This case was last updated from Santa Clara County Superior Courts on 08/08/2019 at 08:38:02 (UTC).

Liang, et al. v. FedEx Office and Print Services, Inc. [Coordination proceedings pending in Alameda; JCCP5010]

Case Summary

On 08/20/2018 Liang filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against FedEx Office and Print Services, Inc Coordination proceedings pending in Alameda JCCP5010. This case was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Courts, Downtown Superior Court located in Santa Clara, California. The Judge overseeing this case is Walsh, Brian C. The case status is Other - Stayed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ******3303

  • Filing Date:

    08/20/2018

  • Case Status:

    Other - Stayed

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    Santa Clara County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Downtown Superior Court

  • County, State:

    Santa Clara, California

Judge Details

Judge

Walsh, Brian C

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

Liang, Bing

Chong, Lester

Defendant

FedEx Office and Print Services, Inc.

Not Classified By Court

Superior Court of California

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Workman, Robin Gibson

Righetti, Matthew

Defendant Attorneys

Nageotte, Kyle William

Peterson, James Michael

Not Classified By Court Attorney

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

 

Court Documents

Notice: Entry of Order

Notice Entry of Order: Comment: Notice: Entry of Order

Notice: Entry of Order

Notice Entry of Order: Comment: Notice of Entry of Order Staying Included Cases and Setting Hearing on Petition to Coordinate

Notice: Entry of Order

Notice Entry of Order: Comment: Notice: Entry of Order

Notice: Entry of Order

Notice Entry of Order: Comment: Notice of Entry of Order Assigning Coordination Motion Judge (ALAMEDA)

Notice: Entry of Order

Notice Entry of Order:

Order

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

Proof of Service

Proof of Service: Comment: Proof of Service

Declaration

Matthew Righetti Declaration ISO Petition for Coordination: Comment: Declaration of Matthew Righetti in Support of Plaintiffs' Petition for Coordination

Memorandum: Points and Authorities

MPA ISO Petition for Coordination: Comment: Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs' Petition for Coordination

Statement: Case Management Conference

Joint CMC Statement: Comment: HRG 12/14/18 Joint Case Management Statement

Notice: Related Cases

Notice of Related Case: Comment: RG17856291

Proof of Service

Proof of Service: Comment: PROOF OF SERVICE

Notice

Notice: Comment: FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES, INC. S NOTICE OF APPEARANCE. atty: Peterson.

Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)

Proof of Service of Summons Complaint: Comment: Proof of Service of Summons/Complaint

Order: Deeming Case Complex

Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline: Comment: Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline signed/BCW

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

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

Civil Case Cover Sheet

Civil Case Cover Sheet: Comment: COMPLEX

Summons: Issued/Filed

Summons Issued Filed:

10 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/16/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice: Entry of Order - Notice Entry of Order: Comment: Notice: Entry of Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice: Entry of Order - Notice Entry of Order: Comment: Notice of Entry of Order Staying Included Cases and Setting Hearing on Petition to Coordinate

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice: Entry of Order - Notice Entry of Order: Comment: Notice: Entry of Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice: Entry of Order - Notice Entry of Order: Comment: Notice of Entry of Order Assigning Coordination Motion Judge (ALAMEDA)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2019
  • Conference: Case Management - Judicial Officer: Walsh, Brian C; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Cancel Reason: Vacated; Comment: (2nd CMC) representative PAGA action (adequate seating) * Discovery and responsive pleading deadline stayed, as of 8/24/18, when the case was deemed complex. Related Case: Johnson v. FedEx Office and Print Services, Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, Case No. RG17856291; complaint filed 4/11/17 (Pending). Coordination Proceedings are PENDING.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice: Entry of Order - Notice Entry of Order:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Order - Order Staying Action Due to Pending Coordination Proceedings: Comment: Order Staying Action Due to Pending Coordination Proceedings - signed/BCW

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service - Proof of Service: Comment: Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Declaration - Matthew Righetti Declaration ISO Petition for Coordination: Comment: Declaration of Matthew Righetti in Support of Plaintiffs' Petition for Coordination

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Memorandum: Points and Authorities - MPA ISO Petition for Coordination: Comment: Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs' Petition for Coordination

    Read MoreRead Less
5 More Docket Entries
  • 12/11/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service: Mail - Proof of Service: Comment: Proof of Service: Mail

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Statement: Case Management Conference - Joint CMC Statement: Comment: HRG 12/14/18 Joint Case Management Statement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice: Related Cases - Notice of Related Case: Comment: RG17856291

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service - Proof of Service: Comment: PROOF OF SERVICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice: Comment: FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES, INC. S NOTICE OF APPEARANCE. atty: Peterson.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - Proof of Service of Summons Complaint: Comment: Proof of Service of Summons/Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2018
  • 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/BCW

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies): Comment: Representative Action Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet: Comment: COMPLEX

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Summons: Issued/Filed - Summons Issued Filed:

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

E-FILED

8/20/2018 4:26 PM Clerk of Court

WORKMAN LAW FIRM, PC Superior Court of CA, Robin G. Workman (Bar #145810) County of Santa Clara robin@workmanlawpc.com 18CV333303

Rachel E. Davey (Bar #316096) Reviewed By: R. Walker

rachel@workmanlawpc.com 177 Post Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 782-3660 Facsimile: (415) 788-1028

RIGHETTI « GLUGOSKI, P.C. Matthew Righetti (Bar # 121012) 456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415-983-0900

Fax: 415-397-9005 |

Email: matt@righettilaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Bing Liang and Lester Chong on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

BING LIANG and ,LESTER CHONG, on behalf of | NO- themselves, and all others similarly situated, REPRESENTATIVE ACTION

L COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs,

Unlimited Civil Case ¥ The Amount Demanded Exceeds

FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES, INC. $25,000 dba FEDEX and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

Defendants.

Plaintiffs Bing Liang and Lester Chong (“Plaintiffs”), by their attorneys, bring this action on behalf of themselves and similarly aggrieved employees, and hereby allege as

JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS

1. This lawsuit is a representative action brought by Plaintiffs against Defendant FedEx Office and Print Services, Inc. dba FedEx (hereinafter “Defendant” or “FedEx™) for violation of provisions of the California Labor Code. This is a representative action for recovery of penalties brought under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), California Labor Code section 2698, et seq. The PAGA permits “aggrieved employees” to bring a lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other current and former employees to address an employer’s violation of the California Labor Code. In this action, Plaintiffs allege that FedEx failed to provide suitable seats to Plaintiffs and other Customer Service Associates, during the applicable period, in violation of California L.abor Code Section 1198, the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004, Labor Code section 2698, et seq., and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 7-2001, Section 14, incorporated into the California Code of Regulation (“Wage Order 7-20017).

2. Plaintiffs are, and at all times herein mentioned were, adults over the age of 21 years of age and residing and working for Defendant FedEx in the State of California.

3. Defendant, FedEx, is and at all relevant times was, a corporation doing business within the State of California and is an employer under applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Orders. Defendant’s California Corporate Number is C3056223. Defendant maintains places of business located throughout the State of California.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

4. This action seeks relief for unremedied violations of Californta law, including, inter alia; penalties, interest and attorneys’ fees, as appropriate, to the State of California, to Plaintiffs themselves, to other aggrieved employees, and to other victims of the practices at issue, who have not been provided with adequate seating. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the value of injunctive relief sought, penalties, interest and attorneys’ fees do not exceed an aggregate of $4,999,999.99 and that Plaintiffs’ individual claims do not exceed $74,999.99.

5. The names and capacities of defendants sued herein under California Code of Plaintiffs, who therefore sue these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will seek to amend this Complaint and include these Doe defendants’ names and capacities when they are ascertained. Each of the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the conduct alleged herein and for the injuries suffered by Plaintiffs, other aggrieved employees, and the general public.

6. At all times mentioned in the causes of action alleged herein, each and every Defendant was an agent and/or employee of each and every other Defendant. In doing the things alleged in the causes of action stated herein, each and every Defendant was acting within the course and scope of this agency or employment and was acting with the consent, permission and authorization of each of the remaining Defendants. All actions of each Defendant as alleged in the causes of action stated herein were ratified and approved by every other Defendant or their officers or managing agents.

7. This action seeks relief on behalf of the following aggrieved employees in the employ of Defendant in California:

“All persons employed as Customer Service Associates at FedEx retail stores in

the State of California within the applicable statute of limitations.”

8. Section 14 of Wage Order 7-2001 provides as follows:

(A) “All working employees shall be provided with suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats;

(B) When employees are not engaged in the active duties of their employment and the nature of the work requires standing, an adequate number of suitable seats shall be placed in reasonable proximity to the work area and employees shall be permitted to use such seats when it does not interfere with the performance of their duties.”

9. Plaintiffs worked as Customer Service Associates for Defendant. The nature of the work performed by Customer Service Associates is such that it reasonably permits the use of seats. Even if some of the work performed by Customer Service Associates requires standing, of seats will not interfere in the performance of their duties.

CAUSE OF ACTION

(California Labor Code Section 2699, et seq.)

10. Plaintiffs and aggrieved employees repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

11. The PAGA permits an “aggrieved employee” to recover penalties on behalf of himself or themselves and other current or former employees as a result of the employer’s violations of certain sections of the California Labor Code. Plaintiffs are aggrieved employees, in that Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant as Customer Service Associates during the statutory period, the nature of their work reasonable permitted the use of seats, and they were not provided with a seat, in violation of Labor Code section 1198 and Wage Order 7-2001, section 14. A violation of Labor Code section 1198 gives rise to private right of action under PAGA.

12. During all relevant periods, Defendant failed to provide Customer Service Associates, including Plaintiffs, with seating, despite the fact that the nature of the work at Defendant’s locations reasonably permits the use of seats.

13. During all relevant periods, California Labor Code section 1198 makes it illegal to employ an employee under conditions of labor that are prohibited by the applicable wage order. By failing to provide Plaintiffs and the aggrieved employees with seats, in violation of Wage Order 7-2001, section 14, Defendant violated California Labor Code section 1198.

14. Plaintiffs requests penalties against Defendant as provided under Labor Code section 2699(f) on behalf of themselves and all similarly aggrieved employees, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, in amounts to be proven at trial.

15. On May 25, 2018, Plaintiffs notified the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency and Defendant of Labor Code (“L.WDA”) of violations by Defendant as alleged herein pursuant to California Labor Code section 2699. Plaintiffs have not received any notice from the LWDA of an intent to investigate Plaintiffs’ allegations against Defendant.

PRAYER FOR RELIEFK

WHEREFORE Plaintiffs prays for judgment and relief as follows:

1. For recovery of penalties as provided by the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004;

Reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Labor Code section 2699(g); Costs of this suit;

Pre- and post-judgment interest; and,

SR W

Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Date: August 20, 2018

By: