This case was last updated from Santa Clara County Superior Courts on 08/13/2019 at 05:06:35 (UTC).

Quijada v. Golden State Overnight Delivery Service, Inc.

Case Summary

On 07/27/2018 Quijada filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against Golden State Overnight Delivery Service, 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 Kuhnle, Thomas. The case status is Other - Transferred.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ******2129

  • Filing Date:

    07/27/2018

  • Case Status:

    Other - Transferred

  • 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

QUIJADA, NOE

Defendant

GOLDEN STATE OVERNIGHT DELIVERY SERVICE, INC.

Not Classified By Court

Superior Court of California

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Martinez, Jamielee F

Kim, Michael Hyungchoon

Defendant Attorneys

Wirtschafter, Carla M

Matheke, Mara D

Barnett, Anne Cherry

Curtis, Mara Danielle

Not Classified By Court Attorney

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

 

Court Documents

Proof of Service

Proof of Service: Comment: Proof of Service

Stipulation and Order

Stipulation and Order: Comment: Joint Stipulation to Continue Case Management Conference

Notice: Appearance

Notice Appearance:

Advance jury fee (Nonrefundable)

Advance Jury Fee (Nonrefundable): Comment: Demand for Jury Trial

Notice

Notice of Entry of Order Deeming Case Complex.pdf: Comment: Notice of Entry of Order Deeming Case Complex

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):

Civil Case Cover Sheet

05 QUIJADA Civil Case Cover File.pdf: Comment: 1st CMC set for 11/16/18 at 10am in D5; assigned to Hon Thomas E. Kuhnle

Summons: Issued/Filed

Summons Issued Filed:

Stipulation and Order

Stipulation and Order to Transfer Venue to Orange County: Comment: Transfer Venue to Orange County - signed/TEK

Minute Order

Minutes Non-Criminal:

Notice

Notice CMC 4-12-19 at 10am in D5: Comment: CMC set for 4/12/19 at 10am in D5

Notice: Related Cases

Notice of Related Case:

Statement: Case Management Conference

Joint CMC Statement: Comment: Joint

Notice

Notice of Appearance of Anne Cherry Barnett and Brittany M. Hernandez: Comment: Notice of appearance of Anne Cherry Barnett and Brittany M. Hernandez on behalf of Defendant Golden State overnight delivery service, Inc.

Notice: Related Cases

Notice Related Cases: Comment: De Trinh v. Golden State Overnight Delivery Service, Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2017-0961719-CU-WT-CXC; complaint filed 12/15/17 (pending).

Notice

Notice CMC reset from 11-16-18 to 1-18-19: Comment: CMC reset from 11-16-18 to 1-18-19

Order

Order Granting Stipulation to Continue CMC from 11-16-18 to 1-18-19: Comment: Order Granting Stipulation to Continue CMC from 11-16-18 to 1-18-19 - signed/TEK

7 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/12/2019
  • Acknowledgement of Receipt: Transfer

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2019
  • Receipt: Certified Mail

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2019
  • Notice: Transmittal (Transfer Out) - Comment: Orange County.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • Conference: Case Management - Judicial Officer: Kuhnle, Thomas; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Cancel Reason: Vacated; Comment: (2nd CMC) Proposed Wage and Hour Class Action * Discovery and responsive pleading deadline stayed, as of 7/31/18, when the case was deemed complex. Related Cases: De Trinh v. Golden State Overnight Delivery Service, Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2017-0961719-CU-WT-CXC; complaint filed 12/15/17 (pending); Julie Ecklund v. Golden State Overnight Delivery Service, Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. 18STCV02415; complaint filed 10/25/18 (pending).

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Statement - Joint Status Conference Statement HRG 4-12-19: Comment: HRG - 4/12/19 - Joint Status Conference Statement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2019
  • Notice: Entry of Order - Comment: Notice: Entry of Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Stipulation and Order - Stipulation and Order to Transfer Venue to Orange County: Comment: Transfer Venue to Orange County - signed/TEK

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice CMC 4-12-19 at 10am in D5: Comment: CMC set for 4/12/19 at 10am in D5

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Conference: Case Management - Joint CMC Statement: Minutes Non-Criminal: Judicial Officer: Kuhnle, Thomas; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Result: Held; Comment: (1st CMC)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Minute Order - Minutes Non-Criminal:

    Read MoreRead Less
6 More Docket Entries
  • 10/15/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service - Proof of Service: Comment: Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Stipulation and Order - Stipulation and Order: Comment: Joint Stipulation to Continue Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice: Appearance - Notice Appearance:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/26/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Advance jury fee (Nonrefundable) - Advance Jury Fee (Nonrefundable): Comment: Demand for Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/26/2018
  • Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - Comment: Proof of Service of Summons/Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice of Entry of Order Deeming Case Complex.pdf: Comment: Notice of Entry of Order Deeming Case Complex

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2018
  • 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
  • 07/27/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies):

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet - 05 QUIJADA Civil Case Cover File.pdf: Comment: 1st CMC set for 11/16/18 at 10am in D5; assigned to Hon Thomas E. Kuhnle

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Summons: Issued/Filed - Summons Issued Filed:

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

E-FILED

7/27/2018 10:47 AM

| | ) Clerk of Court 1 | l Michael H. Kim, Esq. (State Bar No. 200792) Suer: er?or Cocl)Jurt of CA 5 | Jamielee F. Martinez, Esq. (State Bar No. 303927) Coun ' | ty of Santa Clara ‘ - Adam K. Tanouye, Esq. (State Bar No. 304711) 18CV332129 3 || MICHAEL H. KIM, P.C. : _ ! 3 475 E] Camino Real, Suite 309 Reviewed By: R. Walker 4 | Millbrae, California 94030 || Telephone: (650) 697-8899 ? || Facsimile: (650) 697-8896 6 | ' Attorneys for Plaintiff > || NOE QUIJADA, individually and on ' behalf of others similarly situated

8 || | SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 : IN AND FORTHE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY 10 . NOE QUIJADA, individually and on behalf | CASE NO. 18CV332129 12 || of others similarly situated, ¥ 131 Plaintiff, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR: 14 | VS. 1. Failure to Pay Wages 15 || 2. Failure to Furnish Accurate l - GOLDEN STATE OVERNIGHT DELIVERY Wage Statements 16 | SERVICE, INC., a California Corporation; 3. Unfair Competition in - and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Violation of Business & 17 Professions Code Section 18 | Defendants. 17200 19

20 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 21 |

22 23 Plaintiff NOE QUIJADA (“Plaintiff”) individually and on behalf of all similarly 24 situated individuals hereby respectfully alleges, avers, and complains, as follows:

25 | THE PARTIES

26 E 1. Plaintiff NOE QUIJADA is an individual and resident of the City of Fremont, 27 | ' Alameda County, California. 28 2. On information and belief, Defendant GOLDEN STATE OVERNIGHT DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. (“Golden State Overnight Delivery”) is a California

e

corporation doing business in California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. On information and belief, Defendant GOLDEN STATE OVERNIGHT DELIVERY is in the business of parcel and freight delivery.

3. At all relevant times herein, Defendant GOLDEN STATE OVERNIGHT

DELIVERY controlled the wages, working hours, working conditions of Plaintiff and Class |

Members. Defendant suffered or permitted them to work, and retained or assumed a

. general right of control over factors such as hiring, direction, supervision, discipline,

1 |

discharge, and relevant day-to-day aspects of the workplace behavior of Plaintiff and Class |

LW

10 | Members.

11 j | 4. The true names and capacities of defendants Does 1 through 100, inclusive, 12 5 and each of them, are unknown to Plaintiff, who sues said defendants by such fictitious 13 | names. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the defendants

14 ~ fictitiously named herein is legally responsible in some actionable manner for the events

15 | described herein, and thereby proximately caused the damage to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will

16 || seekleave of Court to amend this Complaint to state the true name(s) and capacities of

17 | ; such fictitiously named defendants when the same have been ascertained.

18 ! ‘ 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times

19 ; , relevant herein, each defendant aided and abetted, and acted in concert with and/or

70 || conspired with each and every other defendant to commit the acts complained of herein 21 || and to engage in a course of conduct and the business practices complained of herein.

29 | | 6. Defendant, including Does 1 through 100, inclusive, are now, and/or at all 23 || times mentioned in this Complaint were the affiliates of some or all other Defendant, and

vice-versa, and in doing the thing alleged in this Complaint, Defendant were directly or

24 | i

5 ~ indirectly controlling, controlled by or under common control with such other Defendants. 26 l 7. Defendant, including Does 1 through 100, inclusive, are now, and/or at all 27 i ] times mentioned in this Complaint were the agents, servants and/or employees of some or

8 all other Defendants, and vice-versa, and in doing the things alleged in this Complaint, et

N

pd -

Defendants are now and/or at all times mentioned in this Complaint were acting within the course and scope of that agency, servitude and/or employment.

8. Defendant, including Does 1 through 100, inclusive, are now, and/or at all times mentioned in this Complaint were members of, and/or engaged in a joint venture, | partnership and common enterprise, and acting within the course and scope of, and in J pursuance of said joint venture, partnership and common enterprise. |

9. Defendant, including Does 1 through 100, inclusive, at all times mentioned | in this Complaint, approved of, condoned and/or otherwise ratified each and every one of |

the acts and/or omissions alleged in this Complaint

% | !

JURISDICTION AND VENUE E

10. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court over Defendant, as Defendant is J incorporated in, conducts business in, and/or resides in California. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court as to all Claims for Relief as they arise under state statutory or ? common law. !

11. Venue 1s proper in this Court because Defendant is doing business in this County, and because a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this County.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

12. This is a class action pursuant to Section 382 of the California Code of Civil Procedure to vindicate rights afforded the class by California labor law. This action is brought on behalf of Plaintiff and all current and former non-exempt piece rate employees working for Defendant.

13. During the relevant class period, Plaintiff and Class Members were hired and employed by Defendant as non-exempt piece-rate employees. They performed various duties relating to Defendant’s parcel and freight delivery services.

14. During Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ employment with Defendant, they were not exempt from California employment laws and regulations in that they routinely spent a majority of their working hours performing duties delegated to non-exempt —

W

employees, including but not limited to duties related to parcel and freight delivery.

15. During Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ employment with Defendant, they spent few to none of their working hours performing work which was primarily intellectual, managerial or creative, or which required the regular and customary exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance on more | than an occasional basis.

16. Plaintiff and Class Members were paid on a piece-rate basis, which renders them non-exempt from California wage and hour laws. |

17. Plaintiff's and Class Members’ duties and activities during their respective working hours and shifts were known to and directed by Defendant, and were set and controlled by Defendant as a matter of corporate policy.

18. During the relevant class period, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered damages for the following wage and hour violations committed by Defendant:

a. Plaintiff and Class Members were not paid wages for nonproductive time separate from their piece-rate compensation.

b. Plaintiff and Class Members were not paid all overtime wages due on

regular period pay periods. Plaintiff and Class Members often worked more than eight (8) hours in a workday, and more than forty (40) hours in a workweek. Even though they regularly and routinely worked overtime for Defendant, and were paid some overtime, they were not paid the statutory overtime rate for nonproductive time worked over eight (8) hours in a workday and over forty (40) hours in a workweek. Defendant would also not allow them to clock in by scanning their packages earlier than 6:25 a.m., despite commencing their duties at 6:00 a.m., or earlier.

c. Plaintiff and Class Members were paid a piece rate wage based on the number of packages they delivered. Multiple packages were strapped

together (typically around four packages) and only counted as one package. H ; 1 l d. Plaintiff and Class Members were not given accurate itemized earnings ‘ 2 | statements showing their nonproductive time and wages for their 3 z ! nonproductive time. j 4 E ! e. Defendant knowingly and intentionally failed to maintain accurate time : 5 | f records as required by California law. i 6 | 19. Plaintiff and Class Members also seek attorneys’ fees pursuant to California | 7 | Labor Code section 218.5 and any other applicable sections. J 8 | % 20. Plaintiff and Class Members also seek restitution and disgorgement of all l 9 | ! sums wrongfully obtained by Defendant through unfair business practices in violation of : 10 | ; California Business & Professions Code section 17200, et seq., to prevent the Defendant ‘ 11 z ] from benefiting from their unlawful, fraudulent and unfair acts. Such sums recovered g 12 F ! under the Unfair Competition Act and Unfair Businesses Act are equitable in nature and | 13 ‘ are not to be considered damages. Plaintiff is also entitled to costs, attorneys’ fees, l 14 ‘ | interest and penalties as provided for by the Labor Code, the Business & Professions Code | 15 E ! and Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5. J

16 || CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS |

17 21. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly

18 situated persons as a class action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 382.

19 Plaintiff seeks to represent the following Class composed of and defined as follows:

20 CLASS: All employees who were paid on a piece rate basis by Defendant Golden

3 State Overnight Delivery in California during the period of four years prior to the | filing of this action through the present.

22 TERMINATED SUBCLASS: All employees who were paid on a piece rate basis

23 by Defendant Golden State Overnight Delivery in California during the period of four years prior to the filing of this action through the present, and whose

24 employment with Defendant ended during the period of four years prior to the

75 filing of this action through the present.

6 22. Plaintiff reserves the right under Rule 1855(b), California Rules of Court, to

57 amend or modify the class description with greater specificity or further division into

)3 subclasses or limitation to particular issues. P

W

11 12 13 14 15

16 |

28

23. This action has been brought and may be maintained as a class action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 382 because there is a well-defined community of interest among many persons who comprise a readily ascertainable class.

24. Numerosity and Ascertainability (C.C.P. § 382): The potential number l of Class Members as defined is so numerous that joinder of all Members would be | unfeasible and impractical. The disposition of their claims through this class action will | benefit both the parties and this Court. The number of Class Members is unknown at this } time, however, it is estimated that the Class will number greater than 40. The identity of | such membership can readily be ascertained from Defendant’s employees’ payroll and personnel records.

25. Superiority (C.C.P. §382): The nature of this action and the nature of laws

available to Plaintiff makes use of the class action format particularly efficient and

I appropriate. By establishing a technique by which the claims of many individuals can be resolved at the same time, the class suit both eliminates the possibility of repetitious litigation and provides small claimants with a method of obtaining redress for claims | which would otherwise be too small to warrant individual litigation. Class action I treatment will allow 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 require. The actual monetary recovery due to most of the individual Class Members is likely to be small, and the burden and expense of individual litigation would make it prohibitive for individual Class Members to seek relief. A class action will serve an important public interest by permitting such individuals to effectively pursue recovery of the sums owed to them. Further, class litigation prevents the potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments if individual Class Members were to litigate separately.

26. Well-defined Community of Interest: Plaintiff also meets the

established standard for class certification (See, e.g. Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Superior

Court (2003) 29 Cal. 4t 1096), as follows:e

prt e

- 3

28

27. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of all members of the Class they seek to represent because all members of the Class sustained injuries and damages arising out of Defendant’s common policies, practices and course of conduct in violation of law and the injuries and damages of all members of the Class were caused by Defendant’s wrongful conduct in said violation of law, as alleged herein.

28. Adequacy: Plaintift:

a. Is an adequate representative of the Class; :

b. Will fairly protect the interests of all members of the Class; ‘

C. Has no interests antagonistic to any members of the Class; and

d. Will vigorously pursue this suit via attorneys who are competent, skilled and experienced in litigating matters of this type.

29. Predominant Common Questions of Law or Fact: There are common 5 questions of law and/or fact as to the members of the Class which predominate over questions affecting only individual members of the Class, including, without limitation:

a. Whether Defendants violated Labor Code section 1174 by failing to calculate

| l and pay separate wages for nonproductive time; 1

b. Whether Defendant violated Labor Code section 226.2 by failing to calculate and pay separate wages for nonproductive time;

C. Whether Defendant violated Labor Code sections 510 and 1194 by failing to calculate and pay for all overtime hours worked including overtime hours for | nonproductive time;

d. Whether Defendant violated Business & Professions Code Section 17200 by deceptively strapping multiple packages together in order to pay Class Members less as single package deliveries.

e. Whether Defendant violated Labor Code Section 204 by not paying Class Members for all wages earned during each pay period;

f. Whether Defendant violated Labor Code Sections 226.2(a)(2)(B) and 226(a)

by not providing Class Members with accurate wage statements that included allN

p— O

nonproductive time separate from their piece-rate compensation, and overtime hours

worked, including daily overtime hours worked in excess of 8 hours in a workday;

g. Whether Defendant maintained records pursuant to Labor Code sections 226 and 1174; h. Whether Defendant’s conduct constituted unfair competition or unlawful

business practice under Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.; i. Whether injunctive relief is appropriate to ensure Defendant’s compliance

with the Labor Code with respect to Members of the Class currently employed by

Defendant; j- Whether Class Members are entitled to attorney’s fees; k. Whether Class Members are entitled to prejudgment interest; L. Whether Class Members are entitled to restitution;

m. Whether each Class Member might be required to ultimately justify an

individual claim does not preclude maintenance of a class action. Collins v. Rocha (1972) 7

Cal. 2d 232.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

For Failure to Pay Wages (Against All Defendants)

30. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges as if fully stated herein the material allegations set out above in the preceding paragraphs.

31. Atall times relevant, Labor Code sections 226.2, 510, 1194 and 11977 and the Industrial Wage Order apply to Defendants.

32. Labor Code Section 1197 provides, “the minimum wage for employees fixed by the commission is the minimum wage to be paid to employees, and the payment of a less wage than the minimum so fixed is unlawful.”

33. Labor Code Section 1194 provides in relevant part that any employee

receiving less than the minimum wage applicable to the employee is entitled to recover in o)

N

a civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount of this minimum wage, including interest thereon, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and cost of suit.

34. Labor Code Section 1194.2 provides in relevant part that: “In any action under...Section 1194 to recover wages because of a payment of wage less than the minimum wage fixed by an order of the commission, an employee shall be entitled to recover liquidated damages in an amount equal to the wages unlawfully unpaid and interest thereon.”

35. The California Labor Code provides that employees working for more than eight (8) hours in a day or forty (40) hours in a work week are entitled to overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked 1n excess of eight (8) hours in a day or forty (40) hours in a work week. An employee who works more than twelve (12) hours in a day is entitled to overtime compensation at a rate of twice the regular rate of pay.

36. Labor Code section 510 states that: “Eight hours of labor constitutes a day’s work. Any work in excess of eight hours in one workday and any work in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek and the first eight hours worked on the seventh day of work in any one workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for an employee. Any work in excess of 12 hours in one day shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay for an employee. In addition, any work in excess of eight hours on any seventh day of a workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay of an employee.”

37. The law also states that employees shall be compensated for rest and recovery periods and other nonproductive time separate from any piece-rate compensation. The law further states that piece rate employees shall be compensated for other nonproductive time at an hourly rate that is no less than the applicable minimum

wage. p—t

WN

38. Labor Code section 226.2 further states that employees shall be

compensated for rest and recovery periods at a regular hourly rate that is no less than the

higher of:

a. An average hourly rate determined by dividing the total compensation for

the workweek, exclusive of compensation for rest and recovery periods and

any premium compensation for overtime, by the total hours worked during

the workweek, exclusive of rest and recovery periods; or b. The applicable minimum wage. 39. Atall relevant times herein, Labor Code sections 1194, 1197, 226.2 and the applicable Industrial Wage Order required employers to separately pay piece rate

employees for their nonproductive time at the minimum wage.

40. Atall relevant times herein, Plaintiff and Class Members regularly worked in

excess of eight (8) hours in a workday and/or forty (40) hours in a workweek when their

nonproductive time is included.

41. Atall relevant times herein, Defendant failed to separately account for and

pay all nonproductive time worked by Plaintiff and Class Members, including their overtime hours worked.

42. Defendant failed to pay regular and overtime wages to Plaintiff and Class Members for all hours worked in accordance with Labor Code sections 226.2, 510, 1194, 1197 and the applicable Industrial Wage Order.

43. As aresult of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered damages in an amount, subject to proof, to the extent that they were not paid for all hours worked. Accordingly, Defendant owes Plaintiff and Class Members regular and overtime wages.

44. Pursuant to Labor Code sections 226.2, 510, 1194, and 1197, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to recover the full amount of their unpaid regular and

overtime wages, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit. | I l 45. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1194.2, Plaintiff and Class Members are

1 z - entitled to recover liquidated damages in an amount equal to the minimum wages 3 | ; unlawfully unpaid and interest thereon. !

4 | SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

N

gross wages paid for that time during the pay period.

50. Further, the relevant wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission applicable to Plaintiff state in pertinent part:

“(A) Every employer shall keep accurate information with respect to each employee including the following:

(3) Time records showing when the employee begins and ends each work period.

(4) Total wages paid each payroll period, including value of

board, lodging, or other compensation actually furnished to the

employee.

(5) Total hours worked in the payroll period and applicable

rates of pay. This information shall be made readily available

to the employee upon reasonable request.”

51. At all material times set forth herein, Defendant either recklessly or

intentionally failed to furnish itemized statements that show, among other things, the number of nonproductive hours worked each workday and each workweek by Plaintiff and

Class Members, the total daily hours worked incorporating nonproductive hours, and the

total overtime hours worked per pay period and applicable rates of pay incorporating

" nonproductive hours.

52. Asaresult of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury. The absence of accurate information on their wage statements has prevented timely challenges to Defendant’s unlawful pay practices, required discovery and mathematical computations to determine the amount of wages owed, caused difficulty and expense in attempting to reconstruct time and pay records, and led to the submission of inaccurate information about wages and amounts deducted from wages to state and federal government agencies.

53. Asaresult of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members are each entitled to recover from Defendant the greater of their actual monetary damages caused by Defendant’s failure to comply with California Labor Code § 226(a), or an aggregate penalty not exceeding four-thousand dollars ($4,000.00) per employee and an award of costs and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to California Labor Code § 226(e). P

W

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Unfair Competition [Bus. & Prof. Code §§17200 et seq.] (Against All Defendants)

54. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges as if fully stated herein the [ material allegations set out above in the preceding paragraphs. ]

55. Defendant is a “person” as that term is defined under Business & Professions § Code section 17021. Business & Professions Code section 17200 defines unfair 1; competition as any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice. }

56. Defendant’s violations of the Labor Code as alleged in this Complaint, including, but not limited to, Defendant’s (a) failure to pay separate wages for recovery

time; (b) failure to calculate recovery time; (c) failure to pay regular and overtime wages

based on the total hours worked that included recovery time, all constitute unfair business

| l | * practices in violation of Business & Professions Code section 17200, et seq. ]

57. Asaresult of Defendant’s unfair business practices, Defendant has reaped unfair benefits and illegal profits at the expense of Class Members, and to the detriment ; members of the public. Defendant should be made to disgorge its ill-gotten gains and to | restore them to Class Members. Pursuant to Business & Professions Code section 17203, Plaintiff and other Class Members are entitled to restitution of the wages and other monies withheld, deducted and/or retained by Defendant during a period that commences four years prior to the filing of this action.

58. Pursuant to Business & Professions Code section 17203, Defendant’s unfair business practices entitle Plaintiff and Class Members to seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief including, but not limited to, orders that Defendant account for, disgorge and restore to Class Members all compensation unlawfully withheld from them.

59. Plaintiff and other Class Members are entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees in connection with their unfair competition claims pursuant to Code of

Civil Procedure section 1021.5, the substantial benefit doctrine and/or the common fund

doctrine. ek

LN

| | | | i E

Y O

P nand

el pd

G = W N

|

16 |

28

| | 5 1 | | l | f 1

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all Class Members, prays

for judgment in his favor and against Defendant as follows:

a) CLASS CERTIFICATION

L. 1.

11l.

An order that the action be certified as a class action; An order that Plaintiff be certified as the representatives of the Class;

An order that counsel for Plaintiff be confirmed as Class counsel.

b) ON THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

1.

11

111, v, V.

V1.

Damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages according to proof; Liquidated damages in an amount equal to the minimum wages unlawfully unpaid;

Prejudgment interest;

Reasonable attorney’s fees;

Costs of suit; and

Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

c) ON THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

L

1L

1.

1v.

V.

Damages or penalties for not providing accurate wage statements in an amount according to proof;

An order requiring Defendant to comply with Labor Code section 226(a) and 226.2(a)(2)(B);

Reasonable attorney’s fees;

Costs of suit; and

Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

d) ON THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

1.

11.

Printed on recycled paper

Restitution of all unpaid wages and other monies owed and belonging to Class members that Defendant unlawfully withheld from them and retained for themselves in an amount according to proof; et

iil. Costs of suit; iv. Reasonable attorney’s fees;

v. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: July 18, 2018 MICHAEL H. KIM, P.C.

WN

Michael H.

Dated: July 18, 2018

Printed on recycled paper

{im, Esq. Jamielee F. Martinez, Esq.

Adam K. Tanouye, Esq.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

NOE QUIJADA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury of all causes of action.

MICHAEL H. KIM, P.C.