This case was last updated from Santa Clara County Superior Courts on 08/07/2019 at 18:32:13 (UTC).

Doonan v. Island Hospitality Management, LLC (Consolidated into Lead Case No. 16CV301473)

Case Summary

On 03/21/2018 Doonan filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against Island Hospitality Management, LLC Consolidated into Lead Case No 16CV301473. 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 Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ******5187

  • Filing Date:

    03/21/2018

  • 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

Walsh, Brian C

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Doonan, Liliana

Defendants

Island Hospitality Management, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation

Island Hospitality Management, LLC

Other

Superior Court of California

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Muller, Daniel Jerome

Kavalaris, Alexandria Catherine

Other Attorney

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

 

Court Documents

Notice

Notice CMC reset from 11-2-18 to 3-1-19: Comment: CMC reset from 11/2/18 to 3/1/19

Proof of Service

Proof of Service: Comment: Proof of Service

Statement: Case Management Conference

Joint CMC Statement: Comment: HRG 11/2/18 Joint Case Management Conference Statement

Notice: Change Address/Firm Name

Notice of Change of Firm Name: Comment: Notice of Change of Firm Name

Notice

Notice CMC reset from 7-20-18 to 11-2-18: Comment: CMC reset from 7/20/18 to 11/2/18

Statement: Case Management Conference

HRG 7 20 18 Joint Initial Case Management Conference Class A: Comment: HRG 7/20/18 Joint Initial Case Management Conference Class Action Statement

Answer (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

Answer Response Denial Demurrer - First Appearance: Comment: to complaint Attorney Shaw

Dismissal

Dismissal: Comment: Partial * Dismissal Without Prejudice 8th cause of action

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

Summons: Issued/Filed

Summons Issued Filed:

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies):

Civil Case Cover Sheet

Civil Case Cover Sheet: Comment: COMPLEX

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/01/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Conference: Case Management - HRG 7 20 18 Joint Initial Case Management Conference Class A: Joint CMC Statement: Judicial Officer: Walsh, Brian C; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Cancel Reason: Vacated; Comment: (1st CMC) Proposed Class Action * Employment * Discovery and responsive pleading deadline stayed, as of 3/23/18, when the case was deemed complex. 8th cause of action (violations of FLSA) dismissed without prejudice on 5/3/18. Tentative settlement reached following mediation with Jeff Ross. Preliminary approval hearing in related case Ruffy is set for end of November 2019 in D13.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice CMC reset from 11-2-18 to 3-1-19: Comment: CMC reset from 11/2/18 to 3/1/19

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service - Proof of Service: Comment: Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Statement: Case Management Conference - Joint CMC Statement: Comment: HRG 11/2/18 Joint Case Management Conference Statement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice: Change Address/Firm Name - Notice of Change of Firm Name: Comment: Notice of Change of Firm Name

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice CMC reset from 7-20-18 to 11-2-18: Comment: CMC reset from 7/20/18 to 11/2/18

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Statement: Case Management Conference - HRG 7 20 18 Joint Initial Case Management Conference Class A: Comment: HRG 7/20/18 Joint Initial Case Management Conference Class Action Statement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Answer (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Answer Response Denial Demurrer - First Appearance: Comment: to complaint Attorney Shaw

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Dismissal - Dismissal: Comment: Partial * Dismissal Without Prejudice 8th cause of action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2018
  • Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - Comment: Proof of Service of Summons/Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2018
  • 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
  • 03/21/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Summons: Issued/Filed - Summons Issued Filed:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies):

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet: Comment: COMPLEX

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

page 0 can't be parsed

page 1 can't be parsed

page 2 can't be parsed

page 3 can't be parsed

e Driving hotel shuttle vans to drop off and pick up guests;

e Assisting in the breakfast area by bussing tables, refilling food bins, and replenishing

other items as needed;

e Covering the front desk for agents on break;

e Attending the daily huddle for the team;

e Assisting with cleaning the breakfast area;

e Taking an inventory of food so that new food could be ordered;

e Providing guest services by following-up on any outstanding items from previous

shifts; |

e Preparing the daily bank deposits and taking the deposits to the bank;

. Covering the front desk for agents taking their meal periods;

e Taking regular shifts at the front desk to answer phones and to assist with checking in

and checking out guests;

e Helping prepare dinners (including making trips to the grocery store to purchase food);

e Reviewing emails, preparing reports, and placing orders as necessary.

19. As the foregoing makes abundantly clear, Ms. Doonan and her fellow AGM’s, FOM’s, and OM’s did not perform exempt duties when they worked at Island. Ms. Doonan and the other AGM’s, FOM’s, and OM’s, therefore, should have been paid overtime for all hours worked in excess of eight per day and forty per week.

20. Ms. Doonan and the‘ other AGM’s, FOM’s, and OM’s regularly worked twelve houf days and regularly worked sixty hours a week or more.

Failure To Provide Lunch & Meal Periods As Required By Law

21. Ms. Doonan and the other AGM’s, FOM’s, and OM’s were not authorized or permitted to take off-duty meal periods of at least thirty minutes before the commencement of the fifth hour of work on shifts that lasted longef than six hours. Instead, Island required Ms. Doonan and the other AGM’s, FOM’s, and OM’s to take on-duty meal periods and/or did not authorize them to také meal periods at all during their shifts.

22. Eventhough Ms. Doonan’s and the other Assistant General Managers’, Front

_5.

Office Managers’, and Operations Managers’ meal periods were Short, “on-duty,” or not provided at all, Ms. Doonan and the other AGM’s, FOM’s, and OM’s did not receive one hour of their pay at their regular rate each day that Island failed to provide them with a meal period as required under the applicable IWC Wage Order and the Labor Code.

23. Ms. Doonan and other similarly situated AGM’s, FOM’s, and OM’s were likewise not authorized or permitted to take off-duty rest periods of least 10 minutes when they worked shifts longer than 3.5 hours. Instead, Ms. Doonan and the other AGM’s, FOM’s, and OM’s were required to continue working throughout their shifts.

24. Ms. Doonan and the other AGM’s, FOM’s, and OM’s did not receive one hour of pay at their regular rate each day that the Island failed to provide them with a rest period in accordance with the provisions of the applicable IWC Wage Order and Labor Code section 226.7.

25. Island also failed to provide its employees with accurate itemized wage statements as required by California Labor Code section 226(a). Specifically, Island failed to provide all of its California employees with properly itemized wage statements between January 1, 2015 and, on information and belief, April 2017. Island knowingly and intentionally provided its California employees with wage statements that did not contain the correct name and address of the legal entity that employed them. In addition, Island knowingly and intentionally provided its California AGM’s, FOM’s, and OM’s with wage statements that did not contain accurate information regarding the total hours worked and the total wages earned.

26. On or about September 22, 2017, Ms. Doonan gave notice to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA?”), pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), Labor Code sections 2699, 2699.3, and 2699.5, of Defendant’s violation of California Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Order No. 4-2001, California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Chapter 5, Section 11100, and California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203, 204,226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, and 1198. The LWDA did not respond to the Notice within sixty days after electronic filing and service by certified mail or at any time before the filing of this

Complaint.

page 6 can't be parsed

include up to one hundred people. The California Employee Class is believed to include more than 1,000 people. The sizes of the two classes make it impracticable to bring all members of the classes individually before the court, or to join hundreds of individual class members as parties. Furthermore, the identities of the members of the classes are determinable from the Defendants’ records. In addition, the records pertaining to the hours worked by, and the compensation paid to, each potential class member are maintained by the Defendants. A class action is, therefore, a reasonable and practical means of resolving the claims raised in this action.

32. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of this lawsuit. Even if any class member could afford individual litigation against a large company like Island, it would be unduly burdensome to the court system. Individual litigation would magnify the delay and expense to all parties. By contrast, a class action presents far fewer management difficulties and affords the benefits of uniform adjudication of the claims, financial economy for the pai‘ties, and comprehensive supervision by a single court. Concentrating this litigation in one forum will promote judicial economy and parity among the claims of individual class members and judicial consistency. Notice of the pendency and any resolution of this action can be provided to class members by mail, print, broadcast, internet, and/or multimedia publication.

33. This type -of case is well-suited for class action treatment because (1) the Defendants’ practices were uniform; (2) the burden is on the Defendants to prove they properly compensated their employees; (3) the burden is on the Defendants to accurately record hours worked by non-exempt employees and meal periods taken for non-exempt employees; and (4) the burden is on the Defendants to prove that they provided accurate itemized wage statements to their California employees.

34. Many issues of law and/or fact are common to Ms. Doonan and the class members. These issues predominate over any individual questions. These common 1ssues and/or facts include: |

a. Whether Defendants’ AGM’s, FOM’s, and OM’s were improperly classified as exempt employees; b. Whether Defendants AGM’s, FOM’s, and OM’s performed administrative duties;

page 8 can't be parsed

page 9 can't be parsed

page 10 can't be parsed

page 11 can't be parsed

page 12 can't be parsed

page 13 can't be parsed

page 14 can't be parsed

required by sections 201, 202, and 204 of the Labor Code, Ms. Doonan and the other Assistant General Managers with all wages due and owing, including regular wages for time worked and wages related to meal and rest periods.

64. Cofisequently, pursuant to Labor Code § 203, Defendants owe Ms. Doonan and the other similarly situated Assistant General Managers who did nof receive payment by the time required by Labor Code §§ 201 or 202 the above-described § 203 penalties, all in an amount to be shown according to proof at trial and within the jurisdiction of this Court.

65. Ms. Doonan, on behalf of herself and on behalf of similarly situated Assistant General Managers, seeks all available remedies for Defendants’ violations of the Labor Code including, but not limited to, any and all wages due, penalties, monies, interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs to the extent permitted by law.

66. WHEREFORE, Ms. Doonan prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as set forth below.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PROPERLY ITEMIZE WAGE STATEMENTS

(On Behalf of Ms. Doonan and all Similarly situated current and former Assistant General Managers and On Behalf of Ms. Doonan and all similarly situated current and former employees of Defendants who worked in California) (California Labor Code § 226(a))

67. Ms. Doonan hereby realleges and incorporates herein by this reference each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 66, inclusive, of this complaint, as though fully set forth herein. |

68. Labor Code § 226 requires employers to provide employees with correctly itemized wage statements at each pay period, but in no event fewer than twice monthly, including an accurate accounting of all hours worked, proper payment of wages, compensation, and expenses, and proper withholding of payroll taxes, among other items.

69. Within the four (4) years preceding the filing of this lawsuit, Ms. Doonan and the

-16-

70. Since on or about January 1, 2015 until early 2017, Defendants failed to provide their California employees with accurate itemized wage statements. Specifically, the wage statements provided by Defendants to their employees did not contain the correct legal name and address of the entity that employed them.

71. In violation of state law, Defendants have refused to perform their obligations to provide Ms. Doonan and those similarly situated to her with properly itemized wage statements. As a direct and proximate result, Ms. Doonan and the other class members have suffered, and continue to suffer, substantial losses related to the use and enjoyment of such wages, compensation, and expenses, lost interest, and expenses and attorneys’ fees in seeking to compel Defendants to fully perform their obligation under state law, all to their respective damage in amounts according to proof at time of trial, but in amounts in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this Court.

72. As Defendants’ conduct described herein violates the provisions of the California Labor Code with regard to providing Plaintiffs with properly itemized wage statements, Ms. Doonan and Defendants’ other employees are entitled to recover all amounts for all such wage statement violations, interest, attorneys’ fees, and court costs and expenses of suit according to proof at time of trial, but in amounts in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this Court. Ms. Doonan and Defendants’ other employees are also entitled to recover, in addition to or in lieu of | some or all such compensation and benefits, nominal, actual and compensatory damages in amounts according to proof at time of trial, but in amounts in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this Court.

73. Defendants have applied, are applying, and will apply the foregoing policies and practices to certain class members who are still employed by Defendants, and to certain injured and damaged, and are threatened vfith furthef injury and damage, by Defendants’ unlawful actions as alleged, and are thus threatened with immediate irreparable harm by the continuation of Defendants’ unlawful actions as heretofore alleged, and have no complete adequate remedy at law. Therefore, Ms. Doonan requests the Court enter an order which provides appropriate injunctive relief to prevent Defendants from committing such acts in the future.

74. WHEREFORE, Ms. Doonan prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as set forth below.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION UNFAIR COMPETITION

(On Behalf of Ms. Doonan and all similarly situated current and former Assistant General Managers) (Violations of Business And Professions Code Sections 16600 and 17200)

75. Ms. Doonan hereby realleges and incorporates herein by this reference each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 74, inclusive, of this complaint, as though fully set forth herein.

76. _The actions of Defendants as alleged herein constitute unfair business practices within the meaning of Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code. Specifically, Defendants have systematically engaged in unlawful conduct such as the wage and hour violations alleged herein.

77. Defendants lowered their costs of doing business by paying Ms. Doonan and the other Assistant General Managers less money than what was required by the California Labor Code and applicable Wage Orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, thereby unfairly forcing Ms. Doonan and the other Assistant General Managers to perform work without fair compensation.

78. Ms. Doonan and the other Assistant General Managers suffered and continue to suffer loss of wages and other lost monies, all in an amount to be shown according to proof at trialpage 18 can't be parsed

§ 2698, et. seq.

85. Asalleged in this Complaint, Defendants violated California Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Order No. 4-2001 and California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 226,226.7, 510, 512, 558, & 1198 by failing to provide Ms. Doonan and her colleagues with overtime pay, with rest periods, with meal periods, and with accurate itemized wage statements.

86. Labor Code § 2698 et. seq. imposes upon Island a penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial violation and two hundred dollars ($200.00) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each subsequent violation.

87. Pursuant to Labor Code § 2698 et seq., any provision of the Labor Code that provides for a civil penalty to be assessed and collected by the LWDA may be recovered by Ms. Doonan through a civil action. Ms. Doonan seeks to recover civil penalties on behalf of herself and all other current and former employees of Defendant. The exact amount of the applicable penalty is all in an amount to be shown according to proof at trial.

88. For bringing this action, Ms. Doonan is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs incurred herein. |

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION | VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

(On Behalf of Ms. Doonan and all similarly situated current and former Assistant General Managers) (29 U.S.C. §§ 207, 216(b), and 255(a))

89. Ms. Doonan hereby realleges and incorporates herein by this reference each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 88, inclusive, of this complaint, as though fully set forth herein.

90. At all relevant times herein, Ms. Doonen’s employment, and the employment of her fellow AGM’s, FOM’s, and OM’s was subject to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended (“FLSA™), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et. seq. goods for commerce as defined by U.S.C. § 203 (r) & (s) and related Department of Labor regulations.

92. As alleged, Island routinely required Ms. Doonan and her fellow AGM’s, FOM’s, and OM’s to work more than forty hours per week without paying wage (including overtime wages) for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week.

93. Island willfully violated the FLSA by failing to pay Ms. Doonan and her colleagues overtime wages.

94, Ms. Doonan and her fellow AGM’s, FOM’s, and OM’s suffered damages in the form of unpaid wages as a direct and proximate cause of Island’s failure to pay them in accordance with FLSA.

95. Island intentionally, and with reckless disregard for its responsibilities under the FLSA, and without good cause, failed to pay Ms. Doonan and her fellow AGM’s, FOM’s, and OM’s all of their wages and, therefore, is liable to Ms. Doonan and her colleagues for liquidated damages in an amount equal to their lost wages over a three year statute of limitations, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(b) & 255(a) of the FLSA.

96. WHEREFORE, Ms. Doonan prays for judgment against Island as set forth below.

PRAYER

1. For general damages in an amount to be determined according to proof at trial; 2. For special damages in an amount to be determined according to proof at trial; 3. For reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs of suit, and interest to the extent permitted by

law, including pursuant to Civil Code § 1021.5, Labor Code §§ 218.5, 218.6, and 226;

4. For reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs of suit, and interest to the extent permitted by law, including pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act; 1 5. For statutory penalties to the extent permitted by law, including those pursuant to the Labor Code and the Orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission; | 6. For injunctive relief as provided by the Labor Code including, but not limited to to, ‘Section 226(g) of the Labor Code and Business and Professions Code § 17200 et. seq.; 8. For an order requiring Defendants to restore disgorge all funds 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 ef seq.;

% For an award of damages in the amount of unpaid compensation and monies including, but not limited to, actual damages, unpaid wages, regular wages, Waiting time penédties, and other penalties according to proof, including interest thereon;

10. 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 compliance with the applicable Wage Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission;

11. For penalties for each initial and subsequent violation of each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in addition to an amount sufficient to recover the underpaid wages to be paid to each affected employee pursuant to Labor Code § 558;

12. 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;

13. For an accounting to determine all money wrongfully obtained and held by Detfendants;

14. For pre- and post-judgment interest; and

15. For such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated: March 21, 2018 VENTURA ROSSI HERSEY & MULLER, LLP

By: