This case was last updated from Santa Clara County Superior Courts on 08/07/2019 at 18:56:43 (UTC).

Motilla v. Help & Care, LLC, et al.

Case Summary

On 03/26/2018 Motilla filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against Help Care, LLC. This case was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Courts, Downtown Superior Court located in Santa Clara, California. The Judge overseeing this case is Kuhnle, Thomas. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ******5483

  • Filing Date:

    03/26/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    Santa Clara County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Downtown Superior Court

  • County, State:

    Santa Clara, California

Judge Details

Judge

Kuhnle, Thomas

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Motilla, Keeshia Rae

Defendants

Breitbach, Vassilina

Breitbach, Markus

Help & Care, LLC

Other

Superior Court of California

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Villanueva, Allan Alcon

Other Attorney

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

 

Court Documents

Order

Order Dismissing Action: Comment: Declaration of Allan A. Villanueva in support of Request for Dismissal of Class Action Without Prejudice and Individual Plaintiff With Prejudice; Order Granting Same - signed/TEK

Declaration

Declaration: Comment: Declaration of Allan Villanueva in support of request for dismissal (CRC Rule 3.770)

Order: Deeming Case Complex

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

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies):

Summons: Issued/Filed

Summons Issued Filed:

Civil Case Cover Sheet

Civil Case Cover Sheet: Comment: COMPLEX

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/03/2018
  • Conference: Case Management - Judicial Officer: Kuhnle, Thomas; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Cancel Reason: Vacated; Comment: (1st CMC) Proposed Class Action * Employment * Discovery and responsive pleading deadline stayed, as of 3/27/18, when the case was deemed complex.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Order - Order Dismissing Action: Comment: Declaration of Allan A. Villanueva in support of Request for Dismissal of Class Action Without Prejudice and Individual Plaintiff With Prejudice; Order Granting Same - signed/TEK

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/25/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Declaration - Declaration: Comment: Declaration of Allan Villanueva in support of request for dismissal (CRC Rule 3.770)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2018
  • Notice - Comment: Notice of Complex Case Management Fee

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Order: Deeming Case Complex - Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline: Comment: Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline signed/TEK

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

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

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

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

Allan A. Villanueva, SBN 163480 Law Office of Allan A. Villanueva 6701 Koll Center , Suite 250 Pleasanton, CA 94566

Telephone (925) 968-4326 Facsimile (650) 479-3086

Attorney for PLAINTIFF

KEESHIA RAE MOTILLA E-FILED

3/26/2018 8:59 AM Clerk of Court

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

18CV 325483

Reviewed By: R. Walker

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

KEESHIA RAE MOTILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff, V. HELP & CARE, LLC; VASSILINA BREITBACH; MARKUS BREITBACH; and DOES 1 TO 100,

Defendants.

Case No. 18C V325483

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR

DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,

1. FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES;

2. FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES;

3. DAMAGES UNDER LABOR CODE §1194.2;

4. DAMAGES UNDER LABOR CODE §1197.1;

S. FAILURE TO PROVIDE PROPER ITEMIZED WAGE STATEMENTS;

6. UNLAWFUL BUSINESS PRACTICES Plaintiff KEESHIA RAE MOTILLA on behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees and former employees (sometimes herein referred to collectively as “PLAINTIFF”) of defendant HELP & CARE, LLC; (sometimes herein referred to as “HELP & CARE”); VASSILINA BREITBACH; MARKUS BREITBACH and DOE defendants 1 to 100 (All defendants shall sometimes be referred to collectively as “DEFENDANTS”) hereby complains and alleges as follows:

PLAINTIFF

1. At all relevant times mentioned herein, PLAINTIFF is an individual and during the four years preceding the Complaint was continuously employed by DEFENDANTS as a caregiver or personal attendant. 2. PLAINTIFF herein brings this class action lawsuit against DEFENDANTS pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §382, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated caregivers or personal attendants presently or formerly employed by DEFENDANTS within the state of California. PLAINTIFF hereby seeks recovery of all economic and compensatory damages and all applicable penalties available pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 218, 226, 1454, 1174, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1 as well as Title 8, §11150 of the California Code of Regulations; any and all prejudgment interest in accordance with California Civil Code §3289 and Labor Code §218.6; costs; reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5, Labor Code §§218.5, 226(e), and 1194(a); as well as injunctive and restitutionary relief pursuant to California Business & Professions Code §§17200, et seq. 3 This class action is therefore being brought in response to DEFENDANTS’ failure to pay PLAINTIFF overtime wages in violation of Labor Code §§1454, 204; failure to pay PLAINITFES minimum wages in violation of Labor Code §§1197, 204; failure to furnish PLAINTIFF accurate itemized statements of her true wages earned and her true hours worked in violation of Labor Code §§1454, 226, 1174. All such failures also constitute violation of Business and Professions Code

DEFENDANTS

4. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all relevant times mentioned herein, HELP & CARE,Limited Liability Company authorized to do business in the State of California. 5. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all relevant times mentioned herein, HELP & CARE, LLC’s principal place of business is located in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 6. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all relevant times mentioned herein, VASSILINA BREITBACH, a natural person, and MARKUS BREITBACH, a natural person, were each an employer or otherwise persons acting on behalf of an employer, who violated, or caused to be violated, the provision regulating minimum wages or hours and days of work in the applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, or violated, or caused to be violated, Sections 203, 226, 226.7, 1193.6, 1194, or 2802. T PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all relevant times mentioned herein, VASSILINA BREITBACH and MARKUS BREITBACH were each an owner, director, officer, or managing agent of the employer. 8. PLAINTIFF is also informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all relevant times mentioned herein, DEFENDANTS regularly employed at least 50 persons and were the employers, co-employers and/or joint employers of PLAINTIFF as well as all other similarly situated caregivers herein described. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all relevant times mentioned herein, DOE defendants 1 to 100, were residents of, or principally doing business in, the State of California. 9. PLAINTIFF is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that each DOE defendant herein is legally responsible in some manner or means for the events and happenings referred to herein and proximately caused damage to PLAINTIFF, as herein alleged, either through their conduct or through the conduct of their agents, servants, or employees; or their being persons acting

on behalf of an employer; or due to their ownership supervision and/or management of the employees, agents, entities and/or instrumentalities which caused said damages, or in some manner or means presently unknown to this PLAINTIFF at this time. 10. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of the defendants named herein as DOES 1 to 100, are unknown to PLAINTIFF at this time and therefore said defendants are being sued by such fictitious names. PLAINTIFF will seek leave to amend this Complaint to insert the true names and capacities of said defendants when same becomes known to the PLAINTIFF. 11. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all times mentioned herein, there existed a unity of interest and ownership between the specifically named defendants herein, HELP & CARE, LLC and DOE defendants 1 to 100, such that any individuality and separateness between all said Defendants ceased to exist. Therefore, PLAINTIFF are further informed and believe and thereon allege that, at all relevant times herein mentioned, each defendant designated as a DOE defendant, was the agent, employee and/or representative of its co-defendant DEFENDANTS and in doing the things hereinafter alleged, was acting within the authority, purpose, course and scope of such agency and employment with advance knowledge, consent, approval and/or ratification of each defendant and/or co-defendant. 12, Whenever in this Complaint reference is made to DEFENDANTS, such allegation, as herein above alluded to, shall be deemed to mean the acts or omissions of HELP & CARE, LLC; VASSILINA BREITBACH; MARKUS BREITBACH; and the DOE defendants 1 to 100, inclusive, herein acting individually, jointly and/or severally. 1. The amount of damages sought by PLAINTIFF herein exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

14. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all relevant times mentioned herein, DEFENDANTS employed PLAINTIFF and class members as caregivers or personal attendants.

15. Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 15-2001 (“Wage Order No. 157) and Title 8, §11150 of the Code of Regulations regulates the wages, hours and working conditions of

employees working in “Household Occupations.”

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

16. PLAINTIFF herein brings this action, on behalf of herself and all other employees who are and were similarly situated, as a class action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §382. The class that PLAINTIFF seeks to represent can be summarily defined as follows: 17. Each and every person employed by DEFENDANTS during the applicable statute of limitations period, who was or presently is employed by DEFENDANTS as a caregiver or personal attendant,paid the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked, and/or not paid the applicable overtime rate of one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked over nine hours in any workday and for all hours worked more than 45 hours in the workweek, and/or was not provided accurate itemized wage statements, all as required by California law. 18. Accordingly, PLAINTIFF seeks to represent THREE classes composed of and defined as follows: 1) MINIMUM WAGE CLASS: All CURRENT and FORMER caregivers or personal attendants, within the State of California, who, at any time within the applicable statute of limitations, who were not and are not paid the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked (hereinafter collectively referred to as “MINIMUM WAGE CLASS”). 2) OVERTIME WAGE CLASS: All CURRENT and FORMER caregivers or personal attendants, within the State of California, at any time within the applicable statute of limitations, who were not and are not paid the applicable overtime rate of one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked over nine hours in any workday and for all hours worked more than 45 hours in the workweek (hereinafter collectively referred to as “OVERTIME WAGES CLASS”). 3) WAGE STATEMENT CLASS: All CURRENT and FORMER caregivers or personal attendants,

within the State of California, at any time within the applicable statute of limitations, who were not and are not furnished with accurate itemized wage statements (hereinafter collectively referred to as “STATEMENT CLASS”).

19. PLAINTIFF hereby reserves the right under California Rules of Court Rule 3.765(b), to amend or modify the above class descriptions with greater specificity or further divide them into subclasses or limitation to particular issues.

20. Additionally, this action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §382 because there is a well-defined community of interest in the litigation and the proposed class is easily ascertainable.

21. A) NUMEROSITY: PLAINTIFF and the class members are so numerous that individual joinder of all members is impracticable under the circumstances of this case. While the exact number of class members is unknown to PLAINTIFF at this time, PLAINTIFF have been informed and believe that there may exists over 50 members who fall within the categories identified herein above. Thus, joinder of all class members will not be practicable.

a2 B) COMMON QUESTIONS PREDOMINATE: Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the class and predominate over questions that affect only individual members of the class. The common questions of law and fact include, without limitation:

23, 1.) Whether DEFENDANTS violated Business & Professions Code §17200, et seq., Labor Code of the California Code of Regulations, by failing to pay the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked; failing to pay one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked over nine hours in any workday and for all hours worked more than 45 hours in the workweek; and/or failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements;

24. 11.) The existence, duration, and extent of the violations of Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq., Labor Code §§ 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 1454, 1174, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1 as well as Title 8, §11150 of the Code of Regulations, Wage Order No. 15; and

23, i11.) The effect upon and the extent of the damages sustained by PLAINTIFF and other class members as well as the measure of such damages.

26. C) TYPICALITY: PLAINTIFF’s claims are typical of the claims of the class members. PLAINTIFF and all class members sustained damages that arose from DEFENDANTS’ wrongful conduct in violation of Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq., Labor Code §§ 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 1454, 1174, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1 as well as Title 8, §11150 of the Code of Regulations and Wage Order No. 15. 21 D) ADEQUACY OF REPRESENTATION: PLAINTIFF will adequately protect the interests of all other class members because she was employed by DEFENDANTS, an adequate representative of the entire class and has no adverse interests to any absent class members. The attorneys hired by PLAINTIFF have substantial experience and success in the prosecution of employment claims. 28. E) SUPERIORITY: A class action is superior to other available remedial measures for fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy since the individual joinder of all members of the class is impracticable. Class action treatment will permit a large number of similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently and without the unnecessary duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual actions would engender. Furthermore, as the damages suffered by each individual member of the class may be relatively small, the expenses and burden of individual litigation would make it cost prohibitive, difficult, or even impossible for individual members of the class to redress the wrongs committed against them. On the other hand, an important public interest will be served if this matter 1s addressed as a class action. Moreover, the cost to the judicial system for adjudicating such individualized litigation would also be substantial. Individualized litigation would additionally present the potential for inconsistent or contradictory decisions and/or judgments.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES (PLAINTIFF AND OVERTIME WAGE CLASS MEMBERS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTY)

29. PLAINTIFF hereby re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 28

and incorporate each by reference as though set forth in full herein. 30. Section 1454 of California Labor Code provides, “A domestic work employee who is a personal attendant shall not be employed more than nine hours in any workday or more than 45 hours in any workweek unless the employee receives one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked over nine hours in any workday and for all hours worked more than 45 hours in the workweek.”

31. Section 515(d) of the California Labor Code provides, “(1) For the purpose of computing the overtime rate of compensation required to be paid to a nonexempt full-time salaried employee, the employee’s regular hourly rate shall be'/4th of the employee’s weekly salary. (2) Payment of a fixed salary to a nonexempt employee shall be deemed to provide compensation only for the employee’s regular, nonovertime hours, notwithstanding any private agreement to the contrary.”

32, During the four year period preceding the filing of this action and continuing to the present, DEFENDANTS failed regularly and consistently as a matter of policy and practice to pay one and one-half times the PLAINTIFF’s and OVERTIME WAGE CLASS members’ regular rate of pay for all hours worked over nine hours in any workday and for all hours worked more than 45 hours in the workweek.

39, Section 1194 of Cal. Labor Code states, “(a) Notwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage, any employee receiving less than the legal minimum wage or the legal overtime compensation applicable to the employee is entitled to recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount of this minimum wage or overtime compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.”

34. By its failure to pay PLAINTIFF and OVERTIME WAGE CLASS members overtime compensation, DEFENDANTS violated the provisions of Labor Code §1454.

3, As a direct consequence of DEFENDANTS’ unlawful conduct, PLAINTIFF and OVERTIME WAGE CLASS members have suffered damages to the extent that they were not and continue not to be paid overtime compensation owed to them. In accordance with, inter alia, Labor Code §§218, 218.5, 218.6 and 1194, PLAINTIFF, as well as the CURRENT and FORMER OVERTIME WAGE CLASS members, are entitled to recover the full amount of their unpaid overtime compensation, as well as prejudgment interest, penalties, reasonable attorney’s fees and COSts. WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES (PLAINTIFF AND MINIMUM WAGE CLASS MEMBERS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTYS)

36. PLAINTIFF hereby re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 35 and incorporates each by reference as though set forth in full herein. 37. Section 1197 of the California Labor Code provides, “The minimum wage for employees fixed by the commission or by any applicable state or local law, is the minimum wage to be paid to employees, and the payment of a lower wage than the minimum so fixed is unlawful. This section does not change the applicability of local minimum wage laws to any entity.” 38. During the four year period preceding the filing of this action, DEFENDANTS failed regularly and consistently as a matter of policy and practice to pay the applicable minimum wage. 39, By its failure to pay PLAINTIFF and MINUMUM WAGE CLASS members minimum wages, DEFENDANTS violated the provisions of Labor Code §1197, Wage Order No. 15, Title 8, §11150 of the Code of Regulations, and applicable local law. 40. As a direct consequence of DEFENDANTS’ unlawful conduct, PLAINTIFF and MINIMUM WAGE CLASS members have suffered damages to the extent that they were not and continue not to be paid the minimum wages owed to them. In accordance with, inter alia, Labor Code §§218, 218.5, 218.6 and 1194, PLAINTIFF, as well as the CURRENT and FORMER MINIMUM WAGE CLASS members, are entitled to recover the full amount of their unpaid minimum wages, as well as prejudgment interest, penalties, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES UNDER LABOR CODE SECTION 1194.2

(PLAINTIFF AND MINIMUM WAGE CLASS MEMBERS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTYS)

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES UNDER LABOR CODE SECTION 1197.1

(PLAINTIFF AND MINIMUM WAGE CLASS MEMBERS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTYS)

44, PLAINTIFF hereby re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 43 and incorporates each by reference as though set forth in full herein. 45. California Labor Code §1197.1 provides, “(a) Any employer or other person acting either individually or as an officer, agent, or employee of another person, who pays or causes to be paid to any employee a wage less than the minimum fixed by an order of the commission shall be subject to a civil penalty, restitution of wages, and liquidated damages payable to the employee, as follows: (1) For any initial violation that is intentionally committed, one hundred dollars ($100) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee is underpaid. This amount shall be in addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages and liquidated damages pursuant to Section 1194.2. (2) For each subsequent violation for the same specific offense, two hundred fifty dollars ($250) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee is underpaid regardless of

whether the initial violation is intentionally committed. This amount shall be in addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages and liquidated damages pursuant to Section 1194.2. (3) Wages and liquidated damages recovered pursuant to this section shall be paid to the affected employee.” 46. By its failure to pay PLAINTIFF and MINIUM WAGE CLASS members minimum wages, DEFENDANTS violated the provisions of Labor Code §1197.1. WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE ITEMIZED WAGE STATEMENTS (PLAINTIFF AND WAGE STATEMENT CLASS MEMBERS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

47. PLAINTIFF hereby re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 46 and incorporates each by reference as though set forth in full herein. 48. At all relevant times mentioned herein, PLAINTIFF and the WAGE STATEMENT CLASS members, were and are employed by DEFENDANTS and protected by Labor Code §226. Pursuant to Section 226(a), PLAINTIFF and the WAGE STATEMENT CLASS members, were and are entitled to receive, semi-monthly or at the time of each payment of wages, a true and accurate itemized statement showing their gross and net wages earned, as well as all applicable hourly rates in effect during their pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by each employee. However, DEFENDANTS have not and do not provide true and accurate itemized wage statements in accordance with Section 226(a). 49, PLAINTIFF and WAGE CLASS MEMBERS are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all relevant times mentioned herein and within the applicable limitations period, (hereinafter “Penalty Period”), DEFENDANTS maintained and continues to maintain a policy and practice of issuing wage statements that are inaccurate in terms of, among others, the actual compensation due and owing, hours worked, and applicable hourly rate. DEFENDANTS’ practices, as herein alleged, resulted in and continue to result in the issuance of wage statements thatreflect the correct amount of gross wages earned, the correct amount of net wages owed and/or the correct

number of hours worked at each applicable hourly rate. 50. DEFENDANTS’ failure to provide PLAINTIFF and the WAGE STATEMENT CLASS members, with accurate wage statements was knowing, deliberate and intentional. PLAINTIFF 1s informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all relevant times mentioned herein, DEFENDANTS had the ability to provide PLAINTIFF and the WAGE STATEMENT CLASS members with accurate wage statements but knowingly and intentionally failed to do so. 51. As direct consequence of DEFENDANTS’ unlawful conduct, PLAINTIFF and the WAGE STATEMENT CLASS members, have and continue to suffer damage and injury. The absence of accurate information on their wage statements has delayed timely challenges to DEFENDANTS’ unlawful pay practices and also requires discovery and mathematical computations to determine the amount of wages owed. The absence of accurate information on their wage statements has further caused and continues to cause difficulty and expense in attempting to reconstruct time and pay records, leading to the submission of inaccurate information concerning wages and the amounts deducted from said wages to both State and Federal governmental agencies. 92 Pursuant to Labor Code §226(e) PLAINTIFF and the WAGE STATEMENT CLASS members, are entitled to recover the greater of all actual damages or $50.00 for the initial pay period during the Penalty Period in which DEFENDANTS violated Labor Code §226 and $100.00 for each time that DEFENDANTS violated Labor Code §226 during subsequent pay periods, not to exceed an aggregate penalty of $4,000 per employee. Additionally, pursuant to Labor Code §226(e) and §226(g), PLAINTIFF and the WAGE STATEMENT CLASS members, were and continue to be entitled to recover the full amount of penalties due under Labor Code §226(e) as well as reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF THE UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW (PLAINTIFF AND ALL CLASS MEMBERS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

53. PLAINTIFF hereby re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 52

and incorporates each by reference as though set forth in full herein. 54. DEFENDANTS’ unlawful conduct, as herein alleged, constitutes unfair competition within the meaning of Business & Professions Code §17200, et seq. Due to DEFENDANTS’ unlawful business practices in violation of the Labor Code, it has gained a competitive advantage over comparable companies that comply with their obligations to compensate employees in accordance with the law.

33 As a result of DEFENDANTS’ unfair competition, as alleged herein, PLAINTIFF and the class members identified herein have suffered damages and injury. PLAINTIFF and the class members identified herein have also been deprived of their right to receive due compensation for all hours worked, including but not limited to all minimum wages, overtime wages, and for violations and accurate wage statements.

56. Pursuant to Business & Professions Code §17203, PLAINTIFF and the class members identified herein are entitled to restitution and/or disgorgement of all wages and other monies owed to them under the Labor Code, including interest thereon. Restitution and/or disgorgement of the money owed to the PLAINTIFF and the class members identified herein is necessary to prevent DEFENDANTS from becoming unjustly enriched by its deliberate failure to comply with the Labor Code.

7. In accordance with Business & Professions Code §17203, PLAINTIFF and the class members identified herein are further entitled to an order enjoining DEFENDANTS from behaving in the injurious manner herein alleged, forcing them, in the future,owing compensation, including minimum wages and overtime wages and to also furnish true and accurate wage statements. An order enjoining DEFENDANTS from acting in an illegal manner and complying with the laws of this State will prevent future injuries to PLAINTIFF and the class members identified herein and will likewise prevent DEFENDANTS from becoming unjustly enriched by its deliberate failure to comply with the Labor Code.

58. PLAINTIFF and the class members identified herein are also entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in connection with the prosecution of their unfair competition claims

pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5, Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq., the substantial benefit doctrine and/or the common fund doctrine.

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated parties, as

herein alleged and described, including all class members identified herein, hereby demands and

prays

for relief and judgment against Defendants HELP & CARE, LLC; VASSILINA

BREITBACH; MARKUS BREITBACH; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, as follows:

1.

N B W s W

10.

1L

12, 13. 14. 13.

An order certifying that PLAINTIFF may pursue her claims against DEFENDANTS as a class action on behalf of all class members herein identified;

An order appointing PLAINTIFF as the class representative and appointing PLAINTIFF’S counsel as the class counsel;

Penalties pursuant to Labor Code §203;

Damages for unpaid wages pursuant to Labor Code §204;

Penalties for inaccurate wage statements pursuant to Labor Code §226(e);

Overtime wages under Labor Code §§1454 and 1194;

Minimum wages under Labor Code §§1197, 1194; Wage Order No. 15; 8 Cal. Code of Regs. §11150.

Damages under Labor Code §1194.2;

Damages under Labor Code §1197.1;

All other premium pay, damages, liquidated damages, and penalties allowed by law, according to proof at trial;

Restitution, disgorgement and an order of enjoinment pursuant to Business and Professions Code §17200, et seq.

Pre-judgment interest;

Costs;

Reasonable attorneys’ fees; and

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

PLAINTIFF herein demands trial by jury on all of the foregoing matters.

DATED: March 26, 2018 ;L\