each wage payment an accurate and itemized writing that shows gross wages eamed, total hours worked, all deductions, net wages eamed, the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid, the name of the employee and the portion of his or her social security number, the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer, and all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee.

126. LaborCode section 226(e), in part, pemmits employees sutfennginjury to collect the greater of all actual damages or the amount specified in Labor Code section 226 perviolation.

127. LaborCode section 226(e)(2)(B) states, in pertinent part, “an employee is deemed to suffer injury for purposes of this subdivision if the employer fails to provide accurate and complete infonmation as required by any one or more of items (1) to (9), inclusive, of subdivision (a) and the employee cannot

23 promptly and easily determine from the wage statement al one one ormore of the following: (i) The amount of the gross wages ornet wages paid to the emiployee during the pay period orany of the otherinformation required to be provided on the itemized wage staterment pursuant to items (2) to (4), inclusive, (6), and (9) of subdivision (a).”

128. Labor Code section 226(h) states, “An employee may also bring an action for injunctive relief to ensure compliance with this section, and is entitled to an award of costs and reasonabl e attomey's fees.”

129. Defendants knowingly and intentionally failed to provide Plaintiff and Security Guard Class members an accurate itemized wage statement with each wage payment as required by Labor Code section 226(a). Defendants knowingly and intentionally failed to provide Plaintiff and members of the Security Guard Class with each wage payment an accurate wage statement showing, among other things, the total regular and overtime hours worked during the pay period, as well as the corresponding gross and net wages eamed, all applicable hourly rates and the corresponding mumber of hours worked at each hourly rate, and the address of the legal entity.

130. Defendants’ failure to provide accurate wage statements deprived Plaintiff and members of the Security Guard Class of the ability to promptly and easily understand and question the calculation and rate of pay and hours used to calculate the wages paid by Defendants. Plaintiff and members of the Security Guard Class, therefore, had no way to dispute any error in the payment or calculation of thein wages, all of which resulted in an unjustified economic enrichment to Defendants, and Plaintiff and members of the Security Guard Class sutfered actual damages as a result.

131. Defendants’ failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements constitutes an injury as defined under Labor Code section 226(€e)(2)(B). Therefore, Plaintiff and members of the Security Guard Class have suffered an injury forpurposes of Labor Code section 226 and are entitled to recover the greater of all actual damages or the amount specified in section 226 perviolation.

132. Plaintiff and Security Guard Class members suffered and continue to sutferinjuries, losses and actual damages as a direct result of Defendants’ Labor Code violations, including lost interest on such wages, and expenses and attomey's fees in seeking to compel Defendants to fully perform its obligations,

24 in an amount to be shown according to proof at tnal.

133. Plaintiff seeks to recover all available remedies including, but not limited to damages, penalties, attomey's fees, costs, and injunctive relief to the fullest extent permitted by law.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter requested.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY ALL WAGES DUE UPON SEPARATION OF EMPLOYMENT

(Violations of Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203) (Alleged By Plaintiff Individually and On Behalf of the Waiting Time Penalties Subclass Against All Defendants)

134. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs above, as though fully set forth herein.

135. Plaintiff and Waiting Time Penalties Subclass members were and are non-exempt employees of Defendants in California within the meaning of the Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage Order.

136. Labor Code section 201 requires Defendants to immediately pay any wages, without abatement or reduction, to any employee who is discharged. Labor Code section 202 requires Defendantswages due and owing to an employee not having a written contract for a definite period, who quits his or her employment, within 72 hours of the employee quitting his or her employment, unless the employee has given 72 hours previous notice of his or herintention to quit, in which case the employee is entitled to his or her wages at the time of quitting.

137. For violation of Labor Code sections 201 and 202, Labor Code section 203 causes the unpaid wages of an employee to continue as a penalty from the due date thereof, at the same rate until paid or until an action is commenced, but the wages shall not continue for more than 30 days.

138. As a result of Defendants’ conduct during the applicable statutory period, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and, on information and belief, the Waiting Time Penalties Subclass all wages due and owing to them, including mininmum wages, overtime wages, and regular wages for all the time they were suffered or permitted to work or were engaged in work under Defendants’ control, as well as all meal period premiums and rest period premiums owed within the time required by Labor Code sections 201 and 202, as applicable.

139. To date, Plaintiff has not yet received all wages due and payable, including but not limited to, mininum wages, overtime wages, regular wages, and meal and rest period prenmium wages owing to him. On information and belief, members of the Waiting Time Penalties Subclass have not yet received all mininmm wages, overtime wages, regular wages, and meal and rest premium wages due and owing to them.

140. As adirect result of Defendants’ violations alleged herein, Plaintiff and the Waiting Time Penalties Subclass members suffered and continue to suffer losses related to the use and enjoyment of wages due and owing to them, all to their respective damage in an amount to be shown according to proof at trial and within the jurisdictional limitations of this Court.

141. Plaintiff seeks all available remedies for Defendants’ violations to the fullest extent pemiissible.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter requested.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200, ET SEQ. (Alleged By Plaintiff Individually and On Behalf of the Security Guard Class Against All Defendants)

142. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs above, as though fully set forth herein.

143. California Business & Professions Code section 17200, et seq., prohibits acts of unfair conmpetition, which includes any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice...”

144. Defendants’ Labor Code and IWC Wage Order violations alleged herein constitute “inlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practices,” which are prohibited by Business and Professions Code sections 17200-17208 and include, but are not limited to: (i) failure to provide proper meal and rest periods and pay Plaintiff and the Security Guard Class premium wages for failure to provide compliant meal and rest periods; (ii) failure to pay Plaintiff and the Security Guard Class all regular, mininum, and overtime wages for all hours suffered or pemmitted to work and under the control of

20 Defendants; (iii) failure to indemnify Plaintiff and the Security Guard Class for necessary business expenses incurred in direct consequence of the discharge of their duties and under the direction of Defendants; (iv) failure to maintain accurate records of the hours that Plaintiff and the Security Guard Class worked while empl oyed by Detendants; (v) failure to provide Plaintiff and the Security Guard Class with accurate itemized wage statements; and (vi) failure to timely pay Plaintiff and members of the Wiaiting Time Penalties Subclass all wages owed upon separation of their employment with Defendants.

145. Defendants intentionally avoided paying Plaintiff and the Security Guard Class all wages and/or monies, and other financial ohligations attached thereto, to create for Defendants an artificially lower cost of doing business, and thus, undercut its competitors.

146. Defendants lowered its costs of doing business by paying Plaintiff and the Security Guard Class an amount less than what is required by the California Labor Code and the applicable Wage Order of the Industrial Weltare Commission, thereby unfairly forcing Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees to perforrm work without fair compensation and benefits.

147. Defendants held itself out to Plaintiff and the Security Guard Class as being knowledgeable about, and adhering to, the employment laws of California at all times relevant herein. Plaintiff and the Security Guard Class relied on and believed in Defendants’ representation conceming Defendants’ adherence to the California laws, all to their detriment.

148. Defendants’ scheme to lowerits payroll and operation costs and thus profit, by withholding money owed to the class and withholding wages, compensation and benefits, which are all the property of Plaintiff and the Security Guard Class, in violation of the California Labor Code and the IWC Wage Orders, as alleged herein, constitutes an “unlawtul, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice,” under California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq. As a result of Defendants’ unfain conmpetition, Plaintiff and the Security Guard Class suffered injury in fact by losing money and/o property.

149. Business and Professions Code section 17204, states, in relevant part, “[alctions for relief pursuant to this chapter shall be prosecuted.. . by...a person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition.”

27 150. Defendants acquired money and property owed to Plaintiff and the Security Guard Class by means of an unlawful practice that constitutes unfair competition as defined by Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.

151. Plaintiff and the Security Guard Class are persons in interest under Business and Professions Code section 17203 to whom money and property should be restored. Business and Professions Code section 17203 states, in relevant part, that “ary person may pursue representative claims or relief on behalf of others only if the claimant meets the standing requirements of Section 17204.”

152. Plaintiff is a person who suffered injury in fact and lost money, wages, compensation, and benefits, as a result of Defendants’ unfair competition. Thus, pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections 17203 and 17204, Plaintiff may pursue representative claims and reliet on behalf of himself and the putative classes.

153. Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17203, “[t]he court may make such orders or judgments, as may be necessary to restore to any person in interest any money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of such unfair competition.”

154. Defendants reaped unfair benefits and illegal profits at the expense of Plaintiff and the Security Guard Class by committing the unlawful acts alleged herein. Thus, Defendants must make restitution and/or be subject to other equitable relief pursuant to Business & Professions Code section 17203, and restore all unpaid wages to Plaintiff and the Security Guard Class.

155. Plaintiff and the Security Guard Class suffered and continue to suffer loss of wages and monies, all in an amount to be shown according to proof at trial and within the jurisdiction of this Court.

156. Plaintiff seeks all available remedies on behalf of himself and on behalf of the Security Guard Class, including, but not limited to, restitution of all wages and all monies owed, all in an amount to be shown according to proof at tnal. All such remedies are cumulative of relief available under other laws, pursuant to Business & Professions Code section 17205.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter requested.

/1] /1]

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PRODUCE EMPLOYMENT RECORDS

(Violation of Labor Code §§ 226(c) and 1198.5) (Alleged By Plaintiff Individually Against All Defendants)

157. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs above, as though fully set forth herein.

158. Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee of Defendants who worked in California within the meaning of the Labor Code and applicable Wage Order.

159. Pursuant to Labor Code section 226(c), an employer who receives a written request to inspect or copy records pertaining to an employee nmust conmply within 21 calendar days from the date of the request.

160. Labor Code section 226(t) provides that a failure by an employer to permit a former employee to inspect or copy records within the 21-day period entitles the employee to recover a $750 penalty from the employer.

161. Labor Code section 1198.5 gives every cumrent and former employee, or his or her representative, the right to inspect and receive a copy of the personnel records that the employer maintains relating to the employee’s performance or to any grievance conceming the employee.

162. Under Labor Code section 1198.5, if an employer fails to pemmit a current or former employee to inspect or copy his personnel records within the thirty days provided in the statute, the employee may recover a penalty of $750 from the employer.

163. Plaintiff sent an employment records request letter via certified mail on November29, 2017 to the address on file for Defendants. On January 8, 2018 and February 2, 2018, Plaintiff sent additional employment records request letters via certified mail. To date, Plaintiff has not received a copy of his personnel records.

164. Thus, Plaintiff seeks all available remedies on behalf of himself, including but not limited to the Labor Code sections 226(f) and 1198.5 penalties authorized under California law.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter requested.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:

S o

a

Q.

D

5 Q

-

e o

For general damages;

For special damages;

For liquidated damages in an amount equal to the wages unlawfully unpaid and interest thereon pursuant to Labor Code § 1194.2;

For actual damages pursuant to Labor Code § 226(e);

For reasonable attomeys’ fees, costs of suit, and interest to the extent permitted by law, including pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, Labor Code §§ 218.5, 218.6, 226, 1194, and 2802;

For waiting time penalties under Labor Code § 203;

For a reimbursement of all work-related expenses pursuant to Labor Code § 2802;

For restitution as provided by Business and Professions Code §17200 et seq.;

For an order requiring Defendants to restore and disgorge all funds to Plaintiff acquired by means of any act or practice declared by this Court to be unlawful, unfair or fraudulent and, therefore, constituting unfair competition under Business and Professions Code §17200 et seq;

For an award of damages in the amount of unpaid conmpensation and monies including, but not limited to actual damages, unpaid wages, overtime wages, mininim wages, regular wages, unreimbursed expenses, waiting time penalties and other penalties according to proof, including interest thereon;

For an award of an additional hour of pay at the regular rate of compensation pursuant to Labor Code §226.7(b) for each meal and rest period not in accordance with an applicable Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission;

For an order imposing a constructive trust upon the Defendants to compel them to transfer wages that have been wrongfully obtained and held by Defendants to unpaid

employees;

30 m. Foranaccounting to determine all money wrongfully obtained and held by Defendants; n. For a dedaratory judgment that Defendants have violated Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 223, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1198, 2802, and the “Hours and Days of Work,” “Mininum Wages,” “Records” and “Meal Periods” sections of the Wage Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission;

For pre and post-judgment interest; and

For such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Please take notice that Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all Causes of Action.

O

o

Dated: March 26, 2018 GRAHAMHOLLIS APC

By: > GRAHAN SP. HOLLIS

VILMARIE CORDERO RITA LEONG

Attomeys for Plaintiff

GEORGE JORDAN