This case was last updated from Santa Clara County Superior Courts on 04/20/2020 at 20:38:53 (UTC).

Buchanan v. Aramark Campus, LLC, et al.

Case Summary

On 12/10/2018 Buchanan filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against Aramark Campus, LLC. This case was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Courts, Downtown Superior Court located in Santa Clara, California. The Judges overseeing this case are Kuhnle, Thomas and Lucas, Patricia M. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ******9719

  • Filing Date:

    12/10/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    Santa Clara County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Downtown Superior Court

  • County, State:

    Santa Clara, California

Judge Details

Judges

Kuhnle, Thomas

Lucas, Patricia M

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Buchanan, Robert

Defendants

Aramark Campus, LLC

Aramark Sports, LLC

Not Classified By Court

Superior Court of California

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Lindsay, Alvin Brock

Yeremian, David Harmik

Haines, Walter L

Defendant Attorneys

Lesikar, Claire M

Meckley, Eric

Bahna, Christie Paulette

Not Classified By Court Attorney

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

 

Court Documents

Notice

Notice CMC 4-24-20 at 10am in D3: Comment: CMC set for 4/24/20 at 10am in D3

Opposition/Objections

Opposition HRG 2-28-20: Comment: Opposition to Demurrer to Plaintiff's SAC

Proof of Service

Proof of Service: Comment: 2/28 Proof of Service of Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint

Order: Proposed

Proposed Order: Comment: 2/28 Proposed Order Sustaining Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint

Request: Judicial Notice

Request Judicial Notice: Comment: 2/28 Request for Judicial Notice ISO Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint

Declaration

Claire M. Lesikar Declaration: Comment: 2/28 Declaration of Claire M. Lesikar ISO Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint

Memorandum: Points and Authorities

Memorandum of Points & Authorities: Comment: 2/28 Memorandum of Points & Authorities ISO Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint

Demurrer

Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint HRG 2-28-20: Comment: Demurrer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint HRG 2/28/20

Amended Complaint Filed - No Fee

Second Amended Complaint: Comment: Second Amended 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/TEK

Letter Received

Letter Received from USDC ND Calif with Docket Sheet and Remand Order: Comment: Letter from USDC N.D. Calif. enclosing certified copies of docket sheet and Remand Order

Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)

2335857_793POSOFSUMM: Comment: Proof of Service of Summons - Aramark Sports, LLC

Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)

2335857_789POSOFSUMM: Comment: Proof of Service of Summons - Aramark Campus, LLC

Answer (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

Answer Response Denial Demurrer - First Appearance: Comment: Aramark's Answer to Complaint

Removal to Federal Court

Notice to State Court and Plaintiff of Removal of Action:

Civil Case Cover Sheet

2305046-01_565CIVILC:

Summons: Issued/Filed

2305046-01_831SUMMON:

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies):

22 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/14/2020
  • DocketConference: Case Management - Judicial Officer: Lucas, Patricia M; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Comment: (3rd CMC) Proposed Wage and Hour Class Action. Removed to Federal Court on 1/22/19; Remand Order issued 7/26/19. Discovery and responsive pleading deadline stayed, as of 8/20/19, when the case was deemed complex. Second Amended Complaint filed 11/5/19. The parties will advise the Court whether they wish to submit supplemental briefing re Demurrer by Defendants Aramark Campus, LLC and Aramark Sports, LLC to the Second Amended Complaint and the schedule of such supplemental briefing.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2020
  • DocketMinute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2020
  • DocketMinute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketNotice - Notice CMC 4-24-20 at 10am in D3: Comment: CMC set for 4/24/20 at 10am in D3

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketHearing: Demurrer - Second Amended Complaint: Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint HRG 2-28-20: Memorandum of Points & Authorities: Claire M. Lesikar Declaration: Request Judicial Notice: Proposed Order: Proof of Service: Opposition HRG 2-28-20: Request: Judicial Notice: Judicial Officer: Lucas, Patricia M; Hearing Time: 9:00 AM; Result: Held; Comment: Demurrer by Defendants Aramark Campus, LLC and Aramark Sports, LLC to the Second Amended Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketConference: Case Management - Joint CMC Statement HRG 2-28-20: Judicial Officer: Lucas, Patricia M; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Result: Held; Comment: (2nd CMC) Proposed Wage and Hour Class Action. Removed to Federal Court on 1/22/19; Remand Order issued 7/26/19. Discovery and responsive pleading deadline stayed, as of 8/20/19, when the case was deemed complex. Second Amended Complaint filed 11/5/19.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2020
  • DocketMinute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketResponse/Reply - Reply HRG 2-28-20: Comment: Defendants Aramark Campus, LLC and Aramark Sports, LLC's Reply in Support of Demurrer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketStatement: Case Management Conference - Joint CMC Statement HRG 2-28-20: Comment: HRG 2/28 Joint Case Management Statement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketRequest: Judicial Notice - Request: Judicial Notice: Comment: Request for Judicial Notice

    Read MoreRead Less
25 More Docket Entries
  • 08/20/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketOrder: Deeming Case Complex - Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline: Comment: Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline - signed/TEK

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketLetter Received - Letter Received from USDC ND Calif with Docket Sheet and Remand Order: Comment: Letter from USDC N.D. Calif. enclosing certified copies of docket sheet and Remand Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2019
  • DocketConference: Case Management - Judicial Officer: Kuhnle, Thomas; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Cancel Reason: Vacated; Comment: (1st CMC)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketRemoval to Federal Court - Notice to State Court and Plaintiff of Removal of Action:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketAnswer (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Answer Response Denial Demurrer - First Appearance: Comment: Aramark's Answer to Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketProof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - 2335857_793POSOFSUMM: Comment: Proof of Service of Summons - Aramark Sports, LLC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketProof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - 2335857_789POSOFSUMM: Comment: Proof of Service of Summons - Aramark Campus, LLC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet - 2305046-01_565CIVILC:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketSummons: Issued/Filed - 2305046-01_831SUMMON:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketComplaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies):

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

E-FILED

DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/10/2018 2:51 PM

David Y eremian (SBN 226337) LlEiFie O L ort

david@ yeremianlaw.com Superior Court of CA, Alvin B. Lindsay (SBN 220236) County of Santa Clara alvin@ yeremianlaw.com 18CV339719

535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705 Reviewed By: Yuet Lai

Glendale, California 91203 Telephone: (818) 230-8380 Facsimile: (818) 230-0308

UNITED EMPLOY EES LAW GROUP, PC W alter Haines (SBN 71075)

whaines@ uelg.com

5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201

Huntington Beach, CA 92649

Telephone: (310) 652-2242

Attorneys for Plaintiff ROBERT BUCHANNAN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated

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

ROBERT BUCHANAN, an individual, on Case No.: 18CV339719 behalf of himself and others similarly situated, CLASS ACTION

Plaintiff, A ssigned for All Purposes To: H VS. Dept..

ARAMARK CAMPUS, LLC, a Delaware CLASSACTION COMPLAINT FOR: limited liability company; ARAMARK SPORTS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

Failure to Pay Minimum W ages;

Failure to Pay Wages and Overtime Under Labor Code § 510;

Meal Period Liability Under Labor Code §

226.7;

g%sg:éB reak Liability Under Labor Code s

Violation of Labor Code §§ 226(a)

Violation of Labor Code § 221;

Violation of Labor Code § 204;

Violation of Labor Code § 203; and

Violation of Business & Professions Code

§ 17200 et seq.

D efendants.

LN B W e

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff ROBERT BUCHANNAN, (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated concessions supervisors (collectively, “Employees”; individually, “Employee”) complains of Defendants, and each of them, as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all current and former Employees within the State of California who, at any time from four (4) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit, are or were employed as non-exempt, hourly concessions supervisors by Defendants ARAMARK CAMPUS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; ARAMARK SPORTS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50 (all defendants being collectively referred to herein as “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges that D efendants, and each of them, violated various provisions of the California Labor Code, relevant orders of the Industrial W elfare Commission (“IWC”), and the California Business & Professions Code, and seeks redress for these violations.

2. Plaintiff is a resident of California and Santa Clara County, and during the time period relevant to this Complaint, was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt hourly concessions worker and concessions supervisor within the State of California at Defendants’ facilities and in connection with Defendants’ operations at the SAP Center in San Jose, California and within the County of Santa Clara.

3. Plaintiff and the other similarly situated concession supervisor Employees of Defendants worked in the food and support services sector and in connection with D efendants’ concessions operations at various venues and sports and entertainment facilities throughout California at Defendants’ behest without being paid all wages due. More specifically, Defendants employed Plaintiff and the other similarly situated hourly, non-exempt concessions supervisors with assigned responsibilities for managing the services provided by concessions staff workers, including cooks and cashiers, at the multiple concession stands assigned to them within their assigned facilities. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff was employed by Defendants and (1) shared similar job duties and responsibilities; (2) was subjected to the same policies and practices; and (3) endured similar violations at the hands of D efendants as the other Employee Class members who served in similar and related positions.

4, Defendants required Plaintiff and the Employees in the Class to work off the clock and failed to record accurate time worked by these Employees, failed to pay them at the appropriate rates for all hours worked, and provided Plaintiff and the Class members with inaccurate wage statements that prevented them from learning of these unlawful pay practices. Defendants also failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class with lawful meal and rest periods, as Employees were required to remain under Defendant’s control and were not provided with the opportunity to take full uninterrupted and duty-free rest periods and meal breaks, as required by the Labor Code and the applicable paragraphs of the IWC Wage Orders.

5. Upon information and belief, Defendants ARAMARK CAMPUS, LLC and ARAMARK SPORTS, LLC are subsidiaries of Aramark and Aramark Services, Inc. (collectively, “Aramark”), which are Delaware corporations who maintain executive offices in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Aramark is a leading provider of food services and facilities through the entities in its Food and Support Services, North A merica segment. This segment serves different client sectors throughout the United States and in California, including serving Aramark’s clients in the Sports, Leisure & Corrections sector.

0. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant ARAMARK CAMPUS, LLC, as it is the entity listed as the employer on the wage statements provided by Defendants to Plaintiff during the relevant time period. ARAMARK CAMPUS, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company which lists with the California Secretary of State its Principal Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and its type of business as “Managed Services.” ARAMARK CAMPUS, LLC does not list a California office with the Secretary of State. ARAMARK SPORTS, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company which lists with the California Secretary of State its Principal Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and its type of business as “Labor Management.” ARAMARK SPORTS, LLC does not list a California office with the Secretary of State.

8. Upon information and belief, Defendants ARAMARK CAMPUS, LLC and ARAMARK SPORTS, LLC operate in the Aramark Sports, Leisure & Corrections and Education sectors to administer concessions, banquet and catering services, retail services and merchandise sales, recreational and lodging services and facility management services at sports, entertainment and recreational facilities and in convention and civic centers throughout the United sSates and California, including at the SAP Center in San Jose, California and in Santa Clara County where Plaintiff was employed as a concessions supervisor. Upon information and belief, Defendants acting in concert, contracted food and retail services for customers and guests at the SAP Center in San Jose, California and in Santa Clara County and at other similar venues and facilities throughout California, where concessions operations and services were conducted and provided by Defendants.

9. This Court has jurisdiction over this A ction pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 410.10 and California Business & Professions Code § 17203. This A ction is brought as a Class A ction on behalf of similarly situated Employees of D efendants pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 382. Venue as to Defendants is also proper in this judicial district pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 395 et seq. Upon information and belief, the obligations and liabilities giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in part in the County of Santa Clara and Defendants maintain facilities and provide concessions services at facilities in San Jose, California, thus employing Plaintiff and other Class members in Santa Clara County, as well as throughout California. designated herein as Does 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, are legally responsible in some manner for the unlawful acts referred to herein. Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to reflect the true names and capacities of the Defendants designated herein as Does 1 through 50 when their identities become known.

11. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each D efendant acted in all respects pertinent to this action as the agent of the other Defendants, that D efendants carried out a joint scheme, business plan, or policy in all respects pertinent hereto, and that the acts of each Defendant are legally attributable to the other Defendants. Furthermore, D efendants acted in all respects as the employers or joint employers of Employees. Defendants, and each of them, exercised control over the wages, hours or working conditions of Employees, created and implemented the policies and practices that governed the employment of Plaintiff and the Class members, or suffered or permitted Plaintiff and the other concessions supervisor Employees to work, or engaged, thereby creating a common law employment relationship, with the Employee Class members. Therefore, Defendants, and each of them, employed or jointly employed the Employee Class members.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

12. The Employees who comprise the Class, including Plaintiff, are non-exempt employees pursuant to the applicable Wage Order of the Industrial W elfare Commission (“IWC”). Defendants hire Employees who work in non-exempt positions at the direction of Defendants in the State of California. Plaintiff and the Class members were either not paid by Defendants for all hours worked or were not paid at the appropriate minimum, regular and overtime rates. Plaintiff also contends that D efendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class members all wages due and owing, including by off the clock work, made unlawful deductions from their pay, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, and failed to furnish accurate wage statements, all in violation of various provisions of the California Labor Code and applicable paragraphs of the IWC Wage Orders. (resulting in “off the clock” work) and for all overtime hours worked, and were forced to work off-the-clock in part due to demanding job requirements and the the policy and practice of Defendants’ managers contacting them on radios they were required to carry at all times, including while on breaks. Plaintiff was employed beginning in 2014 by Defendants and during the relevant time period as a concessions worker, including a stand attendant, and in Defendants’ food and beverage services and support departments at Defendants’ facilities operated in the SAP Center in San Jose, California. He was promoted to Concessions Supervisor in February of 2017, and worked in that position through his separation from Defendants’ employment in January of 2018. Upon information and belief, Defendants employ other non-exempt, hourly Concessions Supervisors at the SAP Center and at the various other venues throughout California where Defendants operate and employ similarly situated concessions workers and supervisors in support of their California network of food services operations. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ employment of the concessions stand workers is governed under a collective bargaining agreement, but there are no such collective bargaining agreements governing the employment of Defendants’ concessions supervisors, such as Plaintiff and the putative Class members.

(resulting in “off the clock” work) and for all overtime hours worked, and were forced to work off-the-clock in part due to demanding job requirements and the the policy and practice of Defendants’ managers contacting them on radios they were required to carry at all times, including while on breaks. Plaintiff was employed beginning in 2014 by Defendants and during the relevant time period as a concessions worker, including a stand attendant, and in Defendants’ food and beverage services and support departments at Defendants’ facilities operated in the SAP Center in San Jose, California. He was promoted to Concessions Supervisor in February of 2017, and worked in that position through his separation from Defendants’ employment in January of 2018. Upon information and belief, Defendants employ other non-exempt, hourly Concessions Supervisors at the SAP Center and at the various other venues throughout California where Defendants operate and employ similarly situated concessions workers and supervisors in support of their California network of food services operations. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ employment of the concessions stand workers is governed under a collective bargaining agreement, but there are no such collective bargaining agreements governing the employment of Defendants’ concessions supervisors, such as Plaintiff and the putative Class members. 15. Given the multiple stands assigned to each concessions supervisor and the different requirements that arose during facility events, Plaintiff and the other similarly situated concessions supervisors were required to carry a company issued radio at all times to respond to question and work assignments from managers, who regularly and consistently contacted the concessions supervisors during events and while they were on duty and supervising the operations of the assigned concessions stands. Managers made these contacts without regard to whether an employee was on a break, and Plaintiff and the Class members were expected to respond to inquiries and instructions from managers and customers or other concessions workers whether they were on a break or not. Plaintiff and the Class members were either not provided with meal periods or were required to input their times to reflect that they received meal breaks or worked for lesser hours than in actuality given Defendants’ policy of requiring that timekeeping records conform generally to scheduled shift times, or to reflect timely meal periods, rather than actual hours worked or when meals were actually provided, if at all.

16. Defendants also required Plaintiff and the Class members to work hours off the clock for which they were not compensated, including being contacted by phone or e-mail, or by radios, by managers during off-duty time and by being required to work off the clock before they clocked in for a work shift or to complete work related requirements after they clockedtheir shifts, along with the off the clock work addressed above during interrupted or otherwise on-duty meal and rest periods. For example, Plaintiff was compelled to ensure he limited overtime hours and regular hours worked and was required to remain under Defendants’ control after clocking out to perform such required job duties as inspecting bathrooms or helping cashiers close out. Defendants also followed a uniform, continuous and consistent policy of clocking out Employees for meal periods they were in actuality working through, which in practice results in truncation and time-shaving and creating inaccurate records of hours worked in order to reduce the premium wages owed to Plaintiff and the similarly situated Class members. Plaintiff and the Class members would therefore generally work at least 15-20 minutes off the clock before and after timekeeping entries and during the hours they were compelled to work by remaining under Defendants’ control during meal and rest breaks. 17. Defendants did not record actual meal period start times and end times for Plaintiff and the Class members, or else inaccurately recorded them, and required concessions supervisors to remain under Defendants’ control during breaks to respond to radio calls and other management directives and customer and concession worker requirements. Defendants have therefore also either failed to maintain timekeeping records for Plaintiff that would permit Plaintiff to discover the nature and extent of Defendants’ unlawful rounding and the actual hours Plaintiff worked, or has otherwise declined to produce them to Plaintiff in response to a timely and lawful request.

18. Asaresult of the above described unlawful requirements to work off the clock, the failure to accurately record all hours worked and pay wages at the correct rates, and the other wage violations they endured at Defendants’ hands, Plaintiff and the Class members were not properly paid all wages earned and all wages owed to them by Defendants, including when working more than eight (8) hours in any given day and/or more than forty (40) hours in any given week. A s a result of Defendants’ unlawful policies and practices, Plaintiff and Class members incurred overtime hours worked for which they were not adequately and completely compensated, in addition to the hours they were required to work off the clock. To the extent applicable, Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class members at an overtime rate of 1.5 times the regular rate for the first eight hours of the seventh consecutive work day in a week and overtime payments at the rate of 2 times the regular rate for hours worked over eight (8) on the seventh consecutive work day, as required under the Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Orders.

19. Therefore, from at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and continuing to the present, Defendants had a consistent policy or practice of failing to pay Employees for all hours worked, and failing to pay minimum wages for all time worked, as required by California law. Also, from at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and continuing to the present, Defendants had a consistent policy or practice of failing to pay Employees overtime compensation at premium overtime rates for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours a day and/or forty (40) hours a week, and double-time rates for all hours worked in excess of twelve (12) hours a day, in violation of Labor Code § 510 and the corresponding sections of IWC Wage Orders.

20. Additionally, Defendants failed to provide all the legally required unpaid, off-duty meal periods and all the legally required paid, off-duty rest periods to Plaintiff and the other Class members, as required by the applicable Wage Order and Labor Code. Defendants did not have a policy or practice which provided or recorded all the legally required unpaid, off-duty meal periods and all the legally required paid, off-duty rest periods to the Plaintiff and the other Class members. Plaintiff and other Class members were required to perform work as ordered by Defendants for more than five (5) hours during a shift, but were often required to do so without receiving a meal break. Employees were required to work through their entire shift, continuously, and were not afforded the opportunity to take meal periods or rest breaks, or at least off-duty ones. More specifically, Plaintiff and the Employees in the Class were required to carry and monitor their work radios, and remain both on call and on duty continuously throughout their entire shift, including during any alleged break times. Defendants did not schedule or otherwise provide meal periods or authorize and permit rest breaks, and work demands also consistently prevented Plaintiff and the Class members from taking meal periods or rest breaks anyway, or at least ones that were off-duty and uninterrupted and provided timely and for their full duration. A dditionally, as addressed above, Defendants followed a practice of under-reporting or rounding down hours worked in a manner that would impact when Employees were to receive meal periods and rest breaks, leading to further violations.

21. Plaintiff was generally scheduled to work four days per week, depending on the various events at his assigned location, and generally worked 9 to 9.5 hour shifts from 1:30 p.m. to 10:30 or 11:00 p.m. Plaintiff would clock in and out for work shifts and meal periods by swiping his ID badge in Defendants’ timekeeping system. Plaintiff and the other similarly situated hourly, non-exempt concessions supervisors were responsible for managing the services being provided by concessions staff workers, including cooks and cashiers, at the multiple concession stands assigned to them within their assigned facilities. This required the supervision of all aspects of the operations, and even sometimes 2-3 hours of preparing concessions or serving as a cashier and assisting concession workers as required. Given the multiple stands assigned to each concessions supervisor and the different requirements that arose during facility events, Plaintiff and the other similarly situated concessions supervisors were required to carry a company issued radio at all times to respond to questions and work assignments from managers, who regularly and consistently contacted the concessions supervisors during events and while they were on duty and supervising the operations of the assigned concessions stands. Managers made these contacts without regard to whether an employee was on a break, and Plaintiff and the class members were expected to respond to inquiries and instructions from managers and customers whether they were on a break or not.

22. Plaintiff and the Class members were often also required to input their times to reflect that they received meal breaks or worked for lesser hours than in actuality given Defendants’ policy of requiring that timekeeping records conform generally to scheduled shift times, or to reflect timely meal periods, rather than actual hours worked or when meals were actually provided, if at all. Further, due to the job duties and work requirements and demands placed upon Plaintiff and the other similarly situated concessions supervisors, including the requirement to constantly monitor their radios to respond to management and customer demands and inquiries, they were required to work through meal and rest periods or to receive them untimely, if at all. Plaintiff estimates that he was not provided with the opportunity to take a meal periods at all on at least two (2) shifts out of five (5) in a work week, and that any meal periods he was provided were well after five (5) hours into a work shift or were otherwise interrupted or shortened and were unauthorized on-duty meal periods during which Plaintiff and the Class members were expected to remain under Defendants’ control. workers. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ uniform policy and practice applied to Plaintiff and the other concession supervisors compelled Plaintiff and the Class members to input timekeeping entries for work shifts and meal periods that understated their total hours worked during their shifts. In the event a timekeeping entry for a concessions supervisor did not reflect compliant meal periods, Defendants’ policies and practices also called for Defendants’ managers to change actual timekeeping punch times inputted by Plaintiff and the Class members to reflect timely and otherwise compliant meal periods when in reality either none were provided or they were provided untimely or were interrupted or were shortened or otherwise occurred on-duty. Defendants thus followed a uniform, continuous and consistent policy of clocking out Employees for meal periods they were in actuality working through, which in practice resulted in truncation and time-shaving and creating inaccurate records of hours worked in order to reduce the premium wages owed to Plaintiff and the similarly situated Class members.

24. Onthe occasions when timekeeping records reflected no out and in time punches for meal periods and no meal period was otherwise recorded, Defendants would not pay one hour or regular rate wages for each such occasion. To the extent Plaintiff and the Class members worked shifts of greater than ten (10) hours worked, they were not provided with second timely and duty-free meal periods. To the extent Defendants rely upon any alleged second meal period waivers, such alleged waivers are, upon information and belief, either unenforceable or were revoked or otherwise not entered into with all the Class members, and they are inapplicable to any shifts over twelve (12) hours. to pay Employees “premium pay,” i.e. one hour of wages at each Employee’s effective hourly rate of pay, for each meal period or rest break that D efendants failed to provide or deficiently provided.

206. Therefore, for at least four years prior to the filing of this action and through to the present, Plaintiff and the Class members were unable to take off-duty breaks or were otherwise not provided with the opportunity to take required breaks due to Defendants’ policies and practices. On the occasions when Plaintiff and the Class members were provided with a meal period, it was often untimely or interrupted, or was impermissibly shortened, and Employees were not provided with one (1) hour's wages in lieu thereof. Meal period violations thus occurred in one or more of the following manners:

(a) Class members were not provided full thirty-minute duty free meal periods for work days in excess of five (5) hours and were not compensated one (1) hour’s wages in lieu thereof, all in violation of, among others, Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512, and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order(s);

(b) Class members were not provided second full thirty-minute duty free meal periods for work days in excess of ten (10) hours;

(c) Class members were required to work through at least part of their daily meal period(s);

(d) Meal periods were provided after five (5) hours of continuous work during a shift; and

(e) Class members were restricted in their ability to take a full thirty-minute meal period. were either not permitted the opportunity to take a rest break, or were required to remain under Defendants’ control to respond to radio communications and other instructions from management and job and customer demands. Defendants also failed to authorize and permit employees to leave the premises during rest breaks, thus further evidencing Defendants’ policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and the Class members to remain under their control during required off-duty rest break times.

28. Defendants’ policies and practices thus systematically deny and denied Plaintiff and the Class members full, duty-free ten-minute rest periods and thirty-minute, duty-free meal periods. The California Supreme Court has instructed that the rest period requirement obligates employers to permit-and authorizes employees to take-off-duty rest periods. That is, during rest periods employers must relieve employees of all duties and relinquish control over how employees spend their time. Plaintiff and the Class members were and are under D efendants’ control when they are working through rest breaks, including by responding to radio communications, and an employer cannot impose any restraints on employees not inherent in the rest period requirement itself. Defendants have provided either impermissibly shortened or untimely meal and rest breaks to Plaintiff and the Class members. A dditionally, Defendants’ enforced a uniform and unlawful policy that prevented Plaintiff and the Class members from leaving the facility premises during their rest breaks.

29. Plaintiff and the Defendants’” Employees in the Class were also not authorized and permitted to take lawful rest periods, were systematically required by Defendants to work through or during breaks, and were not provided with one (1) hour's wages in lieu thereof. They were required to remain on-duty during breaks or portions of their breaks, thus making them either untimely or shortened and on-duty, and they were also prevented from leaving the premises during rest breaks under Defendants’ policies. Rest period violations therefore arose in one or more of the following manners: 30.

regular rate of compensation for each workday that a rest period was not provided,;

(b) Class members were not authorized and permitted to take timely rest periods for every four hours worked, or major fraction thereof; and

(c) Class members were required to remain on-duty during rest periods or otherwise had their rest periods interrupted by work demands.

From at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and continuing to the

present, Defendants have also consistently violated Labor Code § 221 by unlawfully collecting or

deducting the Employees’ earned wages, including by the above described off the clock work and

on-duty work while on unpaid meal breaks. By not compensating Employees for all hours worked,

Defendant unlawfully deducted wages earned by and owed to Plaintiff and the Class members, in

violation of Labor Code § 221.

31.

As a result of these illegal policies and practices, Defendants engaged in and

enforced the following additional unlawful practices and policies against Plaintiff and the Class

members he seeks to represent:

d.

failing to pay all wages owed to Class members who either were discharged, laid off, or resigned in accordance with the requirements of Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203;

failing to pay all wages owed to the Class members twice monthly in accordance with the requirements of Labor Code § 204;

failing to pay Class members all wages owed, including all meal and rest period premium wages;

failing to maintain accurate records of Class members’ earned wages and meal periods in violation of Labor Code §§ 226 and 1174(d) and section 7 of the applicable IWC Wage Orders; and

failing to produce timekeeping records in response to Plaintiff’s timely and lawful 32. From at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit, and continuing to the present, Defendants have also consistently failed to provide Employees with timely, accurate, and itemized wage statements, in writing, as required by California wage-and-hour laws, including by the above-described requirement of off the clock work and failure to pay premium wages for unprovided or otherwise unlawful meal and rest breaks. Defendants have also made it difficult to account with precision for the unlawfully withheld meal and rest period compensation owed to Plaintiff and the Class, during the liability period, because they did not implement and preserve a record-keeping method as required for non-exempt employees by California Labor Code §§ 226, 1174(d), and paragraph 7 of the applicable California Wage Orders. Upon information and belief, time clock punches were not maintained, or were not accurately maintained, for work shifts and meal periods, which were automatically presumed by Defendants to have been lawfully provided when they were not. Defendants also failed to accurately record and pay for all regular and overtime hours worked and submitted by Plaintiff and the Class members, as Defendants’ policy of compelling Employees to input time entries contrary to their actual hours worked, resulted in changed timekeeping records and corresponding payroll records reflecting that Employees worked less hours than they actually worked.

33. Defendants have thus also failed to comply with Labor Code § 226(a) by inaccurately reporting total hours worked and total wages earned by Plaintiff and the Class members, along with the appropriate applicable rates, among others requirements. Plaintiff and Class members are therefore entitled to penalties not to exceed $4,000.00 for each employee pursuant to Labor Code § 226(b). Defendants have also failed to comply with paragraph 7 of the applicable California IWC Wage Orders by failing to maintain time records showing when the employee begins and ends each work period, meal periods, wages earned pursuant to Labor Code § 226.7, and total daily hours worked by itemizing in wage statements all deductions from payment of wages and accurately reporting total hours worked by the Class members. hours of their resignation, as required by California wage-and-hour laws.

35. Inlight of the foregoing, Plaintiff and the Employees in the Class bring this action pursuant to, inter alia, Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 218, 218.5, 218.6, 221, 226, 226.7, 510, 511, 512, 558, 1174, 1185, 1194, 1194.2, and 1197 and California Code of Regulations, Title §, section 11000 et seq.,

36. Furthermore, pursuant to Business and Professions Code §§ 17200-17208, Plaintiff and the Class members seek injunctive relief, restitution, and disgorgement of all benefits Defendants have enjoyed from their violations of Labor Code and the other unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent practices alleged in this Complaint.

CLASSALLEGATIONS

37. Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of himself an all others similarly situated pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 382. Plaintiff seeks to represent a Class (or “the Class” or “Class members”) defined as follows: “All individuals employed by Defendants at any time during the period of four (4) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and ending on a date as determined by the Court (“the Class Period”), and who have been employed as non-exempit, hourly concessions managers in connection with the concessions operations and services Defendants provide at facilities and venues within the State of California.” Further, Plaintiff seeks to represent the Subclasses composed of and defined as follows:

a. Subclass 1. Minimum Wages Subclass. All Class members who were not compensated for all hours worked for Defendants at the applicable minimum wage.

b. Subclass 2. Wages and Overtime Subclass. All Class members who were not compensated for all hours worked for D efendants at the required rates of pay, including for all hours worked in excess of eight in a day and/or forty in a week.

C. Subclass 3. Meal Period Subclass. All Class members who were subject to Defendants’ policy and/or practice of failing to provide unpaid 30-minute uninterrupted and duty- free meal periods or one hour of pay at the Employee’s regular rate of pay in lieu thereof. uninterrupted, duty-free, 10-minute rest periods for every four hours worked, or major fraction thereof, and failing to pay one hour of pay at the Employee’s regular rate of pay in lieu thereof.

f. Subclass 5. Wage Statement Subclass. All Class members who, within the applicable limitations period, were not provided with accurate itemized wage statements.

d. Subclass 6. Unauthorized Deductions from Wages Subclass. All Class members who were subject to Defendants’ policy and/or practice of deducting wages earned from their pay, including by requiring off the clock work.

h. Subclass 7. Failure to Timely Pay Wages Twice Monthly Subclass. All Class members who were subject to Defendants’ policy and practice of not timely paying all wages earned when they were due and payable at least twice monthly.

1. Subclass 8. Termination Pay Subclass. All Class members who, within the applicable limitations period, either voluntarily or involuntarily separated from their employment and were subject to Defendants’ policy and/or practice of failing to timely pay wages upon termination.

. Subclass 9. UCL Subclass. All Class members who are owed restitution as a result of Defendants’ business acts and practices, to the extent such acts and practices are found to be unlawful, deceptive, and/or unfair.

38. Plaintiff reserves the right under California Rule of Court 3.765 to amend or modify the class description with greater particularity or to provide further division into subclasses or limitation to particular issues. To the extent equitable tolling operates to toll claims by the Class against Defendants, the Class Period should be adjusted accordingly. entitled, and failed to provide meal periods or authorize and permit rest periods, in order to unfairly cheat the competition and unlawfully profit. 40. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure § 382 because there is a well-defined community of interest in litigation and proposed class is easily ascertainable from the employment records for Plaintiff and the Class members that D efendants are required to maintain. A. Numerosity 41. The potential members of the class as defined are so numerous that joinder of all the member of the class is impracticable. While the precise number of class member has not been determined at this time, Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants employ or, during the time period relevant to this lawsuit employed, at least hundreds of Employees who satisfy the Class definition within the State of California. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ employment records will provide information as to the number and location of all Class members. B. Commonality 42. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class that predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class members. These common questions of law and fact include: a. Whether Defendants failed to pay Employees minimum wages; o} Whether Defendants failed to pay Employees wages for all hours worked; C. Whether Defendants failed to pay Employees overtime as required under Labor Code § 510;

d. W hether Defendants violated Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512, and the applicable IWC Wage Orders, by failing to provide Employees with requisite meal periods or premium pay in lieu thereof;

e. Whether Defendants violated Labor Code §§ 226.7, and the applicable IWC Wage

Orders, by failing to authorize and permit Employees to take requisite rest breaks f. Whether Defendants violated Labor Code § 226(a) by providing Employees with

inaccurate wage statements;

Whether Defendants violated Labor Code § 221;

Whether Defendants violated Labor Code §§ 201, 202, and 203 by failing to pay wages and compensation due and owing at the time of termination of employment;

1. Whether Defendants’ conduct was willful;

j. Whether Defendants violated Labor Code § 226 and § 1174 and the IWC Wage Orders by failing to maintain accurate records of Class members’ earned wages and work periods;

k. Whether Defendants violated Labor Code § 1194 by failing to compensate all Employees during the relevant time period for all hours worked, whether regular or overtime;

L. Whether Defendants violated Labor Code § 204 by failing to pay Employees all wages earned at least twice monthly;

m. W hether D efendants violated Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.; and

I. Whether Employees are entitled to equitable relief pursuant to Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.

C. Typicality

43. The claims of the named plaintiff are typical of those of the other Employees. The

Employee Class members all sustained injuries and damages arising out of and caused by Defendants’ common course of conduct and uniformly applied policies in violation of statutes, as well as regulations, that have the force and effect of law, as alleged herein. Plaintiff’s claims for the off the clock work and meal and rest violations he was required to endure are typical of those of the other concessions supervisors in the Class.

D. Adequacy of Representation

44, Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interest of the E. Superiority of Class A ction

45. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Individual joinder of all Employees is not practicable, and questions of law and fact common to all Employees predominate over any questions affecting only individual Employees. Each Employee has been damaged and is entitled to recovery by reason of Defendants’ illegal policies or practices of failing to compensate Employees properly.

46. Asto the issues raised in this case, a class action is superior to all other methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, as joinder of all Class members is impracticable and many legal and factual questions to be adjudicated apply uniformly to all Class members. Further, as the economic or other loss suffered by vast numbers of Class members may be relatively small, the expense and burden of individual actions makes it difficult for the Class members to individually redress the wrongs they have suffered. Moreover, in the event disgorgement is ordered, a class action is the only mechanism that will permit the employment of a fluid fund recovery to ensure that equity is achieved. There will be relatively little difficulty in managing this case as a class action, and proceeding on a class-wide basis will permit Employees to vindicate their rights for violations they endured which they would otherwise be foreclosed from receiving in a multiplicity of individual lawsuits that would be cost prohibitive to them.

47. Class action treatment will allow those persons similarly situated to litigate their claims in the manner that is most efficient and economical for the parties and the judicial system. Plaintiff is unaware of any difficulties in managing this case that should preclude class treatment. Plaintiff contemplates the eventual issuance of notice to the proposed Class members that would set forth the subject and nature of the instant action. The Defendants’ own business records can be utilized for assistance in the preparation and issuance of the contemplated notices. To the extent that any further notice is required additional media and/or mailings can be used. addition, Defendants knew they possessed special knowledge about pay practices and policies, most notably intentionally refusing to pay for all hours actually worked which should have been recorded in Defendants’ pay records and the consequence of the alleged arbitration agreements and policies and practices on the Employees and Class as a whole.

49, Plaintiff and the Employees in the Class did not discover the fact that they were entitled to all pay under the Labor Code until shortly before the filing of this lawsuit nor was there ever any discussion about Plaintiff’s and the Class’ wavier of their Constitutional rights of trial by jury, right to collectively organize and oppose unlawful pay practices under California law as well as obtain injunctive relief preventing such practices from continuing. As a result, the applicable statutes of limitation were tolled until such time as Plaintiff and the Class members discovered their claims.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES

(Against All Defendants)

50. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in full herein. minimum wages to Plaintiff and the Class members, including by requiring systematic off the clock work. Defendants’ uniform pattern of unlawful wage and hour practices manifested, without limitation, applicable to the Class as a whole, as a result of implementing a uniform policy and practice that denied accurate compensation to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class as to minimum wage pay.

52. In California, employees must be paid at least the then applicable state minimum wage for all hours worked. (IWC Wage Order MW-2014). A dditionally, pursuant to California Labor Code § 204, other applicable laws and regulations, and public policy, an employer must timely pay its employees for all hours worked. Defendants failed to do so.

53. California Labor Code § 1197, entitled “Pay of Less Than Minimum Wage” states: “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.”

54. The applicable minimum wage rate fixed by the commission for work during the relevant period is found in the Wage Orders.

55. The minimum wage provisions of California Labor Code are enforceable by private civil action pursuant to Labor Code § 1194(a) which states: “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 recoverin 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.”

56. Asdescribed in California Labor Code §§ 1185 and 1194.2, any action for wages incorporates the applicable Wage Order of the California Industrial W elfare Commission. Also, California Labor Code §§ 1194, 1197, 1197.1 and those Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders entitle non-exempt employees to an amount equal to or greater than the minimum wage for all hours worked. All hours must be paid at the statutory or agreed rate, or at the minimum rate in the absence of a contractually agreed upon one.

57. In committing these violations of the California Labor Code, D efendants inaccurately recorded, or required Plaintiff and the Class members to input times that did not reflect their actual hours worked, or calculated the correct time worked and consequently underpaid the actual time worked by Plaintiff and other members of the Class. Defendants acted in an illegal attempt to avoid the payment of all earned wages, and other benefits in violation of the California Labor Code, the Industrial Welfare Commission requirements and other applicable laws and regulations. As a result of these violations, Defendant also failed to timely pay all wages earmed in accordance with California Labor Code § 1194.

58. California Labor Code § 1194.2 also provides for the following remedies: “In any action under Section 1194 . . . to recover wages because of the payment of a wage less than the minimum wages 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.”

59. Inaddition to restitution for all unpaid wages, pursuant to California Labor Code § 1197.1, Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to recover a penalty of $100.00 for the initial failure to timely pay each employee minimum wages, and $250.00 for each subsequent failure to pay each employee minimum wages.

60. Pursuant to California Labor Code § 1194.2, Plaintiff and Class members are further entitled to recover liquidated damages in an amount equal to wages unlawfully unpaid and interest thereon.

61. Defendants have the ability to pay minimum wages for all time worked and have willfully refused to pay such wages with the intent to secure for Defendants a discount upon this indebtedness with the intent to annoy, harass, oppress, hinder, delay, or defraud Employees. terminated their employment, Defendants’ conduct also violates Labor Code §§ 201 and/or 202, and therefore these individuals are also be entitled to waiting time penalties under California Labor Code § 203, which penalties are sought herein on behalf of these Class members. Defendants’ failure to timely pay all wages owed also violated Labor Code § 204 and resulted in violations of Labor Code § 226 because they resulted in the issuance of inaccurate wage statements. Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein was willful, intentional and not in good faith. Further, Plaintiff and other Class members are entitled to seek and recover statutory costs.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PAY WAGES AND OVERTIME UNDER LABOR CODE § 510

(Against All Defendants)

63. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in full herein.

064. California Labor Code § 1194 provides that “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.” The action may be maintained directly against the employer in an employee’s name without first filing a claim with the Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement.

65. By their conduct, as set forth herein, Defendants violated California Labor Code § 510 (and the relevant orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission) by failing to pay Employees: (a) time and one-half their regular hourly rates for hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a workday orin excess of forty (40) hours in any workweek or for the first eight (8) hours worked on the seventh day of work in any one workweek; or (b) twice their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of twelve (12) hours in any one (1) day or for hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours on any seventh day of work in a workweek. Defendants had a consistent policy of not paying Employees wages for all hours worked, including by requiring off the clock work as 66. Defendants had a consistent policy of not paying Employees wages for all hours worked. Defendants, and each of them, have intentionally and improperly rounded, changed, adjusted and/or modified certain employees’ hours, including Plaintiff’s, or required Plaintiff and the Class members to do so, or otherwise caused them to work off the clock to avoid paying Plaintiff and the Class members all earned and owed straight time and overtime wages and other benefits, in violation of the California Labor Code, the California Code of Regulations and the IWC Wage Orders and guidelines set forth by the Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement. Defendants have also violated these provisions by requiring Plaintiff and other similarly situated non-exempt employees to work through meal periods when they were required to be clocked out or to otherwise work off the clock to complete their daily job duties or to attend and participate in company required activities. Therefore, Employees were not properly compensated, nor were they paid overtime rates for hours worked in excess of eight hours in a given day, and/or forty hours in a given week. Based on information and belief, Defendants did not make available to Employees a reasonable protocol for correcting time records when Employees worked overtime hours or to fix incorrect time entries or those that Defendants unlawfully under-recorded to the Employee’s detriment. Defendants have also violated these provisions by requiring Plaintiff and other similarly situated Employees in the Class to work through meal periods when they were required to be clocked out or to otherwise work off the clock to complete their daily job duties.

67. Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and the Class members the unpaid balance of regular wages owed and overtime compensation, as required by California law, violates the provisions of Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198, and is therefore unlawful.

68. Additionally, Labor Code § 558(a) provides “any employer or other person acting on behalf of an employer who violates, or causes to be violated, a section of this chapter or any provisions regulating hours and days of work in any order of the IWC shall be subject to a civil penalty as follows: (1) For any violation, fifty dollars ($50) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages. (2) For each subsequent violation, one hundred dollars ($100) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages. (3) Wages recovered pursuant to this section shall be paid to the affected employee.” Labor Code § 558(c) states, “the civil penalties provided forin this section are in addition to any other civil or criminal penalty provided by law.” Defendants have violated provisions of the Labor Code regulating hours and days of work as well as the IWC Wage Orders. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the Class members seek the remedies set forth in Labor Code § 558.

69. Defendants’ failure to pay compensation in a timely fashion also constituted a violation of California Labor Code § 204, which requires that all wages shall be paid semimonthly. From four (4) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit to the present, in direct

violation of that provision of the California Labor Code, Defendants have failed to pay all wages

and overtime compensation earned by Employees. Each such failure to make a timely payment of compensation to Employees constitutes a separate violation of California Labor Code § 204.

70. Employees have been damaged by these violations of California Labor Code §§ 204 and 510 (and the relevant orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission).

71. Consequently, pursuant to the California Labor Code, including Labor Code §§ 204, 510, 558, and 1194 (and the relevant orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission), Defendants are liable to Employees for the full amount of all their unpaid wages and overtime compensation, with interest, plus their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as the assessment of any statutory penalties against Defendants, and each of them, and any additional sums as provided by the Labor Code and/or other statutes.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

MEAL-PERIOD LIABILITY UNDER LABOR CODE § 226.7 (Against All Defendants)

72. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in full herein. not less than thirty (30) minutes or for a shift of more than ten (10) hours without providing him or her with a second meal period of not less than thirty (30) minutes.

74. Defendants failed to provide Employees with meal periods as required under the Labor Code. Employees were often required to work or to otherwise remain under D efendants’ control during meal periods, including by responding to radio communications or other job duties or customer or concession worker demands, or Defendants provided them after Employees worked beyond the fifth hour of their shifts or Employees otherwise had them shortened and interrupted by work demands and requirements and radio communications requiring Employees to remain under Defendants’ control. Furthermore, upon information and belief, on the occasions when Employees worked more than ten (10) hours in a given shift, they did so without receiving a second uninterrupted thirty (30) minute meal period as required by law.

75. Defendants thus failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class members with meal periods as required by the Labor Code, including by not providing them with the opportunity to take meal breaks, by providing them late or for less than thirty (30) minutes, or by requiring them to perform work during breaks.

76. Moreover, Defendants failed to compensate Employees for each meal period not provided or inadequately provided, as required under Labor Code § 226.7 and paragraph 11 of the applicable IWC Wage Orders, which provide that, if an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period 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 meal period is not provided. Defendants failed to compensate Employees for each meal period not provided or inadequately provided, as required under Labor Code § 226.7.

77. Therefore, pursuant to Labor Code § 226.7, Employees in the Class are entitled to damages in an amount equal to one (1) hour of wages at their effective hourly rates of pay for each meal period not provided or deficiently provided, a sum to be proven at trial, as well as the assessment of any statutory penalties against the Defendants, and each of them, in a sum as

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

REST-BREAK LIABILITY UNDER LABOR CODE § 226.7 (Against All Defendants)

78. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in full herein.

79. Labor Code §§ 226.7 and paragraph 12 of the applicable IWC Wage Orders provide that employers must authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods at the rate of ten (10) minutes net rest time per four (4) work hours.

80. Employees consistently worked consecutive four (4) hour shifts and were generally scheduled for shifts of greater than 3.5 hours total, thus requiring D efendants to authorize and permit them to take rest periods. Pursuant to the Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage Order, Employees were entitled to paid rest breaks of not less than ten (10) minutes for each consecutive four (4) hour shift, and Defendants failed to provide Employees with timely rest breaks of not less than ten (10) minutes for each consecutive four (4) hour shift. Employees were often required to work or to otherwise remain under Defendants’ control during rest periods, including by being required to respond to radio communications from management and regarding other work requirements, and had breaks provided untimely as a result of the above described off the clock work. Plaintiff and the Class members were also not permitted to leave their work premises during rest breaks.

81. Labor Code §§ 226.7 and paragraph 12 of the applicable IWC Wage Orders provide that if an employer fails to provide an employee rest period 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 not provided.

82. Defendants, and each of them, have therefore intentionally and improperly denied rest periods to Plaintiff and the Class members in violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 and paragraph 12 of the applicable IWC Wage Orders. with an additional hour of pay at each Employee’s effective hourly rate for each day that Defendants failed to provide them with adequate rest breaks, as required under Labor Code § 226.7.

84. Therefore, pursuant to Labor Code § 226.7 and paragraph 12 of the applicable IWC Wage Orders, Employees are entitled to damages in an amount equal to one (1) hour of wages at their effective hourly rates of pay for each day worked without the required rest breaks, a sum to be proven at trial, as well as the assessment of any statutory penalties against D efendants, and each of them, in a sum as provided by the Labor Code and/or other statutes.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 226(a) (Against All Defendants)

85. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in full herein.

86. California Labor Code § 226(a) requires an employer to furnish each of his or her employees with an accurate, itemized statement in writing showing the gross and net earnings, total hours worked, and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate; these statements must be appended to the detachable part of the check, draft, voucher, or whatever else serves to pay the employee’s wages; or, if wages are paid by cash or personal check, these statements may be given to the employee separately from the payment of wages; in either case the employer must give the employee these statements twice a month or each time wages are paid.

87. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and the similarly situated concessions supervisor Employees with accurate itemized wage statements in writing, as required by the Labor Code. Specifically, the wage statements given to Employees by Defendants failed to accurately account for wages, overtime, and premium pay for deficient meal periods and rest breaks, and rounded timekeeping entries to the detriment of the Class members, all of which Defendants knew or reasonably should have known were owed to Employees, as alleged above.

88. Throughout the liability period, Defendants intentionally failed to furnish to Plaintiff and the Class members, upon each payment of wages, itemized statements accurately showing: (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee, (3) the number of piece- rate units earned and any applicable piece rate paid on a piece-rate basis, (4) all deductions, (5) net wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the name of the employee and only the last four digits of his or her social security number or an employee identification number other than a social security number, (8) the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer and (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee pursuant to Labor Code § 226, amongst other statutory requirements. D efendants knowingly and intentionally failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class members with such timely and accurate wage and hour statements.

89. Plaintiff and the Class members suffered injury as a result of Defendants’ knowing and intentional failure to provide them with the wage and hour statements as required by law and are presumed to have suffered injury and entitled to penalties under Labor Code § 226(e), as the Defendants have failed to provide a wage statement, failed to provide accurate and complete information as required by any one or more of items Labor Code § 226 (a)(1) to (9), inclusive, and the Plaintiff and Class members cannot promptly and easily determine from the wage statement alone one or more of the following: (i) The amount of the gross wages or net wages paid to the employee during the pay period or any of the other information required to be provided on the itemized wage statement pursuant to items (2) to (4), inclusive, (6), and (9) of subdivision (a), (ii) Which deductions the employer made from gross wages to determine the net wages paid to the employee during the pay period, (iii) The name and address of the employer and, (iv) The name of the employee and only the last four digits of his or her social security number or an employee identification number other than a social security number. For purposes of Labor Code § 226(e) “promptly and easily determine” means a reasonable person [i.e. an objective standard] would be able to readily ascertain the information without reference to other documents or information. received all wages owed them, the difficulty and expense involved in reconstructing pay records, and forcing them to make mathematical computations to analyze whether the wages paid in fact compensated them correctly for all hours worked.

91. Pursuant to Labor Code §§ 226(a) and 226(e), Employees are 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) for each violation in a subsequent pay period, not exceeding an aggregate penalty of four thousand dollars ($4,000). They are also entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 221

(Against All Defendants)

92. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in full herein.

93. Labor Code § 221 provides, “It shall be unlawful for any employer to collect or receive from an employee any part of wages theretofore paid by said employer to said employee.” Additionally, pursuant to California Labor Code § 204, other applicable laws and regulations, and public policy, an employer must timely pay its employees for all hours worked. Defendants failed to do so.

94. Defendants unlawfully received and/or collected wages from the Employees in the Class by implementing a policy understating the hours worked by Employees, by requiring off the clock work, and by automatically deducting time for meal periods when they were not lawfully provided or requiring Plaintiff and the Class members to respond to radio communications and work requirements while off-duty, as alleged above.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 204

(Against All Defendants)

96. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in full herein.

97. Labor Code § 204 instructs that: “All wages, ... earned by any person in any employment are due and payable twice during each calendar month, on days designated in advance by the employer as the regular paydays. Labor performed between the 1st and 15th days, inclusive, of any calendar month shall be paid for between the 16th and the 26th day of the month during which the labor was performed, and labor performed between the 16th and the last day, inclusive, of any calendar month, shall be paid for between the 1st and 10th day of the following month.” A dditionally, the requirements of this section shall be deemed satisfied by the payment of wages for weekly, biweekly, or semimonthly payroll if the wages are paid not more than seven calendar days following the close of the payroll period.” As detailed above, Defendants maintained a consistently applied policy and practice of not paying all wages earned between the 1 and 15™ days of a month between the 16™ and 26™ day and failed to pay all wages earned between the 16™ and the last day of the month between the 1% and 10" day of the following month. Defendants similarly failed to pay all wages earned by not more than seven calendar days following the close of the payroll period.

98. All wages due and owing to Plaintiff and the Class members, including as required under Labor Code § 510, were therefore not timely paid by Defendants. A dditionally, wages required by Labor Code § 1194 and other sections became due and payable to each employee in each pay period thatprovided with a meal period or rest period or paid straight or overtime wages to which he or she was entitled.

99. Defendants violated Labor Code § 204 by systematically refusing to timely pay wages due under the Labor Code, as addressed above. recovery of such amounts, plus interest and penalties thereon, attorneys’ fees, and costs, pursuant to Labor Code § 210, 218.5 and 1194.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 203

(Against All Defendants)

101. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in full herein.

102. Plaintiff and numerous Class members are no longer employed by Defendants; they either quit Defendants’ employ or were fired therefrom.

103. Defendants failed to pay these Employees all wages due and certain at the time of termination or within seventy-two (72) hours of resignation.

104. The wages withheld from these Employees by Defendants remained due and owing for more than thirty (30) days from the date of separation from employment.

105. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class members without abatement, all wages as defined by applicable California law. A mong other things, these Employees were not paid all regular and overtime wages, including by Defendants failing to pay for all hours worked or requiring off the clock work or by unlawfully under-recording time entries to the detriment of Employees, and Defendants failed to pay premium wages owed for unprovided meal periods and rest periods, as further detailed in this Complaint. Defendants’ failure to pay said wages within the required time was willful within the meaning of Labor Code § 203.

106. Defendants’ failure to pay wages, as alleged, entitles Plaintiff and these former Employee Class members to penalties under Labor Code § 203, which provides that an employee’s wages shall continue until paid for up to thirty (30) days from the date they were due.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 ET SEQ. (Against All Defendants)

107. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in 108. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself, the Employees in the Class, and the general public, brings this claim pursuant to Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. The conduct of Defendants as alleged in this Complaint has been and continues to be unfair, unlawful, and harmful to Employees and the general public. Plaintiff seeks to enforce important rights affecting the public interest within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5.

109. Plaintiff is a “person” within the meaning of Business & Professions Code § 17204, has suffered injury, and therefore has standing to bring this cause of action for injunctive relief, restitution, and other appropriate equitable relief.

110. Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. prohibits unlawful and unfair business practices. By the conduct alleged herein, Defendants’ practices were deceptive and fraudulent in that Defendants’ policy and practice failed to provide the required amount of compensation for missed meal and rest breaks, and failed to adequately compensate Plaintiff and Class members for all hours worked, due to systematic business practices as alleged herein that cannot be justified, pursuant to the applicable California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission requirements in violation of California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq., and for which this Court should issue injunctive and equitable relief, pursuant to California Business & Professions Code § 17203, including restitution of wages wrongfully withheld.

111. Wage-and-hour laws express fundamental public policies. Paying employees their wages and overtime, providing them with meal periods and rest breaks, etc., are fundamental public policies of California. Labor Code § 90.5(a) articulates the public policies of this State vigorously to enforce minimum labor standards, to ensure that employees are not required or permitted to work under substandard and unlawful conditions, and to protect law-abiding employers and their employees from competitors who lower costs to themselves by failing to comply with minimum labor standards. and all persons similarly situated, and all interested persons, of the rights, benefits, and privileges guaranteed to all employees under the law.

113. Defendants’ conduct, as alleged above, constitutes unfair competition in violation of the Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.

114. Defendants, by engaging in the conduct herein alleged, by failing to pay wages and overtime, failing to provide meal periods and rest breaks, etc., either knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that their conduct was unlawful; therefore their conduct violates the Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.

115. By the conduct alleged herein, Defendants have engaged and continue to engage in a business practice which violates California and federal law, including but not limited to, the applicable Industrial Wage Order(s), the California Code of Regulations, and the California Labor Code including Sections 204, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, and 1198 for which this Court should issue declaratory and other equitable relief pursuant to California Business & Professions Code § 17203 as may be necessary to prevent and remedy the conduct held to constitute unfair competition, including restitution of wages wrongfully withheld.

116. Asaproximate result of the above-mentioned acts of Defendants, Employees have been damaged,proven at trial.

117. Unless restrained by this Court Defendants will continue to engage in such unlawful conduct as alleged above. Pursuant to the Business & Professions Code, this Court should make such orders or judgments, including the appointment of a receiver, as may be necessary to prevent the use by Defendants or their agents or employees of any unlawful or deceptive practice prohibited by the Business & Professions Code, including but not limited to the disgorgement of such profits as may be necessary to restore Employees to the money D efendants have unlawfully failed to pay.

RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief: 2. For compensatory damages in the amount of the unpaid minimum wages for work performed by Employees and unpaid overtime compensation from at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action, as may be proven;

3. For liquidated damages in the amount equal to the unpaid minimum wage and interest thereon, from at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action, according to proof;

4, For compensatory damages in the amount of all unpaid wages, including overtime and double-time pay, as may be proven;

D. For compensatory damages in the amount of the hourly wage made by Employees for each missed or deficient meal period where no premium pay was paid therefor from four (4) years prior to the filing of this action, as may be proven;

0. For compensatory damages in the amount of the hourly wage made by Employees for each day requisite rest breaks were not provided or were deficiently provided where no premium pay was paid therefor from at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action, as may be proven;

7. For penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 226(e) for Employees, as may be proven;

8. For restitution and/or damages and penalties for Defendants’ failure to pay all wages due twice monthly under Labor Code § 204, as may be proven;

9. For restitution and/or damages for all amounts unlawfully withheld from the wages for all class members in violation of Labor Code § 221, as may be proven;

10. For penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 203 for all Employees who quit or were fired in an amount equal to their daily wage times thirty (30) days, as may be proven;

11. Forrestitution for unfair competition pursuant to Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq., including disgorgement or profits, as may be proven;

12. Foran order enjoining Defendants and their agents, servants, and employees, and all persons acting under, in concert with, or for them, from acting in derogation of any rights or duties adumbrated in this Complaint;

13. Forother wages and penalties under the Labor Code as may be proven; 15.

For an award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;

16. Foran award providing for the payment of the costs of this suit;

17. Foran award of attorneys’ fees; and

18. Forsuch other and further relief as this Court may deem proper and just. DATED: December4, 2018 DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

David Y eremian

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands trial of his claims by jury to the extent authorized by law.

DATED: December 4, 2018 DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

David Y eremian