This case was last updated from Santa Clara County Superior Courts on 08/08/2019 at 07:03:26 (UTC).

Nguyen v. First Alarm Security & Patrol, Inc.

Case Summary

On 08/01/2018 Nguyen filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against First Alarm Security Patrol, 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:

    ******2369

  • Filing Date:

    08/01/2018

  • 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

Nguyen, Tri

Defendant

First Alarm Security & Patrol, Inc., d/b/a First Security Services

Not Classified By Court

Superior Court of California

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Rose, Adam Morris

Defendant Attorneys

Wellerstein, Jaimee Kara

Bradley, Barry Alan

Not Classified By Court Attorney

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

 

Court Documents

Order

Order and Notice PA Hearing reset from 7-19-19 to 8-23-19: Comment: Order & Notice: Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement is reset from 7/19/19 to 8/23/19 - signed/BCW

Stipulation and Order

Stipulation and Protective Order: Comment: Stipulation & Protective Order - signed/BCW

Notice

Notice CMC 4-5-19 at 10am in D1: Comment: CMC set for 4/5/19 at 10am in D1

Notice

Notice: Comment: Notice of Appearance

Complaint: Amended

Complaint First Amended: Comment: First Amended Complaint for PAGA Penalties

Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)

POS of Summons Tri Nguyen.pdf: Comment: Proof of Service of Summons/Complaint

Order: Deeming Case Complex

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

Civil Case Cover Sheet

Civil Case Cover Sheet.pdf: Comment: 1st CMC set for 11/16/18 at 10am in D1; assigned to Hon. Brian C. Walsh

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies):

Summons: Issued/Filed

Summons Issued Filed:

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/20/2019
  • Reserved - Judicial Officer: Walsh, Brian C; Hearing Time: 9:00 AM; Comment: Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Order - Order and Notice PA Hearing reset from 7-19-19 to 8-23-19: Comment: Order & Notice: Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement is reset from 7/19/19 to 8/23/19 - signed/BCW

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2019
  • Conference: Case Management - Judicial Officer: Walsh, Brian C; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Result: Held; Comment: (2nd CMC) Proposed Wage and Hour Class Action. Discovery and responsive pleading deadline stayed, as of 8/3/18, when the case was deemed complex. First Amended Complaint (for PAGA penalties) filed 11/8/18.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2019
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Stipulation and Order - Stipulation and Protective Order: Comment: Stipulation & Protective Order - signed/BCW

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice CMC 4-5-19 at 10am in D1: Comment: CMC set for 4/5/19 at 10am in D1

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2018
  • Conference: Case Management - Judicial Officer: Walsh, Brian C; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Result: Held; Comment: (1st CMC) Proposed Wage and Hour Class Action. Discovery and responsive pleading deadline stayed, as of 8/3/18, when the case was deemed complex. First Amended Complaint (for PAGA penalties) filed 11/8/18.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2018
  • Statement: Case Management Conference - Comment: HRG 11/16/18 - Joint Case Management Conference Statement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice: Comment: Notice of Appearance

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Complaint: Amended - Complaint First Amended: Comment: First Amended Complaint for PAGA Penalties

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2018
  • Notice: Related Cases - Comment: HRG 11/16/18 CMC - Notice of Related Case

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2018
  • Clerk Rejection Letter - Comment: Notice of Appearance return unprocessed due to: E-filing is now Mandatory in Civil.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2018
  • Notice - Comment: Of Undocumented Action Re: Complex Fees Payment for Defendant.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - POS of Summons Tri Nguyen.pdf: Comment: Proof of Service of Summons/Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2018
  • Clerk Rejection Letter - Comment: Defts Ntc of Apperance and $1000 Complex fees return unprocessed. Fees went down from $1000 to $550.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Order: Deeming Case Complex - Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline: Comment: Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline signed/BCW

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet.pdf: Comment: 1st CMC set for 11/16/18 at 10am in D1; assigned to Hon. Brian C. Walsh

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies):

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Summons: Issued/Filed - Summons Issued Filed:

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

E-FILED

Theodore R. Tang (313294) 8/1/2018 3:42 PM theodore@frontierlawcenter.com Clerk of Court

Addam 1\%1 R?sel(21088tO) Superior Court of CA, adam@frontierlawcenter.com

Emanuel Starr (319778) %gg{‘/t%’g Santa Clara Manny@frontierlawcenter.com , 369 FRONTIER LAW CENTER Reviewed By: R. Walker

23901 Calabasas Road, STE #2074 Calabasas, CA 91302 | Telephone: (818) 914-3433 Facsimile: (818) 914-3433 Attorneys for Plaintiff Tri Nguyen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

vo. 18CV332369

CLASS ACTION

TRI NGUYEN, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated individuals, and the general public,

Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:

) ) ) ) ) V. ) 1. Violation of B&PC §17200, et seq.; ) 2. Failure to Pay All Wages (Labor Code FIRST ALARM SECURITY & PATROL, INC., ) §§200, et seq., 218,226,510,511,1194, and d/b/a FIRST SECURITY SERVICES, and DOES ) 2802); 1 to 100, inclusive, ) 3. Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages ) (Labor Code §§ 201-203) ) 4. Failure to Provide Meal Breaks Labor ) Code §§226.7 & 512, et seq.; ) 5. Failure to Provide Rest Periods (Labor ) Code §8§226.7 & 512); ) 6. Inaccurate Wage Statements Labor ) Code §226;

Defendants.

Plaintiff Tri Nguyen on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, and the general public, hereby complains against First Alarm Security & Patrol, Inc. d/b/a First Security Services (“FASP” or “Defendant™), and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, and alleges as follows:

/11 /1] /1] /1/

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS JURISDICTION

1. This is a civil action seeking recovery of unpaid wages under California Labor Code §§ 200, et seq., 204, 218, 226, 226.7, 510, 511, 512, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, and 1198. The Plaintiff for himself and on behalf of the general public, and all others, similarly situated, brings an action for monetary damages for failure to pay wages as well as for injunctive relief, declaratory relief and restitution for Defendant’s violation of Business and Professions Code (B&PC) §17200, et seq., including full restitution of all compensation retained by Defendant, as a result of its unlawful, fraudulent and unfair business practices. Plaintiff seeks all available relief, including full damages, full restitution and/or disgorgement of all revenues, earnings, profits, compensation and benefits retained by Defendant as a result of its unlawful, unfair business practices. Further, Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief under B&PC §17200, et seq.

VENUE

% Venue as to the Defendant is proper in this judicial district pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) §§ 395(a) and 395.5, as at least some of the acts complained of herein occurred in the Country of Santa Clara. Defendant either owns or maintains offices, transacts business, has an agent or agents within the County of Santa Clara, or otherwise is found within the County of Santa Clara, and Defendant is within the jurisdiction of this Court for purposes of service of process.

PARTIES

3. Tri Nguyen is an individual over the age of eighteen (18). At all relevant times herein, Mendoza was and currently is a resident of the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times mentioned herein, Defendant FASP is and was a California corporation. 5 Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times mentioned herein, Defendant and Does 1 -100, are professional entities licensed to do business in California. 6. Plaintiff is informed and believe and thereon alleges that at all relevant times Defendant was licensed to do business in the State of California, County of Santa Clara, with its principal place of business in San Jose, State of California.

b Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges, that FASP is an entity licensed in the state of California, is a California corporation, that owns, operates and/or controls all other Defendants, and are and were the employer of the Plaintiff. During the liability period, Defendant employed Plaintiff and due to its failure to schedule Plaintiff in such a manner that allowed for Plaintiff to receive and/or take their meal and/or rest breaks, Plaintiff not provided and/or denied work free meal and rest breaks. Defendant also failed to pay Plaintiff for all time worked due to its practice of shorting its employees, which systematically resulted in losses to Plaintiff, and failed to pay overtime for hours worked at the correct rate of pay. On information and belief and based thereon, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is conducting business in good standing in California.

8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges, that Defendant and DOES 1 to 100, control and operate business and establishments in locations within the State of California, including, but not limited to, the County of Santa Clara, for the purposes of providing security guard services. Thus, each named Defendant and DOES 1 to 100 are subject to B&PC §17200, et seq. (Unfair Competition Law) and the Labor Code as hereinafter alleged.

0. Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities, whether individual, partner or corporate, of Defendant sued herein as DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, and for that reason, said Defendants are sued under such fictitious names, and Plaintiff will seek from this Court leave to amend this Complaint when such true names and capacities are discovered. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon allege that each Defendant and each fictitious Defendant, whether individual, partners, or corporate, was responsible in some manner for the circumstances alleged herein, and proximately caused Plaintiff to be subjected to the unlawful employment practices, wrongs, injuries and damages complained of herein.

10. At all times herein mentioned, each of said Defendants participated in the doing of the acts hereinafter alleged to have been done by the named Defendant; and furthermore, Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants, and employees of each and every one of the other Defendants, as well as the agents of all Defendants, and at all times herein mentioned were acting within the course and scope of said agency and employment. Plaintiff herein alleges that Defendant and each of them are the joint employer of Plaintiff.

11. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant, and each of them, were members of and engaged in a joint venture, partnership, and common enterprise, and acting within the course and scope of and in pursuance of said joint venture, partnership, and common enterprise.

12. At all times herein mentioned, and the acts and omissions of various Defendants, and each of them, concurred and contributed to the various acts and omissions of each and every one of the other Defendants in proximately causing the complaints, injuries and damages alleged herein.

13. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant, and each of them, approved of, condoned, and/or otherwise ratified each and every one of the acts or omissions complained of herein. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant, and each of them, aided and abetted the acts and omissions of each and every one of the other Defendants, thereby proximately causing the damages, as herein alleged. 14. Plaintiff was employed with Defendants from Spring 2018 to approximately February 19, 2018.

15. Plaintiff was required to carry a radio and remain on call throughout his entire shift, including during periods designated as “breaks™.

16. Plaintiff was prohibited from leaving the job site at all times during his shift, including

during periods designated as “breaks,” except to retrieve patrol vehicles as needed.

17. Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee.

PLAINTIFF CLASSES

18. The class representative who worked in the position of non-exempt hourly security guard

employee, while employed by Defendant within the State of California is Tri Nguyen.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

19. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated as a class action pursuant to CCP §382. The Classes which Plaintiffs seeks to represent are composed of and defined as follows: Class 1: All California based non-exempt hourly employees of Defendant who worked at any time during the time period from four (4) years preceding the filing of this Complaint through the date of class certification order, who were not provided legally-compliant meal periods within five (5) hours of starting their shift. (“Meal Break Class”);

Class 2: All California based non-exempt employees of Defendant who worked at any time during the time period from four (4) years preceding the filing of this Complaint through the date of class certification, who were not provided with legally compliant 10-minute rest periods for every 4 hours of work or major fraction thereof. (“Rest Break Class”);

Class 3: All California based non-exempt hourly employees of Defendant who worked at any time during the time period from four (4) years preceding the filing of this Complaint through the date of class certification order, who were not paid for all hours worked at the proper rate. (“Unpaid Wages Class™);

Class 4: All California based non-exempt hourly employees of Defendant who worked at any time during the time period from one (1) year before the filing of this action through the date of class certification order, who were not provided an accurate paystub (a.k.a. wage statement) from Defendant (“Pay Stub Class™); and

Class 5: All California based non-exempt hourly employees of Defendant who worked at any time during the time period from three (3) years before the filing of this action through the date of class certification order, who either were terminated by Defendant or quit and who have not received all wages due on either the date of their termination, their last day of work if they quit with at least seventy-two (72) hours’ notice, or within seventy-two hours of receiving notice of employee’s intent to quit if less than seventy-two (72) hours’ notice

was given (“Final Wages Class™).

20. There are common questions of law and fact as to Plaintiff and all others similarly situated which predominate over questions affecting only individual members including, without limitation to: a. Whether Defendant violated the applicable Labor Code provisions including §510 and 1194 by requiring overtime work and not paying for said work k.

4

according to the overtime laws of the State of California;

Whether Defendant failed to pay the appropriate straight time minimum wages, and premium overtime compensation to the non-exempt hourly employees; Whether Defendant improperly retained, appropriated or deprived Plaintiff of the use of monies or sums to which Plaintiff was legally entitled;

Whether Defendant engaged in unfair business practices;

Whether Defendant, and each of them, were participants in the alleged unlawful conduct;

Whether Defendant’s conduct was willful or reckless;

The effect upon and the extent of injuries suffered by Plaintiff and all others similarly situated and the appropriate amount of compensation;

The appropriate amount of monetary penalties allowed by Labor Code §§201, et seq. and 226;

Whether Defendant violated Labor Code §226 and relevant IWC Wage Orders by failing to, among other violations, accurately report total hours worked by Plaintiff and the members of the Plaintiff class;

Whether Defendant knowingly and intentionally failed to maintain records for Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff class as required by Labor Code §1174 and §7 of the IWC Order 4 — 2001;

Whether Defendants willfully violated provisions of the California Labor Code;

Whether Defendant failed to provide regularly compliant meal periods; and

m. Whether Defendant failed to authorize and permit legally compliant rest breaks;

Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of all members of the classes mentioned herein. Plaintiff, as a representative party, will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the classes by vigorously pursuing this suit through his attorneys who are skilled and experienced in handling matters of this type. Plaintiff has no claim or interest that is antagonistic to any class member.

The nature of this action and the nature of laws at issue make use of the class action format a particularly efficient and appropriate procedure to afford relief to Plaintiff for the wrongs alleged herein. Further, this claim involves a large corporate employer, Defendant, and a large number of individual employees (Plaintiff and all others similarly situated) with many relatively small claims with common issues of law and fact. If each employee were required to file an individual lawsuit, the corporate Defendant would necessarily gain an unconscionable advantage since it would be able to exploit and overwhelm the limited resources of each individual Plaintiff with their vastly superior financial and legal resources. Requiring each class member to pursue an individual remedy would also discourage the assertion of lawful claims by employees who would be disinclined to pursue an action against their present and/or former employer for an appreciable and justifiable fear of retaliation and permanent damage to their careers at present and/or subsequent employment. Proof of a common business practice or factual pattern, of which the named Plaintiff experienced, is representative of the classes mentioned herein and will establish the right of each of the members of the named class to recovery under the causes of action alleged herein.

23. The prosecution of separate actions by the individual class members, even if possible, would create a substantial risk of (a) inconsistent or varying verdicts or adjudications with respect to the individual class members against Defendant herein which would establish potentially incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant; and/or (b) legal determinations with respect to individual class members which would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interest of the other class members not parties to adjudications or which would substantially impair or impede the ability of the class members to protect their interests. Further, the claims of the individual members of the class are not sufficiently large to warrant vigorous individual prosecution considering all of the concomitant costs and expenses.

24. Plaintiff and all others similarly situated are entitled to the wages and other monies unlawfully withheld. This action is brought for the benefit of the public.

/1

/1

/1

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES

(B&PC §17200, et seq.) 25. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein the allegations of all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 26. Beginning on an exact date unknown to Plaintiff but believed to have occurred at least since four (4) years before the filing of this action, Defendant has engaged in a pattern and practice of acts of unfair competition in violation of B&PC §17200, including the practices alleged herein.

FAILURE TO PAY PROPER WAGES AND OVERTIME COMPENSATION

27 Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that as part of Defendant’s ongoing unfair business practice, Defendant’s employees were and are employed and scheduled as a matter of established company policy to work, and in fact worked, shifts in excess of eight (8) hours. Plaintiff and the members of the classes (the “Class™) were frequently required to stay and work over their scheduled shift, working in excess of eight (8) hours per day, and in excess of forty (40) hours per week without receiving the proper overtime premium. The Defendant is in violation of Labor Code §§510 and 1194, and the relevant California Industrial Welfare Commission Order 4 — 2001, et seq. 28. Under Labor Code §1194, an employee is not fully compensated for the unpaid balance of their overtime compensation unless the employee is paid all unpaid compensation for the regular hours and overtime hours worked during an overtime shift. 29. Defendant fails to pay Plaintiff the Class proper wages due to Defendant’s policy of paying for less than the total number of hours worked. The mathematical result of these practices is that employees are underpaid their earned wages. Defendant’s employees are not paid proper straight time or overtime compensation. 30. Defendant, and each of them, consistently administered a corporate policy regarding staffing levels, duties, and responsibilities of Defendant’s employees, which required that the entirety of the employees work overtime without proper premium overtime pay. Further, Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to restitution of these wages obtained by Defendant, and each of them. 31. This corporate policy and pattern of conduct is accomplished with the advance knowledge and designed intent not to pay the employees at a premium rate for all overtime hours. Further, Plaintiff is entitled to restitution of these wages obtained by Defendant, and each of them. 32. Further, Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to restitution of all unpaid wages obtained by Defendant, and each of them. Plaintiff and the Class may seek restitution for unpaid straight time wages under California Business & Professions Code §17200, et seq. (“Section 172007). Any business act or practice that violates the Labor Code through a failure to pay wages is by definition an unfair business practice under §17200. Section 17200 provides an action to recover wages as a restitution, even if such recovery might be barred if brought pursuant to the Labor Code, if the failure to pay constitutes a business practice. 33, Plaintiff was and is employed and scheduled as a matter of established company policy to work and in fact worked as s non-exempt employee in excess of eight (8) hours per day. 34. Pursuant to Labor Code §1198, it is unlawful to employ persons for longer than the hoursunder conditions prohibited by the applicable IWC Wage Orders/ IWC Wage Order No. 4, as amended, applies to Plaintiff.

VIOLATION OF MEAL PERIOD PROVISIONS

35. Defendant’s improper meal policies are in violation of California law including, but not limited to Labor Code §226.7, 512, and IWC Wage Order 4 — 2001. The Plaintiff and the Meal Break Class are entitled to a half hour meal period for every five (5) hours of his shift worked. Defendant violated the meal break provisions and did not provide Plaintiff and the Class with duty free meal period for every five (5) hours of his shift worked. Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to one (1) hour of pay for each meal break violation at his regular rate of pay. 36. Defendant failed to provide, impeded and/or discouraged Plaintiff and the Meal Break Class from taking timely meal breaks of not less than thirty (30) minutes as required by the Labor Code during the relevant period and/or failed to obtain legal waivers waiving the first or second meal period in a shift in excess of 10 hours.

| FAILURE TO PERMIT AND AUTHORIZE REST PERIOD BREAKS

37. Plaintiff and the Rest Break Class, during their employment by Defendant, including within the Class Period, were entitled to the benefits of Labor Code 226.7 and Order 4 — 2001 of the Industrial Welfare Commission. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 226.7 and Wage Order 4 — 2001, Plaintiff and the Rest Break Class were entitled to separate rest periods of at least 10 minutes for each four-hour period of work or major fraction thereof, and one hour of additional pay for every shift a rest period was not provided in conformance with this obligation. 38. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Defendant consistently compelled Plaintiff and the Class, who were schedule for shifts of eight (8) hours or more, to keep their radios on and be subject to recall during all times during their shift and were therefore denied any period during his shift where he was relieved of all duty.

FAILURE TO PAY ALL WAGES DUE

44, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned, Defendant has engaged in unlawful, deceptive, and unfair business practices prohibited by California B&PC §17200, thereby depriving its employees the minimum working condition, standards and conditions due to them under the California labor laws and Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders as specifically described herein. Plaintiff seeks an injunction preventing Defendant from continuing its unfair business practice of improperly depriving its employees’ overtime pay.

45. By and through its unfair, unlawful, and/or fraudulent business practices and acts described herein, Defendant has obtained valuable services from Plaintiff and has deprived Plaintiff of valuable rights and benefits guaranteed by law, all to his detriment.

46. Plaintiff, on behalf of the Class, is entitled to and does seek such relief as may be necessary to restore to them the money and property which Defendant has acquired, or of which Plaintiff and the Class have been deprived by means of the herein described unfair, unlawful, and/or fraudulent business practices at all times in the future.

47. Plaintiff is further entitled to and does seek a declaration that the above described business practices are unfair, unlawful, and/or fraudulent, and injunctive relief restraining Defendant from engaging in any of the herein described unfair, unlawful, and/or fraudulent business practices at all times in the future.

/1] /1]

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION RECOVERY OF UNPAID WAGES & PENALTIES

(Labor Code §§218. 226, 510,1194, and 1198) 48. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein the allegations of all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 49. Plaintiff and the Unpaid Wages Class were and are employed and scheduled as a matter of established company policy to work and in fact worked as non-exempt employees in excess of eight (8) hours per day and/or in excess of forty (40) hours per week. Defendant employed and scheduled Plaintiff and the Class without providing overtime compensation for such excess hours worked in violation of Labor Code §§510, and 1194 and the relevant California Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) orders, including but not limited to, daily, weekly, and seventh day premium overtime payments. Labor Code § 204 establishes the fundamental right of all employees in the state of California to be paid the proper amount of wages in a timely fashion for their work, including overtime. The California overtime requirement and wage requirement are non-waivable rights pursuant to Labor Code §219. 50. Pursuant to Labor Code §§ 218 and 1194(a), Plaintiff may bring a civil action for overtime wages directly against the employer without first filing a claim with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (hereinafter “DLSE”’) and may recover such wages, together with interest thereon, penalties, attorney’s fees and costs. 51. Atall times relevant hereto, Defendant has failed to pay Plaintiff’s and the Unpaid Wages Class’ wages when due as required by Labor Code §204. 52. Pursuant to Labor Code §1198, it is unlawful to employ persons for longer than the hoursunder conditions prohibited by the applicable IWC Wage Orders. IWC Wage Order No. 4, as amended, applies to Plaintiff. 53. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant has treated Plaintiff and the Class as non-exempt employees. Despite this classification, Defendant has willfully violated the Labor Code with respect to meeting the requirements of paying all wages earned, including minimum wages, straight time pay, overtime, and remuneration when calculating the non-exempt employees regular rate of pay, as herein before alleged.

54. Labor Code §204 establishes the fundamental right of all employees in the State of California to be paid wages in a timely fashion for their work.

55. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Defendant consistently administered a corporate policy regarding both staffing levels and duties and responsibilities of the Plaintiff to work overtime without proper premium pay. This included a uniform corporate policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and the Class to work in excess of eight (8) hours a day without paying premium overtime. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Unpaid Wages Class for all hours worked despite receiving time cards clearly demonstrating the number of hours worked. Therefore, this corporate policy and pattern of conduct was/is accomplished with the advance knowledge and design of all Defendants herein. Since Plaintiff and the Class regularly and customarily performed overtime work, Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to overtime compensation under California law. Further, Defendant disseminated false information throughout Defendant’s facilities and among the employees reciting that all non-exempt employees would receive premium overtime pay.

56. Plaintiff and the Class were and are employed and scheduled as a matter of established company policy to work and in fact worked as non-exempt employees in excess of eight (8) hours per day without overtime. Pursuant to Labor Code §1198, it is unlawful to employ persons for longer than the hoursunder conditions prohibited buy the applicable IWC Wage Orders. IWC Wage Order No. 4, as amended, applies to Plaintiffs.

57. Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of the Class, seeks all underpaid wages, wages that Defendant has failed to pay which are owing, including interest thereon, willful penalties,

attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit according to the mandate of Labor Code §1194, et seq.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY FINAL WAGES

| (Labor Code §§201, 202, and 203)

58. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein the allegations of all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

59. Plaintiff and the Final Wages Class were entitled to be promptly paid lawful overtime compensation and other premiums, as well as straight time, for all hours worked as required by Labor Code §§ 201- 203. Defendant refused and/or failed to promptly compensate Plaintiff and the Final Wages Class wages owed as a result of their failure to provide meal and /or rest periods as well as pay for all hours worked, including proper premium overtime compensation. Defendant’s refusal to pay was knowing and intentional in that Defendant was in possession of records that reflected the hours worked by Plaintiff and the Final Wages Class, and/or was on notice that wages were still due and yet still failed to pay for those wages.

60. Pursuant to Labor Code §203, Plaintiff and the Final Wages Class seek the payment of penalties pursuant to Labor Code §203, according to proof.

61. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees, and costs, pursuant to Labor Code §203.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL BREAKS

64. Defendant failed to provide, impeded and/or discouraged Plaintiff and the Meal Break Class from taking timely meal breaks of not less than thirty (30) minutes as required by the Labor Code during the relevant period and/or failed to obtain legal waivers waiving the right to a meal period. 65. Pursuant to Labor Code §226.7, Plaintiffs are entitled to damages in an amount equal to one (1) hour of wages at the regular rate of compensation per missed meal break,proven

at trial.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST PERIODS

(Labor Code §§226.7 & 512) 66. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein the allegations of all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 67. Labor Code §226.7 provides that employers authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods at the rate of ten (10) minutes rest time per four (4) work hours or major fraction thereof. 68. Labor Code §226.7(b) provides that if an employer fails to provide and employee rest periods in accordance with this section, the employer shall pay the employee one (1) hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday that the rest period is nor provided. 69. Defendant failed and/or refused to implement a relief system by which Plaintiff and the Rest Break Class could receive rest breaks and/or work free rest breaks for every four hours worked, or major fraction thereof. Furthermore, due to Defendant’s requirement that Plaintiff and the Rest Break Class carry radios and remain on call and on site at all times, Plaintiff and the Rest Break Class did not receive their rest breaks. By and through its actions, Defendant intentionally and improperly denied rest period to the Plaintiff and the Rest Break Class in violation of Labor Code §§226.7 and 512. 70. At all times relevant hereto, the Plaintiff and the Rest Break Class have worked more than four (4) hours in a workday. 71. By virtue of the Defendant’s unlawful failure to provide rest periods to Plaintiff and the Rest Break Class, Plaintiff and the Rest Break Class have suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages, in amounts which are presently unknown, which will be ascertained according to proof at trial.

72. Plaintiff, on behalf of the Rest Break Class requests recovery of rest period compensation pursuant to Labor Code §226.7, which they are owed beginning four (4) years before the filing of this action through the date of judgment as the assessment of any statutory penalties against the

Defendant, and each of them, in a sum as provided by the Labor Code and/or any other statute.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE ITEMIZED WAGE STATEMENTS

(Labor Code § 226) 73, Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein the allegations of all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

74. Labor Code §226 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...”

Subsection (e) provides: “ An employee suffering injury as a result of a knowing and intentional failure by an employer to comply with subdivision (a) is entitled to recover the greater of all actual damages or fifty dollars ($50) for the initial pay period in which a violation occurs and one hundred dollars ($100) per employee for each violation in a subsequent pay period, not to exceed an aggregate penalty of four thousand dollars ($4,000), and is entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.” 76. Defendant thus required Plaintiff and the Pay Stub Class, to work under conditions prohibited by order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, in violation of those orders.

77. Plaintiff and the Pay Stub Class suffered injury as a result of Defendant’s knowing and intentional failure to provide Plaintiff and the Class with the wage statements required by law.

78. Based on Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein, Defendant is liable for actual damages,

statutory damages and/or statutory damages and/or statutory penalties pursuant to California Labor

Code §226, including attorney’s fees and costs.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1. That the Court determine this action may be maintained as a class action; appoint Plaintiff as the Class Representative, and Appoint Counsel for Plaintiff as Class Counsel; As to the First Cause of Action:

2. For an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendant from engaging in the practices challenged herein;

3. An order for full restitution of all monies, as necessary and according to proof, to restore any and all monies withheld by the Defendant by means of the unfair practice complained of herein. Plaintiff seeks the appointment of a receiver, as necessary. The restitution includes all monies retained as wages, as defined in Labor Code §§200, et seq., 510 and 1194, and interest, and attorneys’ fees as a result of the unfair business practices or retained in violation of Labor Code §1198 and IWC Wage Order 4 — 2001;

4. For an order finding and declaring that Defendant’s acts and practices as challenged herein are unlawful, and unfair and/or fraudulent;

5. For an accounting, under administration of Plaintiff and subject to Court Review, to determine the amount to be returned by Defendant and the amounts to be refunded to members who are or were not paid all their wages due to Defendant’s unfair business practices;

6. For the creation of an administrative process wherein each Plaintiff and the Class receives his or her back wages. -

e

o

11.

14.

For an order requiring Defendant to make full restitution and payment pursuant to B&PC sections 17200, et seq. for unfair business practices that violate Labor Code §§200. et seq.. 510 and 1194:

For reasonable attorneys’ fees under Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5 all other appropriate declaratory and equitable relief;

For pre-judgment interest to the extent permitted by law and the California Constitution;

As to the Second Cause of Action:

. For recovery of the unpaid balance of the full amount of unpaid minimum wage or overtime

and double time compensation, per Labor Code §§204. 218, 510, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, and 1198 due and owing, according to proof;

For liquidated damages in an amount equal to the wages unlawfully unpaid and interest thereon for the uncompensated non-overtime hours of work, as authorized by Labor Code

§1194.2(a);

. For pre-judgment interest as allowed by Labor Code §218.6, Labor Code §1194(a) and

CC§3287;

. For an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Labor Code §218.5 and/or

Labor Code §1104(a);

As to the Third Cause of Action:

For waiting time penalties in the amount of one (1) days’ wages for each day Defendant was late in paying Plaintiff and the Class (and for each class member) to a maximum of

thirty (30) days’ wages per person, pursuant to Labor Code §203;

As to the Fourth Cause of Action:

13

As

16.

/1

One (1) hour of pay at each of the Plaintiffs’ regular rate of compensation for each workday that a meal break was not provided, impeded, discouraged and/or dissuaded;

to the Fifth Cause of Action:

One (1) hour of pay at each of the Plaintiffs’ regular rate of compensation for each workday that a rest break was not provided, impeded, discouraged and/or dissuaded; As to the Sixth Cause of Action:

17. For recovery as authorized by Labor Code §226(e);

18. For an award of costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Labor Code §226(e) and/or §226(g);

As to All Causes of Action:

19. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred;

20. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

Date: July 31,2018 FRONTIER LAW CENTER