This case was last updated from Santa Clara County Superior Courts on 01/07/2020 at 12:23:17 (UTC).

Martinez v. Frito-Lay, Inc., et al.

Case Summary

On 06/21/2018 Martinez filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against Frito-Lay, Inc . This case was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Courts, Downtown Superior Court located in Santa Clara, California. The Judges overseeing this case are Kuhnle, Thomas and Lucas, Patricia M. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ******0459

  • Filing Date:

    06/21/2018

  • 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

Judges

Kuhnle, Thomas

Lucas, Patricia M

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

Martinez, Michael

Martinez, Michael J

Defendants

Frito-Lay Inc.

Rolling Frito-Lay Sales, LP

Not Classified By Court

Superior Court of California

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Setareh, Shaun

Pao, William Matthew

Segal, Thomas Alistair

Defendant Attorneys

Goodwin, Keith Allyn

Hirano, Ashley Teiko

Hardy, Samantha Dresser

De La Cruz, Daniel F

Not Classified By Court Attorney

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

 

Court Documents

Proof of Service: Mail

Proof of Service.pdf: Comment: Proof of Service

Advance jury fee (Nonrefundable)

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

Notice: Appearance

Notice Appearance: Comment: Defendants' Notice of Appearance

Proof of Service: Mail

Martinez - Proof of Service.pdf: Comment: Proof of Service: Mail

Statement: Case Management Conference

Joint CMC Statement: Comment: HRG 10/5/18 Joint Case Management Statement

Order: Deeming Case Complex

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

Civil Lawsuit Notice

Civil Lawsuit Notice: Comment: 1st CMC set for 10/5/18 at 10am in D5; assigned to Hon. Thomas E. Kuhnle

Summons: Issued/Filed

Summons Issued Filed:

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies):

Response/Reply

Reply HRG 12-7-18: Comment: Defendants??? Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Petition to Compel Mediation and Arbitration and Motion to Stay Proceedings

Proof of Service

Proof of Service: Comment: Proof of Service

Statement: Case Management Conference

Joint CMC Statement: Comment: Joint Subsequent Case Management Statement

Declaration

HRG 12-7-18 Shaun Setareh Declaration: Comment: HRG 12/7/18 DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF???S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

Opposition/Objections

HRG 12-7-18 Opposition to Motion to Compel Arbitration: Comment: HRG 12/7/18 PLAINTIFF???S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

Proof of Service

HRG 120718 Proof of Service: Comment: Proof of Service

Errata

Errata HRG 12-7-18: Comment: Notice of Errata

Notice

Notice CMC 12-7-18 at 10am in D5: Comment: CMC set for 12/7/18 at 10am in D5

Complaint: Amended

Complaint First Amended: Comment: First Amended Complaint

31 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/31/2020
  • DocketConference: Case Management - Judicial Officer: Lucas, Patricia M; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Comment: (4th CMC) Proposed Wage and Hour Class Action * Discovery and responsive pleading deadline stayed, as of 9/5/18, when the case was deemed complex. First Amended Complaint filed 10/5/18. Defendants' petition to compel mediation and arbitration was denied; Defendants' motion to stay matter pending arbitration was denied (order issued 12/17/18; appeal filed 2/15/19). Related case pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court: Woods (BC703882). Related case pending in Siskiyou County Superior Court: Rivers (SCCV-CVCV-2019-614-3).

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketOrder - Order and Notice of Reassignment of Case to D3 PML: Comment: Order & Notice of Reassignment of Case to D3, Hon. Patricia M. Lucas presiding signed/PML

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketNotice: Related Cases - Notice of Related Cases (Rivers): Comment: Rivers v. Rolling Frito-Lay Sales, Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Siskiyou, Case No. SCCV-CVCV-2019-614-3.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketNotice - Notice CMC reset from 6-21-19 to 1-31-20: Comment: CMC reset from 6/21/19 to 1/31/20

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • DocketAppeal: Receipt for Record - Comment: from Keith A. Goodwin (H046673)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • DocketAppeal: Receipt for Record - Comment: from DCA (H046673)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • DocketAppeal: Receipt for Record - Comment: H046673

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • DocketAppeal: Notice of Completion - Comment: H046673

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • DocketAppeal deposit for clerk's transcript - Comment: $40 check deposited, taken on notice of undocumented action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • DocketAppeal: Notice of Estimate of Costs - Comment: H046673

    Read MoreRead Less
55 More Docket Entries
  • 09/27/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketProof of Service: Mail - Proof of Service.pdf: Comment: Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketAdvance jury fee (Nonrefundable) - Advance Jury Fee (Nonrefundable): Comment: Defendants' Notice of Posting Jury Fees

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketNotice: Appearance - Notice Appearance: Comment: Defendants' Notice of Appearance

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/26/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketProof of Service: Mail - Martinez - Proof of Service.pdf: Comment: Proof of Service: Mail

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/26/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketStatement: Case Management Conference - Joint CMC Statement: Comment: HRG 10/5/18 Joint Case Management Statement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/05/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketOrder: Deeming Case Complex - Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline: Comment: Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline signed/TEK

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketCivil Lawsuit Notice - Civil Lawsuit Notice: Comment: 1st CMC set for 10/5/18 at 10am in D5; assigned to Hon. Thomas E. Kuhnle

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketSummons: Issued/Filed - Summons Issued Filed:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketComplaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies):

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

N S

W

o0 3

E-FILED

6/21/2018 3:44 PM

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

shaun@setarehlaw.com Thomas Segal (SBN 222791) County of Santa Clara

thomas@setarehlaw.com 18C V 330459

William M. Pao (SBN 219846) Reviewed By: G. Reyes william@setarehlaw.com

SETAREH LAW GROUP

9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, California 90212 Telephone (310) 888-7771

Facsimile (310) 888-0109 Attorneys tor Plaintiff MICHAEL J. MARTINEZ

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

MICHAEL J. MARTINEZ, on behalf of Case No. 18CV330459 himself, all others similarly situated,

CLASS ACTION

Plaintiff,

COMPLAINT

Vs,

1. Failure to Provide Meal Periods (Lab. Code FRITO-LAY, INC., a Delaware corporation; §§ 204, 223, 226.7, 512 and 1198); ROLLING FRITO-LAY SALES, LP, a 2. Failure to Provide Rest Periods (Lab. Code Delaware limited partnership; and DOES 1 8§ 204, 223, 226.7 and 1198); through 50, inclusive, 3. Failure to Pay Hourly Wages (Lab. Code §§

223,510, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1997.1 and Defendants. 1198); 4. Failure to Pay Vacation Wages (Lab. Code § 227.3);

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

W N

N

o0 ) A

28

COMES NOW, Plaintiff MICHAEL J. MARTINEZ (“Plaintiff”"), on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, complains and alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff brings this class action against Defendants FRITO-LAY, INC., a Delaware corporation; ROLLING FRITO-LAY SALES, LP, a Delaware limited partnership; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive (collectively referred to as “Defendants™) for alleged violations of the Labor Code and Business and Professions Code. As set forth below, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have:

(1) failed to provide him and all other similarly situated individuals with meal periods;

(2) tailed to provide them with rest periods;

(3) failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods;

(4) failed to pay them at least minimum wage for all hours worked:

(5) failed to pay them overtime wages at the correct rate:

(6) failed to pay them double time wages at the correct rate;

(7) failed to pay them for all vested vacation pay;

(8) failed to provide them with accurate written wage statements; and

9 failed to pay them all of their final wages following separation of employment.

Based on these alleged Labor Code violations, Plaintiff now brings this class action to recover unpaid wages, restitution and related relief on behalf of himself, all others similarly

sifuated.

JURISDICTON AND VENUE

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case because the monetary damages and restitution sought by Plaintiff from Defendants conduct exceeds the minimal Jurisdiction of the Superior Court of the State of California.

3. Venue is proper in the County of Santa Clara pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure

B A W N

N

that are the subject matter of this Complaint occurred therein and/or each defendant is found, maintains offices, transacts business and/or has an agent therein.

4. Venue 1s proper in Santa Clara County because Defendants’ principal place of business is in Texas, is incorporated under the laws of Delaware, does business in Santa Clara County, and has not registered a California place of business with the California Secretary of State. As such, venue is proper in any county in California.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff MICHAEL J. MARTINEZ is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein, an individual residing in the State of California.

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

7. Plaintitt is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that Defendant ROLLING FRITO-LAY SALES, LP is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein, a Delaware limited partnership doing business in the State of California.

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

9. Plaintitt 1s informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that, at all relevant times mentioned herein, some or all of the defendants were the representatives, agents, employees, partners, directors, associates, joint venturers, principals or co-participants of some or all of the other defendants, and in doing the things alleged herein, were acting within the course and scope of

such relationship and with the full knowledge, consent and ratification by such other defendants. N

o0 3 N

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

acts and omissions alleged herein.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

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

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

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

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

Relevant Time Period.

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

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

Wage Statement Penalties Sub-Class: All Hourly Employee Class members

employed by Defendants in California during the period beginning one year before the filing of this action and ending when final judgment is entered.

Waiting Time Penalties Sub-Class: All Hourly Employee Class members who separated from their employment with Defendants during the period beginning three years betore the filing of this action and ending when final judgment is entered.

UCL Class: All Hourly Employee Class members employed by Defendants in California during the Relevant Time Period.

Vacation Pay Class: All persons employed by Defendants in California who earned paid vacation days, including but not limited to, “Floating Holidays,” without receiving compensation for each vested paid vacation day during the Relevant Time Period. Kloating Holiday Class: All persons employed by Defendants in California who were eligible to receive compensation for “floating holidays™ during the Relevant Time Period.

13. Reservation of Rights: Pursuant to Rule of Court 3.765(b), Plaintiff reserves the

right to amend or modify the class definitions with greater specificity, by further division into sub- o A W R

~3

classes and/or by limitation to particular issues.

14, Numerosity: The class members are so numerous that the individual joinder of each

individual class member is impractical. While Plaintiff does not currently know the exact number

of class members, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that the actual number

exceeds the minimum required for numerosity under California law.

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

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

These common questions include, but are not limited to:

A.

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

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

Whether Defendants failed to pay premium wages to class members when they have not been provided with required meal and/or rest periods;

Whether Defendants failed to pay minimum and/or overtime wages to class members as a result of policies that fail to provide meal periods in accordance with California law;

Whether Defendants failed to pay minimum and/or overtime wages to class members for all time worked;

Whether Defendants failed to provide proportionate accruals for vested vacation time for class members as required by California law:

Whether Defendants subjected the vacation time and/or floating holidays they offer to class members to forfeiture;

Whether Defendants failed to provide class members with accurate written wage statements as a result of providing them with written wage statements with inaccurate entries for, among other things, amounts of gross and net wages, and total hours worked:

Whether Defendants applied policies or practices that result in late and/or W N e

o e 0 N

incomplete final wage payments;

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

K. Whether class members are entitled to restitution of money or property that Defendants may have acquired from them through unfair competition;

16. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the other class members’ claims. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Defendants have a policy or practice of tailing to comply with the Labor Code and Business and Professions Code as alleged in this Complaint.

17. Adequacy of Class Representative: Plaintiff is an adequate class representative in that he has no interests that are adverse to, or otherwise conflict with, the interests of absent class members and is dedicated to vigorously prosecuting this action on their behalf. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the other class members.

I8. Adequacy of Class Counsel: Plaintiff’s counsel are adequate class counsel in that they have no known conflicts of interest with Plaintiff or absent class members, are experienced in wage and hour class action litigation, and are dedicated to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of Plaintiff and absent class members.

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

~N N W

e

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

20. Plantiff worked for Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly employee from approximately May 6, 2016 through May 2018. Meal Periods and Off-the-Clock

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

22. Plaintiff and the putative class would regularly work through their meal periods even after they had clocked out for their meal periods due to the sheer amount of work and the deadlines that they were required to meet each day.

23. Defendants knew or should have know that Plaintiff and the putative class were not “on the clock™ after they had clocked out and therefore should not have permitted Plaintiff and the putative class to perform any additional work once they had clocked out.

24. Asaresult of Defendants’ policy, Plaintiff and the putative class were regularly not provided with uninterrupted meal periods of at least thirty (30) minutes for each five (5) hours worked due to complying with Defendants’ productivity requirements that required Plaintiff and the putative class to work through their meal periods in order to complete their assignments on time.

Rest Periods

25, Plaintiff and the putative class members were not provided with rest periods of at least ten (10) minutes for each four (4) hour work period, or major fraction thereof, due to ( 1) Detendants’ policy of not scheduling each rest period as part of each work shift; (2) chronically understaffing each work shift with not enough workers; (3) imposing so much work on each

A~ W

O e 0 N

wanted to finish their work on time; and (4) no formal written meal and rest period policy that encouraged employees to take their meal and rest periods.

26. Plantiff and the putative class would be required to clock out for their rest periods and regularly worked through their rest periods even after they had clocked out for their rest periods due to the sheer amount of work and the deadlines that they were required to meet each day.

27. Defendants knew or should have know that Plaintiff and the putative class were not “on the clock™ after they had clocked out and therefore should not have permitted Plaintiff and the putative class to perform any additional work once they had clocked out.

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

Off-the-Clock Work

29. Plaintiff and the putative class were not paid all wages earned as Defendants directed, permitted or otherwise encouraged Plaintiff and the putative class to perform off-the-clock work.

30. Plaintiff and the putative class regularly worked during their meal and/or rest periods and were not paid for this time. Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and the putative class were not “on the clock™ after they had clocked out for their meal and/or rest periods and should not have permitted Plaintiff and the putative class to perform any additional work once they had clocked out.

31. Moreover, it was not possible to complete all their required duties by the deadlines that they were required to meet each day. Defendants knew or should have known that by imposing so much work on Plaintiff and the putative class, that the only way they could complete all their duties by the deadlines that they were required to meet each day would require them to work through their meal and/or rest periods.

(9%

otherwise encouraged by Defendants, Plaintiff and the putative class should have been paid for this time. Instead, Defendants only paid Plaintiff and the putative class based on the time they were clocked in for their shifts and did not pay Plaintiff and the putative class for any of the time spent working off-the-clock.

33. Asaresult of Defendants’ policies and practices, Plaintiff and the putative class were

not paid for all hours worked.

Yacation Pay 34. Plaintiff and the putative class accrued vacation and/or floating holidays during their employment with Defendants. 35. Under California law, vacation time is considered a form of wages under Labor Code

section 200. Vested vacation pay and other similar forms of paid time off earned based on labor performed are considered wages that cannot be subject to forfeiture without compensation for forfeited days at the applicable rates required by law.

36. Atall relevant times, Defendants maintained policies that provide for the unlawful forfeiture of vested vacation pay in violation of Labor Code section 227.3 and Suastez v. Plastic Dress-Up Co., (1982) 31 Cal. 3d 774.

37. Plamntiff and the putative class are entitled to vacation accrued during their employment with Defendants. Upon termination, Plaintiff and the putative class were not paid out all accrued vacation pay.

Wage Statements

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

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

a. all hours worked, including overtime, were not included. b. any and all meal and/or rest period premium wages were not included. 40. Defendants failed to comply with Labor Code section 226(a)(2) as “total hours

worked by the employee” were not accurately reflected in that; L2

A

~J

28

a. all hours worked, including overtime, were not included.

41, Defendants failed to comply with Labor Code section 226(a)(5) as “net wages

earned” were not accurately reflected in that: a. all hours worked, including overtime, were not included. b. any and all meal and/or rest period premium wages were not included.

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

a. all hours worked, including overtime, were not included. b. any and all meal and/or rest period premium wages were not included.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIODS

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

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

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

45. Labor Code section 512 and Section 11 of the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order impose an affirmative obligation on employers to provide non-exempt employees with uninterrupted, duty-free meal periods of at least thirty minutes for each work period of five hours, and to provide them with two uninterrupted, duty-free meal periods of at least thirty minutes for each work period of ten hours.

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

premium wages on each workday that the employee is not provided with the required meal period. 47. Compensation for missed meal periods constitutes wages within the meaning of Labor Code section 200.

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

49. Section 11 of the applicable Wage Order states:

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

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

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

52. Plantiff alleges that, at all relevant times during the applicable limitations period, Detendants maintained a policy or practice of failing to pay premium wages to Meal Period Sub- Class members when they worked five (5) hours without clocking out for any meal period.

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

54. Moreover, Defendants written policies do not provide that employees must take their

first meal period before the end of the fifth hour of work, that they are entitled to a second meal it

period 1f they work a shift of over ten hours, or that the second meal period must commence before the end of the tenth hour of work, unless waived.

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

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

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

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST PERIODS

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

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

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

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

61. Labor Code section 226.7 and Section 12 of the applicable Wage Order both prohibit employers from requiring employees to work during required rest periods and require employers to pay non-exempt employees an hour of premium wages at the employees’ regular rates of pay, on i 62. Compensation for missed rest periods constitutes wages within the meaning of Labor Code section 200.

63. Labor Code section 1198 makes it unlawful to employ a person under conditions that

S L o

violate the Wage Order.

n

64. Plaintiff alleges that, at all relevant times during the applicable limitations period, 6 || Defendants maintained a policy or practice of not providing members of the Rest Period Sub-Class 7 || with net rest period of at least ten minutes for each four hour work period, or major fraction thereof, 8 || as required by the applicable Wage Order. 9 65. Atall relevant times, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Rest Period Sub- 10 | Class members additional premium wages when required rest periods were not provided. 11 66. Specifically, Defendants written policies do not provide that employees may take a 12 |} rest period for each four hours worked, or major fraction thereof, and that rest periods should be 13 f} taken in the middle of each work period insofar as practicable. 14 67. Pursuant to Labor Code section 204, 218.6 and 226.7, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself I5 |t and Rest Period Sub-Class members, seek to recover unpaid premium wages, interest thereon, and 16 || costs of suit. 17 68. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1194, Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, the 18 || substantial benefit doctrine, and/or the common fund doctrine, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and

19 || Rest Period Sub-Class members, seek to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees.

20 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 21 FAILURE TO PAY HOURLY AND OVERTIME WAGES

22 (Lab. Code §§ 223, 510, 1194, 1197 and 1198)

23 (Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class)

24 69. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully alleged 25 || herein.

26 70. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class members are or have

27 || been non-exempt employees of Defendants entitled to the full protections of the Labor Code and the 71. Section 2 of the applicable Wage Order defines “hours worked™ as *“the time during which an employee is subject to the control of the employer, and includes all the time the employee i1s suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

80. Labor Code section 510 and Section 3 of the applicable Wage Order require

employees to pay non-exempt employees overtime wages of no less than one and one-half times b N

their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of eight hours in one workday, all hours worked in excess of forty hours in one workweek, and/or for the first eight hours worked on the seventh consecutive day of one workweek.

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

82. Plaintiff 1s informed and believes that, at all relevant times, Defendants have applied centrally devised policies and practices to her and Hourly Employee Class members with respect to working conditions and compensation arrangements.

83. Atall relevant times, Defendants failed to pay hourly wages to Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class members for all time worked, including but not limited to, overtime hours at

84. During the relevant time period, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class members all earned wages every pay period at the correct rates, including overtime rates, because Defendants directed, permitted or otherwise encouraged Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class members to perform off-the-clock work.

85. Asaresult of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class members have suffered damages in an amount, subject to proof, to the extent they were not paid the full amount of wages earned during each pay period during the applicable limitations period, including overtime wages.

86. Pursuant to Labor Code sections 204, 218.6, 223, 510, 1194 and 1194.2, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and Hourly Employee Class members, seek to recover unpaid straight time and overtime wages, interest thereon and costs of suit.

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

/1

11/

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO PAY VACATION WAGES

(Lab. Code § 227.3) (Plaintiff and Vacation Pay Class)

88. Plaintiffs incorporates the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully alleged herein.

89. California Labor Code section 227.3 provides:

Unless otherwise provided by a collective-bargaining agreement, whenever a contract of employment or employer policy provides for paid vacations, and an employee is terminated without having taken off his vested vacation time, all vested vacation shall be paid to him as wages at his final rate in accordance with such contract of employment or employer policy respecting eligibility or time served; provided, however, that an employment contract or employer policy shall not provide for forfeiture of vested vacation time upon termination. The Labor Commissioner or a designated representative, in the resolution of any dispute with regard to vested vacation time, shall apply the principles of equity and fairness.

90. At all relevant times during the applicable limitations period, Plaintiffs and members of the Vacation Pay Class accrued vacation time during their employment with Defendants.

91. Asaresult of their reimbursement policies and practices, Plaintiffs are informed

and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants failed to reimburse her and Vacation Pay Class members for all accrued vacation wages.

92. By reason of the above, Plaintiffs and the members of the Vacation Pay Class are entitled to restitution for all unpaid amounts due and owing to within four years (4) of the date of the filing of the Complaint until the date of entry of judgment.

93, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the members of the Vacation Pay Class, seeks interest thereon pursuant to California Labor Code section 218.6, costs pursuant to California Labor Code section 218.6, and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.

/1] 11/

O

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE WRITTEN WAGE STATEMENTS

94.

herein.

95.

96.

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

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

Labor Code section 226(a) states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letter July 6, 2006).

97.

Plaintiff is informed and believes that, at all relevant times during the applicable I || limitations period, Defendants have failed to provide Wage Statement Penalties Sub-Class

b

members with written wage statements as described above.

98. Plantiff is informed and believes that Defendants’ failure to provide her and Wage

L3

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

wh

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

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

~J3

comply with Labor Code section 226(a). 8 99. Plaintiff and Wage Statement Penalties Sub-Class members have suffered injuries, 9 || in that Defendants have violated their legal rights to receive accurate wage statements and have 10 |} misled them about their actual rates of pay and wages earned. In addition, inaccurate information 11 || on their wage statements have prevented immediate challenges to Defendants’ unlawful pay 12 i practices, has required discovery and mathematical computations to determine the amount of wages 13 |} owed, has caused difficulty and expense in attempting to reconstruct time and pay records, and/or 14 {1 has led to the submission of inaccurate information about wages and deductions to federal and state 15 || government agencies. 16 100. Pursuant to Labor Code section 226(e), Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and Wage 17 || Statement Penalties Sub-Class members, seek the greater of actual damages or $50.00 for the 18 || initial pay period in which a violation of Labor Code section 226(a) occurred, and $100.00 for each 19 | subsequent pay period in which a violation of Labor Code section 226(a) occurred, not to exceed an 20 || aggregate penalty of $4000.00 per class member, as well as awards of reasonable attorneys’ fees

21 {{ and costs.

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

24 (Lab. Code §§ 201-203)

25 (Plaintiff and Waiting Time Penalties Sub-Class)

26 101. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully alleged

27 (| herein. o0 3 &

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

111. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, the substantial benefit doctrine Jrarek

~3

o0

20 2]28

and/or the common fund doctrine, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and Waiting Time Penalties Sub-

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

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

UNFAIR COMPETITION

(Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.) (Plaintiff and UCL Class)

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

113. Business and Professions Code section 17200 defines “unfair competition” to include any unlawful business practice.

114. Business and Professions Code section 1720317204 allow a person who has lost money or property as a result of unfair competition to bring a class action in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 382 to recover money or property that may have been acquired from similarly situated persons by means of unfair competition.

115. California law requires employers to pay hourly, non-exempt employees for all hours they are permitted or suffered to work, including hours that the employer knows or reasonable should know that employees have worked.

116. Plaintiff and the UCL Class members re-alleges and incorporates the FIRST, SECOND, THIRD and FOURTH causes of action herein.

117. Plaintiff Tost money or property as a result of the aforementioned unfair competition.

118. Defendants have or may have acquired money by means of unfair competition.

119. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that by committing the Labor Code violations described in this Complaint, Defendants violated Labor Code sections 215, 216, 225, 226.6, 354, 408, 553, 1175, 1199 and 2802, which make it a misdemeanor to commit the Labor Code violations alleged herein.

120. Defendants have committed criminal conduct through their policies and practices of, inter alia, failing to comport with their affirmative obligations as an employer to provide non-

exempt employees with uninterrupted, duty-free meal periods of at least thirty minutes for each Pk

.8

~ N

10

12 13

15 16 17 18

28

work period of five or more hours, by failing to provide non-exempt employees with a rest period of at least ten minutes for every four hours worked or major fraction thereof, by failing to pay non- exempt employees for all hours worked, and by failing to pay them for all accrued vacation time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders; and upon a final hearing seek an order permanently enjoining Defendants, and each of them, and their respective agents and employees, from further violations of the Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

128. Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17203, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and UCL Class members, seek declaratory relief and restitution of all monies rightfully belonging to them that Defendants did not pay them or otherwise retained by means of its unlawful and unfair business practices.

129. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021 .5, the substantial benefit doctrine and/or the common fund doctrine, Plaintiff and UCL Class members are entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees in connection with their unfair competition claims.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, prays for relief

and judgment against Defendants as follows:

(1) An order that the action be certified as a class action:

(2) An order that Plaintiff be appointed class representative;

(3) An order that counsel for Plaintiff be appointed class counsel:

(4) Unpaid wages;

(5) Actual damages;

(6) Liquidated damages;

(7) Restitution;

(8) Declaratory relief;

(9) Pre-judgment interest;

(10) Statutory penalties;

(11) Civil penalties;

(12) Costs of suit;

1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

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

4

5 | DATED: June 21, 2018 SETAREH LAW GROUP

6 7

SHAUN SETAREH