This case was last updated from Santa Clara County Superior Courts on 08/08/2019 at 10:44:15 (UTC).

Ly v. Sage Intacct, Inc.

Case Summary

On 09/12/2018 Ly filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against Sage Intacct, Inc. 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:

    ******4378

  • Filing Date:

    09/12/2018

  • 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

Ly, Thompson

Defendant

Sage Intacct, Inc.

Not Classified By Court

Superior Court of California

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

McCormack, Bryan James

Defendant Attorneys

Miska, Perry

Behnia, Sophia

Dunne, Julie A

Not Classified By Court Attorney

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

 

Court Documents

Notice

Notice IDC 8-14-19 at 10am in D1: Comment: Informal Discovery Conference set for 8/14/19 at 10am in D1

Notice

Notice CMC reset from 9-27-19 to 10-25-19: Comment: CMC reset from 9/27/19 to 10/25/19

Stipulation and Order

Stipulation and Order: Comment: signed/BCW. Re updated hearing and briefing schedule for class certification; CMC reset from 5/3/19 to 9/27/19.

Answer (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

Answer to Complaint: Comment: Answer to Complaint

Notice

Notice CMC 5-3-19 at 10am in D1: Comment: CMC set for 5/3/19 at 10am in D1

Conference: Case Management

Joint CMC Statement: Scheduling Order: Judicial Officer: Walsh, Brian C; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Result: Held; Comment: (1st CMC)

Statement: Case Management Conference

Joint CMC Statement: Comment: Joint Case Management Conference Statement

Notice

Notice of Appearance.pdf: Comment: Notice of Appearance

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

Civil Lawsuit Notice

Civil Lawsuit Notice: Comment: 1st CMC set for 1/4/19 at 10am in D1; assigned to Hon. Brian C. Walsh

Summons: Issued/Filed

Summons Issued Filed:

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies): Comment: Complaint [Class Action]

Civil Case Cover Sheet

Civil Case Cover Sheet (final).pdf: Comment: COMPLEX

1 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/21/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • Reserved - Stipulation and Order: Judicial Officer: Walsh, Brian C; Hearing Time: 9:00 AM; Comment: Class Certification (moving papers due 10/14/19; opposition due 12/31/19; reply due 01/31/20)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2019
  • Conference: Case Management - Judicial Officer: Walsh, Brian C; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Comment: cont from 050319 (2nd CMC) Propose Wage and Hour Class Action * Discovery and responsive pleading deadline stayed, as of 9/17/18, when the case was deemed complex. Responsive pleadings due 1/25/19 (Answer to Complaint filed 1/25/19). Deadline to amend pleadings is 4/5/19. Class Certification HRG 2/21/20; briefing schedule; moving papers due 10/14/19; opposition due 12/31/19; reply due 1/31/20.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2019
  • Conference: Case Progress - Judicial Officer: Walsh, Brian C; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Comment: * Informal Discovery Conference *

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2019
  • Reserved - Judicial Officer: Walsh, Brian C; Hearing Time: 9:00 AM; Cancel Reason: Vacated; Comment: Class Certification (moving papers due 6/14/19; opposition due 7/12/19; reply due 7/22/19)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/15/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice IDC 8-14-19 at 10am in D1: Comment: Informal Discovery Conference set for 8/14/19 at 10am in D1

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice CMC reset from 9-27-19 to 10-25-19: Comment: CMC reset from 9/27/19 to 10/25/19

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2019
  • Conference: Case Management - Judicial Officer: Walsh, Brian C; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Cancel Reason: Vacated; Comment: (2nd CMC) Propose Wage and Hour Class Action * Discovery and responsive pleading deadline stayed, as of 9/17/18, when the case was deemed complex. Responsive pleadings due 1/25/19 (Answer to Complaint filed 1/25/19). Deadline to amend pleadings is 4/5/19. Class Certification HRG 8/9/19; briefing schedule - moving papers (6/14/19); opposition (7/12/19); reply (7/22/19).

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Stipulation and Order - Stipulation and Order: Comment: signed/BCW. Re updated hearing and briefing schedule for class certification; CMC reset from 5/3/19 to 9/27/19.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Answer (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Answer to Complaint: Comment: Answer to Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Order - Scheduling Order: Comment: Scheduling Order - signed/BCW

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice CMC 5-3-19 at 10am in D1: Comment: CMC set for 5/3/19 at 10am in D1

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Conference: Case Management - Joint CMC Statement: Scheduling Order: Judicial Officer: Walsh, Brian C; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Result: Held; Comment: (1st CMC)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Statement: Case Management Conference - Joint CMC Statement: Comment: Joint Case Management Conference Statement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice of Appearance.pdf: Comment: Notice of Appearance

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2018
  • Proof of Service - Comment: HRG1/4/2019.Proof of Service Notice:Entry of Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2018
  • 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
  • 09/13/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil Lawsuit Notice - Civil Lawsuit Notice: Comment: 1st CMC set for 1/4/19 at 10am in D1; assigned to Hon. Brian C. Walsh

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Summons: Issued/Filed - Summons Issued Filed:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies): Comment: Complaint [Class Action]

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet (final).pdf: Comment: COMPLEX

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

E-FILED

Edward J. Wynne (SBN 165819) 9/12/2018 3:31 PM ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com Clerk of Court

George Nemiroff (SBN 262058) Superior Court of CA, gnemiroff@wynnelawfirm.com County of Santa Clara

WYNNE LAW FIRM 18CV334378

80 E. Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Ste. 3G Reviewed By: R. Walker

Larkspur, CA 94939 Telephone (415) 461-6400 Facsimile (415)461-3900

Bryan J. McCormack (SBN 192418) bryan@mcelawfirm.com

MCCORMACK & ERLICH, LLP

150 Post Street, Suite 742

San Francisco, CA 94108

Telephone (415) 296-8420

Facsimile (415) 296-8552

Plaintiff’s Counsel

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA CIVIL - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

THOMPSON LY, individually and on Case No. behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, [CLASS ACTION] VS. 1. Labor Code §§ 510, 1194 (Cal. Wages)

2. B&P § 17200 (Cal. Wages).

SAGE INTACCT, INC., and DOES 1 to 3. Labor Code § 203 (Waiting Time Penalties) 10, Plaintiff Thompson Ly (hereinafter “Plaintiff””), on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This i1s a class action, under California Code of Civil Procedure § 382, seeking damages, restitution, declaratory relief, equitable relief, penalties, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, on behalf of Plaintiff and all other individuals who are or have been employed as Sales Development Representatives, Corporate Account Managers, or the functional equivalent for defendant Sage Intacct, Inc. (hereafter “Defendant”), in California during the four years prior to the filing of this action. Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of similarly situated employees who were (a) not paid overtime compensation and other wages; and (b) not timely and properly paid all their wages at time of separation.

2. The “Class Period” is designated as the period from four years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the time the Court certifies this case as a class action. The violations of California’s wage and hour laws, as described more fully below, have been ongoing for at least four years prior to the filing of this action, are continuing at present, and will continue unless and until enjoined by the Court.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims brought under the California Labor Code and California’s Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.

4. Venue 1s proper in this Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 395.5. Defendant conducts business within this judicial district and the harms complained of herein occurred within this judicial district.

5. The class consists of less than 100 members and all of the parties and class members are California citizens.

PARTIES

6. During the Class Period, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Sales

Development Representative in Santa Clara County, California. employees with the job titles of Sales Development Representatives (also known as Inbound Sales Representatives and Outbound Sales Representatives) and Corporate Account Managers, or the functional equivalent, employed within the State of California during the last four years through the time this case 1s certified as a class, alleging that they have been denied overtime compensation and other wages.

8. Plaintiff also brings this action as a California-only Waiting Time Penalties Sub- Class on behalf of all formerly employed California-based employees during the last four years through the time this case is certified as a class who were not timely and properly paid their final wages at time of termination in violation of California Labor Code §§ 201-203.

9. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that defendant Sage Intacct, Inc., formerly known as Intacct Corporation, is a business entity registered in the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in the City of San Jose, County of Santa Clara, State of California. During the Class Period, Defendant was and is a provider of cloud based financial software.

10. The true names and capacities of persons or entities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, sued herein as DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, are currently unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues Defendant by such fictitious names under Code of Civil Procedure § 474. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each of the Defendants designated herein as a DOE is legally responsible in some manner for the unlawful acts referred to herein. Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to reflect the true names and capacities of the Defendants designated hereinafter as DOES when such identities become known.

11. All of Plaintiff’s claims stated herein are asserted against Defendant and any of its owners, predecessors, successors, subsidiaries, and/or assigns.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

12. In or about October 2016, Defendant hired Plaintiff as an Inbound Sales Development Representative, also known as a Sales Development Representative. Defendant paid Plaintiff a base salary, plus variable commissions. Plaintiff’s duties included calling on potential ERP software with potential customers, generating new business opportunities, and selling cloud accounting and ERP software to small to mid-size businesses.

13. Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant ended in May 2017.

14. Plaintiff and all members of the class identified herein were regularly scheduled as a matter of uniform company policy to work, and in fact worked, as salaried inside sales employees in excess of eight hours per workday and/or in excess of forty hours per workweek without receiving straight time or overtime compensation for such overtime hours worked in violation of California Labor Code §§ 510, 1194 and California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 4-2001. Defendant has failed to meet the requirements for establishing the exemption because all class members (a) regularly spent more than 50% of their time performing nonexempt work, (b) did not customarily and regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment on matters of significance, (c) did not have the authority to hire or fire or make meaningful recommendations regarding same, (d) did not customarily and regularly supervise at least two employees or the equivalent, (¢) did not perform work directly related to the management policies or the general business operations of Defendant or Defendant’s customers, (f) did perform nonexempt production and/or sales work a majority of their time (i.e., in excess of 50%) consistent with Defendant’s realistic expectations, (g) did not customarily and regularly spend more than 50% of their time away from the Defendant’s places of business selling or obtaining orders or contracts, and (h) did not earn more than 50% of their compensation in a bona fide commission plan. Thus, Plaintiff and the class members were not exempt from the overtime requirements of California law for these reasons.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

15. Plaintiff brings this action, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, as a

class action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 382. The class, and subclasses, that Plaintiff seeks

to represent 1s composed of and defined as follows: 16. Plaintiff further alleges the following Waiting Time Penalty subclass:

All persons who have been employed and separated from employment (either by involuntary termination or resignation), at any time from four years prior to the filing of the Complaint through the date of the Court’s granting of class certification in this matter, by Defendant in California under the job title Sales Development Manager, Corporate Account Manager, or the functional equivalent, however titled and who did not timely receive all of their wages at time of separation.

17. The members of the classes are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The exact number of the members of the classes can be determined by reviewing Defendant’s records.

18. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class and has retained counsel that 1s experienced and competent in class action and employment litigation. Plaintiff has no interests that are contrary to, or in conflict with, members of the Class.

19. A class action suit, such as the instant one, is superior to other available means for fair and efficient adjudication of this lawsuit. The damages suffered by individual members of the Class may be relatively small when compared to the expense and burden of litigation, making it virtually impossible for members of the Class to individually seek redress for the wrongs done to them.

20. A class action is, therefore, superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. Absent these actions, the members of the Class likely will not obtain redress of their injuries and Defendant will retain the proceeds of its violations of California law.

21. Even if any member of the Class could afford individual litigation against Defendant, it would be unduly burdensome to the judicial system. Concentrating this litigation in one forum will promote judicial economy and parity among the claims of individual members of the Class and provide for judicial consistency.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Labor Code §§ 510, 1194) (Claim on behalf of the class) Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

23. California Labor Code § 510 states that an employee must be paid overtime, equal to 1.5 times the employee’s regular rate of pay, for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week and/or 8 per day.

24. Class members regularly worked more than 40 hours per week and 8 hours per day, but were not paid overtime compensation. Class members were not exempt from the overtime requirements of California law.

25. By their failure to pay wages for all hours worked, as alleged above, Defendant has violated and continues to violate the above noted provisions of the California Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage Order. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful acts, Plaintiff and other Class members have been deprived of wages at the overtime rate, the regular rate and the minimum wage rate, and are entitled to recovery of such unpaid wages.

26. Due to Defendant’s failure to pay the minimum wage for all hours worked, Plaintiff and the other class members are entitled to liquidated damages, in an amount equal to the unpaid minimum wages, pursuant to Labor Code § 1194.2.

27. Plaintiff and the California Class members seek their unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, and other wages, including interest thereon and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Labor Code §§ 218.5 and 1194.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203 — Unpaid Overtime and Minimum Wages) (Claim on behalf of the class)

28. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

29. Defendant has committed an act of unfair competition under California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. by not paying the required state law overtime pay and minimum wages to the members of the class for all hours worked.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Labor Code § 203) (Claim on behalf of the waiting time penalty subclass)

31. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

32. Plaintiff was discharged by Defendant or voluntarily quit, and did not have a written contract for employment. Defendant, in violation of California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202 et seq. had a consistent and uniform policy, practice and procedure of willfully failing to pay the earned and unpaid wages of all such former employees. Defendant has willfully failed to pay the earned and unpaid wages of such individuals, including, but not limited to, straight time and overtime compensation according to proof. Plaintiff did not secret or absent himself from Defendant nor refuse to accept the earned and unpaid wages from Defendant. Accordingly, Defendant is liable for waiting time penalties for the unpaid wages pursuant to California Labor Code § 203.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on his own behalf and on behalf of the members of all classes, prays for judgment as follows:

1. For an order certifying the claims brought under California law and for an order

directing notice be send to all members of the California Class;

3. For damages, restitution, penalties, attorney fees and costs; and, 4. For prejudgment interest. Dated: September 6, 2018 WYNNE LAW FIRM

By: /s/Edward . Wynne Edward J. Wynne

80 E. Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Suite 3G Larkspur, CA 94939

Telephone (415) 461-6400

Facsimile (415) 461-3900 MCCORMACK AND ERLICH, LLP

By: /s/Bryan |. McCormack Bryan J. McCormack, Esq.

150 Post Street, Suite 742

San Francisco, CA 94108

Telephone: (415) 296-8420