This case was last updated from Santa Clara County Superior Courts on 08/08/2019 at 09:54:30 (UTC).

Schoelkoph v. North American On-Site, LLC

Case Summary

On 09/04/2018 Schoelkoph filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against North American On-Site, LLC. This case was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Courts, Downtown Superior Court located in Santa Clara, California. The Judge overseeing this case is Walsh, Brian C. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ******3915

  • Filing Date:

    09/04/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    Santa Clara County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Downtown Superior Court

  • County, State:

    Santa Clara, California

Judge Details

Judge

Walsh, Brian C

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Schoelkoph, Justin

Defendant

North American On-Site, LLC,

Not Classified By Court

Superior Court of California

Other

Malloy-Thorpe, Jessica

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Hague, Jared

Sutton, S Brett

Defendant Attorneys

Malloy-Thorpe, Jessica

Nagatani, Brian Koji

Harvey, Bradford G

Not Classified By Court Attorney

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

 

Court Documents

Notice

Notice CMC reset from 10-11-19 to 10-25-19: Comment: CMC reset from 10/11/19 to 10/25/19

Notice

Notice CMC 10-11-19 at 10am in D1: Comment: CMC set for 10/11/19 at 10am in D1

Minute Order

Minutes Non-Criminal:

Statement: Case Management Conference

Joint CMC Statement: Comment: HRG 6/7/19 Joint Case Management Conference Statement

Order

Order Granting Pro Hac Vice Applications of Bradford G. Harvey and Jessica Malloy-Thorpe: Comment: Order Granting Pro Hac Vice Applications of Bradford G. Harvey and Jessica Malloy-Thorpe - signed/BCW

Proof of Service

Proof of Service HRG 5-10-19: Comment: HRG 5/10/19 Proof of Service

Declaration

Brian K. Nagatani Declaration HRG 5-10-19: Comment: HRG 5/10/19 Declaration of Brian K. Nagatani In Support of North American On-Site, LLC's Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Bradford G. Harvey and Jessica Malloy-Thorpe

Application: Pro Hac Vice

Application Pro Hac Vice Jessica Malloy-Thorpe HRG 5-10-19: Comment: HRG 5/10/19 Application for Admission of Jessica Malloy-Thorpe to the bar of this Court Pro Hac Vice

Application: Pro Hac Vice

Application Pro Hac Vice Bradford G. Harvey HRG 5-10-19: Comment: HRG 5/10/19 Application For Admission of Bradford G. Harvey to the Bar of This Court Pro Hac Vice

Stipulation and Order

Stipulation and Order Continuing CMC: Comment: Stipulation & Order Continuing CMC - signed/BCW

Notice

Notice CMC reset from 12-7-18 to 2-1-19: Comment: CMC reset from 12/7/18 to 2/1/19

Notice: Appearance

Notice Appearance:

Civil Lawsuit Notice

Civil Lawsuit Notice: Comment: 1st CMC set for 12/7/18 at 10am in D1; assigned to Hon. Brian C. Walsh

Advance jury fee (Nonrefundable)

Advance Jury Fee (Nonrefundable):

Order: Deeming Case Complex

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

Summons: Issued/Filed

Summons Issued Filed:

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies): Comment: Proposed Class Action Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet

Civil Case Cover Sheet:

13 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/27/2020
  • Reserved - Judicial Officer: Walsh, Brian C; Hearing Time: 9:00 AM; Comment: Motion for Class Certification - moving papers due 2/7/20; opposition due 2/28/20; reply due 3/13/20. This hearing was set by the Court at the 2/1/19 CMC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2019
  • Conference: Case Management - Judicial Officer: Walsh, Brian C; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Comment: (3rd CMC) Proposed Wage and Hour Class Action * Discovery and responsive pleading deadline stayed, as of 9/5/18, when the case was deemed complex; the stay on discovery was lifted on 2/1/19. First Amended Complaint filed 1/2/19; answer thereto filed 3/8/19. Jessica Malloy-Thorpe and Bradford G. Harvey admitted as counsel pro hac vice on behalf of Defendant North American On-Site, LLC on 1/24/19.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice CMC reset from 10-11-19 to 10-25-19: Comment: CMC reset from 10/11/19 to 10/25/19

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice CMC 10-11-19 at 10am in D1: Comment: CMC set for 10/11/19 at 10am in D1

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Conference: Case Management - Joint CMC Statement: Minutes Non-Criminal: Judicial Officer: Walsh, Brian C; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Result: Held; Comment: (2nd CMC)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Minute Order - Minutes Non-Criminal:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Statement: Case Management Conference - Joint CMC Statement: Comment: HRG 6/7/19 Joint Case Management Conference Statement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Hearing: Pro Hac Vice Counsel - Application Pro Hac Vice Bradford G. Harvey HRG 5-10-19: Application Pro Hac Vice Jessica Malloy-Thorpe HRG 5-10-19: Brian K. Nagatani Declaration HRG 5-10-19: Proof of Service HRG 5-10-19: Order Granting Pro Hac Vice Applications of Bradford G. Harvey and Jessica Malloy-Thorpe: Judicial Officer: Walsh, Brian C; Hearing Time: 9:00 AM; Cancel Reason: Vacated; Comment: Pro Hac Vice Applicants: BRADFORD G. HARVEY and JESSICA MALLOY-THORPE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Answer/Response (No Fee) - Answer to First Amended Complaint: Comment: Answer of Defendant North American On-Site, LLC to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for Damages

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice CMC 6-7-19 at 10am in D1: Comment: CMC set for 6/7/19 at 10am in D1

    Read MoreRead Less
11 More Docket Entries
  • 01/02/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Amended Complaint Filed - No Fee - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT: Comment: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Stipulation and Order - Stipulation and Order Continuing CMC: Comment: Stipulation & Order Continuing CMC - signed/BCW

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice CMC reset from 12-7-18 to 2-1-19: Comment: CMC reset from 12/7/18 to 2/1/19

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice: Appearance - Notice Appearance:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Advance jury fee (Nonrefundable) - Advance Jury Fee (Nonrefundable):

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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil Lawsuit Notice - Civil Lawsuit Notice: Comment: 1st CMC set for 12/7/18 at 10am in D1; assigned to Hon. Brian C. Walsh

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Summons: Issued/Filed - Summons Issued Filed:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies): Comment: Proposed Class Action Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet:

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

S. BRETT SUTTON SBN 143107

JARED HAGUE SBN 251517

ANTHONY E. GUZMAN II SBN 311580 SUTTON HAGUE LAW CORPORATION, P.C.

5200 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 203 Fresno, California 93704 Telephone: (559) 325-0500 Facsimile: (559) 981-1217

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

E-FILED

9/4/2018 2:53 PM

Clerk of Court

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

18CV333915

Reviewed By: R. Walker

JUSTIN SCHOELKOPH, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

JUSTIN SCHOELKOPH, as an individual and

on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,

VS.

NORTH AMERICAN ON-SITE, LLC, a

Florida Corporation; and Does 1 through 50,

inclusive,

Defendants.

caseNo, 18CV 333915

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR

DAMAGES FOR:

CLASS ACTION PURSUANT TO

CAL.CODE OF CIV. PROC. § 382

(1) Failure To Pay Minimum Wages In Violation Of Labor Code §§ 1197, 1194 & 1194.2;

(2) Failure To Pay Overtime In Violation Of Labor Code § 510;

(3) Failure To Provide All Mandated Meal Periods Or Additional Wages In Lieu Thereof;

(4) Failure To Provide All Mandated Rest Periods Or Additional Wages In Lieu Thereof;

(5) Failure To Issue A ccurate Wage Statements In Violation Of Labor Code § 226;

(6) Failure To Timely Pay Wages Due At Termination In Violation Of Labor Code §§ 201, 202, & 203;

(7) Failure To Reimburse Business Expenses In Violation of Labor Code § 2802;

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff JUSTIN SCHOELKOPH (“PLAINTIFF”), as an individual and on behalf of all similarly-situated current and former employees, alleges against Defendant NORTH AMERICAN ON-SITE (hereinafter “DEFENDANT”), and Does 1 through 50, inclusive as follows:

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

A. THE PARTIES

1. PLAINTIFF is a former non-exempt employee of DEFENDANT who, at all times relevant herein, was residing in Washoe County, Nevada. During PLAINTIFF’s employment with DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF was assigned to work for DEFENDANT as an Implementation Support Specialist.

2. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that, at all times relevant herein, DEFENDANT is and/or was a Florida Corporation performing work in Santa Clara County, California.

3. PLAINTIFF is unaware of the true names and/or capacities, whether individual, partnership, limited partnership, corporate, or otherwise, of the Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, and therefore sues such Defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 474. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the Defendants sued herein, including DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, is and was proximately the cause of or contributed to cause the damages hereinafter alleged, or in some other manner is responsible in whole or in part for the damages which have been, are being, and will be suffered by PLAINTIFF as alleged herein. When the true names and/or capacities of the Defendants are ascertained, PLAINTIFF will seek leave to amend this Complaint to insert the same herein with appropriate charging allegations.

4, PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that DEFENDANT and each of the DOE Defendants, were acting at all relevant times herein, as the agent, ostensible

agent, joint-venturer, joint-employer, servant, employee, co-conspirator and/or associate of each 2 of the other Defendants, and were at all times acting within the course and scope of said agency, servitude, employment, joint-venture, association, and/or conspiracy and with the permission and consent of the other Defendants.

. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that, at all times relevant herein, the above DEFENDANT and/or each of its managing agents and supervisors aided, abetted, condoned, permitted, approved, authorized, and/or ratified the unlawful acts described herein.

0. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that, at all times relevant herein, the various acts and representations of DEFENDANT, including each of the DOE Defendants, and each agent or representative of DEFENDANT, were the result of, and in furtherance of, an agreement whereby the DEFENDANT and each agent or representative of the DEFENDANT knowingly conspired to engage in the acts described herein, including, but not limited to, DEFENDANT’s violation of the California Labor Code.

7. PLAINTIFF brings Causes of Action ONE through EIGHT on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated current and former employees of DEFENDANT who performed work in California as a class action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 382. PLAINTIFF seeks to represent a class and/or subclasses composed of and defined as follows:

Class 1

All current and former non-exempt employees of DEFENDANT who performed

work for DEFENDANT in California at any time within four (4) years preceding

the filing of this action.

Subclass A (“Minimum Wage Sub-Class”

All current and former non-exempt employees of DEFENDANT who performed work for DEFENDANT in California and who were required to work for DEFENDANT, or whom DEFENDANT permitted or suffered to work, during their meal periods, during travel time or at times otherwise off-the-clock, without compensation at any time within four (4) years

preceding the filing of this action. 3 Subclass B (“Overtime Wage Sub-Class”) All current and former non-exempt employees of DEFENDANT who

performed work in California and who were required to work overtime hours for DEFENDANT, or whom DEFENDANT permitted or suffered to work overtime hours, without overtime compensation as required by Labor Code section 510 and Wage Order 4 and/or any other applicable wage order at any time within four (4) years preceding the filing of this action.

Class 2

All current and former non-exempt employees of DEFENDANT who performed

work for DEFENDANT in California and who worked more than five (5) hours in

a work day at any time within four (4) years preceding the filing of this action.

Class 3

All current and former non-exempt employees of DEFENDANT who performed

work for DEFENDANT in California and who worked more than ten (10) hours

in a work day at any time within four (4) years preceding the filing of this action.

Class 4

All current and former non-exempt employees of DEFENDANT who performed

work for DEFENDANT in California and who worked three and one-half (3 1/2)

or more hours in a work day at any time within four (4) years preceding the filing

of this action.

Class 5

All former non-exempt employees of DEFENDANT who performed work in

California within three (3) years preceding the filing of this action.

Class 6

All current and former non-exempt employees of DEFENDANT who performed

work in California who received a wage statement that did not comply with the

provisions of Labor Code section 226(a). 4 Class 7

All current and former non-exempt employees of DEFENDANT who performed

work in California and who did not receive reimbursement for business expenses.

3. These individuals shall hereinafter be referred to collectively as the “Class

Members.”

Q. PLAINTIFF reserves the right under California Rules of Court Rule 3.765(b) to

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

or limitation to particular issues.

B. THE ACTION

10. This action is brought, in part, to remedy the following:

(a)

DEFENDANT’s failure to pay PLAINTIFF and the Class Members at least the minimum, regular, overtime and double time in accordance with California law by failing to pay PLAINTIFF and the Class Members for all hours worked at the applicable minimum, regular, overtime and double time rates of pay, and failing to properly calculate the regular rate of pay upon which PLAINTIFF and the Class Members’ overtime and double time rates of pay are based;

DEFENDANT’s failure to authorize and permit PLAINTIFF and the Class Members to take a net thirty-minute, duty-free meal period for each workday during which such employees worked more than five hours, or a second meal period for each workday during which such employees worked more than ten hours, as mandated by California law, or to pay such employees one (1) hour of additional wages at the employees’ regular rate of compensation for each workday for which the duty-free meal period was and/or is not provided, as required by California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512 and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 4 and/or any other applicable Wage Order;

DEFENDANT’s failure to authorize and permit PLAINTIFF and the Class 5 Members to take a paid net ten-minute, duty-free rest period per four hours worked or major fraction thereof, as mandated by California law, or to pay such employees one (1) hour of additional wages at the employees’ regular rate of compensation for each workday for which the duty-free rest period was and/or is not provided, as required by Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 4 and/or any other applicable Wage Order;

(d) DEFENDANT’s failure to issue accurate, itemized wage statements to PLAINTIFF and the Class Members in accordance with California law;

(e) DEFENDANTS’ failure to pay Class Members all wages due and owing upon the termination of employment with DEFENDANT;

(f) DEFENDANT s failure to reimburse PLAINTIFF and the Class Members for all business expenses reasonably incurred as a result of employment with DEFENDANT as required by California Labor Code section 2802;

(g DEFENDANT’s engagement in unfair business practices against PLAINTIFF and the Class Members.

%

VENUE

11. Venue is proper in this county because, among other reasons, certain of the violations of the California Labor Code were committed in Santa Clara County and DEFENDANT conducts business in Santa Clara County and the majority of the events and conduct complained of herein occurred in Santa Clara County. The unlawful acts alleged have a direct effect on PLAINTIFF and other Class Members. PLAINTIFF and the Class Members will continue to suffer the same harm as PLAINTIFF as a result of DEFENDANT’s wrongful conduct unless the relief requested herein is granted.

12. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that during the four- year period preceding the filing of this class action, no other class action has been filed asserting the same or similar factual allegations against DEFENDANT on behalf of the same or similar Class Members. PLAINTIFF has conducted a review of wage and hour class actions filed against

DEFENDANT; none of those class actions assert the claims under California law alleged herein.

6 D. CLASSACTION ALLEGATIONS

13. Causes of Action One through Eight have been brought and properly may be maintained as a class action under the provisions of section 382 of the California Code of Civil Procedure because: a) there is a well-defined community of interest in the litigation; and b) the proposed class is easily ascertainable.

Numerosity

14. The potential members of the class as defined are so numerous that joinder of all members of the class is impracticable. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that, at all times mentioned herein, PLAINTIFF and the Class Members are or have been affected by DEFENDANT and DOES 1-50’s unlawful practices as alleged herein.

15. Accounting for employee turnover during the relevant period covered by this action necessarily and substantially increases the number of employees covered by this action. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DEFENDANT and DOES 1-50’s employment records would provide information as to the actual number and location of all Class Members. Joinder of all members of the proposed class is not practicable.

Commonality

16. There are questions of law and fact common to the class predominating over any questions affecting only individual Class Members. These common questions of law and fact include, without limitation:

a. Whether DEFENDANT violated the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders by failing to pay minimum wage, regular, overtime, and double time wages to PLAINTIFF and the Class Members and failed to properly calculate the regular rate of pay upon which PLAINTIFF and the Class Members’ overtime and double time rates of pay are based;

b. Whether DEFENDANT violated California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512 and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 4 and/or any other applicable Wage Order by failing to provide PLAINTIFF and the Class Members with a

thirty-minute, duty-free meal period for each workday during which such

7 &

e

D

=h

<

employees worked more than five hours, or a second meal period for each workday during which such employees worked more than ten hours, or by paying such employees one (1) hour of additional wages at the employees’ regular rate of compensation;

Whether DEFENDANT violated Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 4 and/or any other applicable Wage Order by failing to permit PLAINTIFF and the Class Members to take a paid net ten-minute, duty-free rest period per four hours worked or major fraction thereof or to pay such employees one (1) hour of additional wages at the employees’ regular rate of compensation for each workday for which a rest period was and/or is not provided;

Whether DEFENDANT violated California Labor Code section 226 by failing to issue accurate, itemized wage statements to PLAINTIFF and the Class Members; Whether DEFENDANT violated California Labor Code sections 201, 202 and 203 by failing to pay all wages due and owing at the time that any Class Member’s employment with DEFENDANT and/or DOES 1-50 ended, whether voluntarily or involuntarily;

Whether DEFENDANT violated California Labor Code section 2802 by failing to reimburse PLAINTIFF and the Class Members for business expenses incurred during the course of their employment with DEFENDANT;

Whether DEFENDANT violated California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. and engaged in unlawful, unfair, and deceptive business practices by violating California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1194.2 and Industrial W elfare Commission Wage Order 4 and/or any other applicable Wage Order and failing to: (1) pay minimum, overtime, and double time to the Class Members; (2) permit the Class Members to take a net thirty-minute, duty-free first and/or second meal period when they worked more than 5 and 10 hours in a workday and/or pay such employees additional wages as

required by California law; (3) permit the Class Members to take a paid net ten- 8 minute, duty-free rest period for every four hours of work or major fraction thereof and/or pay such employees additional wages as required by California law; (4) issue mandated accurate, itemized wage statements; and (5) pay all owed wages at the time that any Class Member’s employment with DEFENDANT ended, whether voluntarily or involuntarily; and h. Whether PLAINTIFF and the Class Members are entitled to equitable relief pursuant to California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. Typicality 17. The claims of the named PLAINTIFF are typical of the claims of the class. PLAINTIFF and all members of the class sustained injuries and damages arising out of, and caused by, DEFENDANT and DOES 1-50’s common course of conduct in violation of California laws, regulations, and statutes as alleged herein. Adequacy of Representation 18. PLAINTIFF will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the members of the class. Counsel who represents PLAINTIFF is competent and experienced in litigating wage and hour class actions and California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. cases. Superiority of Class Action 19. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Individual joinder of all Class Members is not practicable, and questions of law and fact common to the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class. Each member of the Class has been damaged and is entitled to recovery as a result of DEFENDANT and DOES 1-50’s unlawful policies and practices alleged in this Complaint. 20. Class action treatment will allow those similarly situated persons 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 likely to be encountered in the management of this

action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action.

BACKGROUND ALLEGATIONS

21. PLAINTIFF is a former non-exempt employee of DEFENDANT who, at all times relevant herein, was residing in Washoe County, Nevada. During PLAINTIFF’s employment with DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF was assigned to work for DEFENDANT as an Implementation Support Specialist whose job consisted primarily of traveling to various jobsites and registering the assets and commodities of various businesses. PLAINTIFF was frequently required to travel to and work at various job locations throughout California, including in Santa Clara County, during which assignments he would stay in California for periods of up to one week at a time to perform his assigned work.

22. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DEFENDANT was, at all relevant times herein, engaged in the business of temporary staffing assignments and support of businesses throughout the country.

23. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times mentioned herein, DEFENDANT had statutory obligations to pay PLAINTIFF and all other similarly situated Class Members minimum, regular, overtime, and double time wages according to California law during the time that PLAINTIFF and all other similarly situated Class M embers performed work in California.

24, PLAINTIFF is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times mentioned herein, DEFENDANT had statutory obligations to provide PLAINTIFF and all other similarly situated Class Members a net thirty-minute, duty-free meal period during any workday during which such employee worked more than five hours, and a second meal period during any workday during which such employees worked more than ten hours and/or pay such employees additional wages.

25. PLAINTIFF is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times mentioned herein, DEFENDANT had statutory obligations to permit PLAINTIFF and all other similarly situated Class Members to take a paid net ten-minute, duty-free rest period per four hours worked or major fraction thereof and/or pay such employees additional wages.

[11]

10 206. PLAINTIFF is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times mentioned herein, DEFENDANT had statutory obligations to issue to PLAINTIFF and all other similarly situated Class Members wage statements compliant with Labor Code section 226.

27. PLAINTIFF is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times mentioned herein, DEFENDANT had statutory obligations to pay Class Members all wages earned upon termination of employment.

28. PLAINTIFF is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times mentioned herein, DEFENDANT had statutory obligations to reimburse Class Members for business expenses reasonably incurred in the performance of their duties for DEFENDANT.

29. However, PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DEFENDANT improperly, and in violation of California law, failed to pay minimum, regular, overtime, and double time wages by, among other things, failing to compensate PLAINTIFF and other similarly situated Class Members for all hours worked, and thereby causing underpayment of minimum wages and overtime wage premiums, including by failing to include all amounts earmned during that applicable workweek, in the regular rate of pay calculation upon which PLAINTIFF and the Class Members’ overtime and double time rates of pay are based.

30. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DEFENDANT improperly, and in violation of California law, failed to provide a net thirty-minute, duty-free meal period for employees who worked more than five hours in a workday, failed to provide a second net thirty-minute, duty-free meal period for employees who worked more than ten hours in a workday, and/or failed to pay such employees one (1) hour of additional wages at the employees’ regular rate of compensation for each workday for which a meal period was not provided by, among other things, establishing and carrying out policies through its managing agents and supervisors that violated California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512 and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 4 and/or any other applicable Wage Order that requires DEFENDANT to provide meal periods to PLAINTIFF and other similarly situated Class Members.

[11]

11 31. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DEFENDANT improperly, and in violation of California law, failed to authorize and permit a paid net ten- minute, duty-free rest period for employees per four hours worked or major fraction thereof and/or failed to pay such employees one (1) hour of additional wages at the employees’ regular rate of compensation for each workday for which a rest break was not provided by, among other things, establishing and carrying out policies through its managing agents and supervisors that violated California Labor Code section 226.7 and Industrial W elfare Commission Wage Order 4 and/or any other applicable Wage Order that requires DEFENDANT to provide rest breaks to PLAINTIFF and other similarly situated Class M embers.

32. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DEFENDANT improperly, and in violation of California law, failed to issue accurate wage statements to PLAINTIFF and other similarly situated Class Members by, among other things and missing items, failing to account for all hours worked and wages earned, including failing to include all remuneration in the regular rate of pay calculation.

33. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DEFENDANT improperly, and in violation of California law, failed to pay Class Members all wages earned upon termination of employment by, among other things, failing to pay wages for all hours worked.

34. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DEFENDANT improperly, and in violation of California law, failed to reimburse PLAINTIFF and the Class Members for business expenses reasonably incurred in the performance of their duties during their employment with DEFENDANT.

35. As a result of the actions of DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF and other similarly situated Class Members suffered damages, including lost pay, wages, and interest.

36. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Class Members did not secret or absent themselves from DEFENDANT nor did they refuse to accept the earned but unpaid wages from DEFENDANT. Accordingly, DEFENDANT is liable for waiting time

12 penalties for the unpaid wages pursuant to Labor Code sections 201, 202, and 203 and section 20 of the applicable Industrial W elfare Commission Order.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES IN VIOLATION OF

LABOR CODE §§ 1197, 1194, & 1194.2 (PLAINTIFF, Individually and on Behalf of the Class Members, Against DEFENDANT and DOES 1 through 50)

37. All prior allegations are re-alleged and incorporated herein by this reference.

38. DEFENDANT failed to pay PLAINTIFF and Class Members minimum wages for all hours worked.

39. California Labor Code section 1197 provides that “[tlhe minimum wage for employees fixed by the commission is the minimum wage to be paid to employees, and payment of less than the minimum so fixed is unlawful.”

40. The applicable minimum wage fixed by the commission for employees, such as Plaintiff and Class Members is found in section 4(A) of Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 1 and/or any other applicable Wage Order.

41. The minimum wage provisions of the California Labor Code are enforceable by

private action pursuant to California Labor Code section 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 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.

42. As described in California Labor Code sections 1185 and 1194.2, any such action incorporates the applicable Wage Order of the Industrial W elfare Commission.

43. California Labor Code section 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 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.

13 44, PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that during all times mentioned herein DEFENDANT required, allowed, suffered, and/or permitted PLAINTIFF and Class Members to engage in, among other things, a variety of work-related tasks, including but not limited to travelling to various job sites, without being compensated at the applicable minimum wage in accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code sections 1197, 1194, and 1194.2, and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 4 and/or any other applicable Wage Order.

45. As such, PLAINTIFF, individually and on behalf of Class Members, may bring this action for minimum wages and overtime, interest, costs of suit, and attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Labor Code section 1194(a).

46. Wherefore, PLAINTIFF and the Class Members are entitled to recover liquidated damages in an amount equal to the minimum wages unlawfully unpaid, and interest thereon, pursuant to California Labor Code section 1194.2 and reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs of suit, and penalties pursuant to section 1197.1.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 510

(PLAINTIFF, Individually and on Behalf of the Class Members, Against DEFENDANT and DOES 1 through 50) 47. All prior allegations are re-alleged and incorporated herein by this reference. 48. As a general matter, California Labor Code section 510, subsection (a) provides,

in pertinent part, as follows:

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. ..

14 49, PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that during all times mentioned herein DEFENDANT required, allowed, suffered, and/or permitted PLAINTIFF and Class Members to work in excess of eight (8) hours in one work day or forty (40) hours per work week without being compensated at the applicable overtime and double time rate of pay in accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code section 510 and Section 3 of the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 4 and/or any other applicable Wage Order.

50. In addition, PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DEFENDANT required, allowed, suffered, and/or permitted PLAINTIFF and Class Members to engage in, among other things, a variety of work-related tasks without compensation, at least a portion of which time was compensable to PLAINTIFF and Class Members at one-and-one-half or two times of PLAINTIFF and Class Members’ regular rate of pay.

51. In addition, PLAINTIFF, on behalf of himself and the Class Members, has incurred, and will continue to incur, attorneys’ fees and costs. PLAINTIFF, on behalf of himself and the Class Members, is presently unaware of the precise amount of these fees and costs and prays for leave of this Court to amend the Complaint when the amounts are fully known. Pursuant to California Labor Code sections 1194 and 510, PLAINTIFF and Class Members are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs according to proof.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §§ 226.7 AND 512

(MEAL PERIODS)

(PLAINTIFF, Individually and on Behalf of the Class Members, Against DEFENDANT and DOES 1 through 50) 52. All prior allegations are re-alleged and incorporated herein by this reference. 53. California Labor Code section 512, subsection (a), provides, in pertinent part, as

follows: An employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more than five hours per day without providing the employee with a meal period of not less than 30 minutes, except that if the total work period per day of the employee is not more than six hours. The meal period may be waived by mutual consent of both the

15 employer and employee. An employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more than 10 hours per day without providing the employee with a second meal period of not less than 30 minutes, An employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more than 10 hours per day without providing the employee with a second meal period of not less than 30 minutes, except that if the total hours worked is no more than 12 hours, the second meal period may be waived by mutual consent of the employer and the employee only if the first meal period was not waived.

54. Similarly, section 11 of Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 4 provides,

in pertinent part, as follows:

Every employer shall authorize and permit all employees after a work period of not more than five (5) hours to take a meal period of not less than 30 minutes, except that when a work period of not more than six (6) hours will complete the day’s work the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of the employer and the employee...

55. California Labor Code section 226.7 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

An employer shall not require an employee to work during any meal or rest or recovery period mandated pursuant to an applicable statute, or applicable regulation, standard, or order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, or the Division of Occupational Safety and Health.

If an employer fails to provide an employee a meal or rest or recovery period in accordance with an with a state law, including, but not limited to, an applicable statute or applicable regulation, standard, or order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, or the Division of Occupational Safety and Health, the employer shall pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal or rest or recovery period is not provided.

56. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that he and Class Members systematically worked periods of more than five (5) hours in a workday without being provided a mandated thirty-minute, duty-free meal while in the employ of DEFENDANT. Specifically, PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon allege, that, at all times

mentioned herein, DEFENDANT did not maintain company policies to authorize and permit its 16 employees the opportunity to take duty-free meal periods of net thirty-minutes in length during any given workday, including workdays during which employees worked more than five (5) hours. Moreover, PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DEFENDANT knew that PLAINTIFF and Class Members were generally not taking and/or recording meal periods of at least 30 minutes and/or were not relieved of all duties during their meal periods. PLAINTIFF is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DEFENDANT did not pay PLAINTIFF or any of the other affected Class Members an additional one (1)-hour’s wage at the regular rate of pay for each meal period that was not provided as stated above.

57. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that he and Class Members systematically worked periods of more than ten (10) hours in a workday without being provided a mandated thirty-minute, duty-free meal while in the employ of DEFENDANT. Specifically, PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon allege, that, at all times mentioned herein, DEFENDANT did not maintain company policies to authorize and permit its employees the opportunity to take duty-free meal periods of net thirty-minutes in length during any given workday, including workdays during which employees worked more than ten (10) hours. Moreover, PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DEFENDANT knew that PLAINTIFF and Class Members were generally not recording and/or taking a full 30 minute duty-free meal period and that they were not relieved of all duties during their meal periods. PLAINTIFF is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DEFENDANT did not pay PLAINTIFF or any of the other affected Class Members an additional one (1)-hour’s wage at the regular rate of pay for each second meal period that was not provided as stated above.

58. Accordingly, DEFENDANT violated California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512 and section 11 of Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 4 and/or any other applicable Wage Order by failing to provide a meal period for days on which non-exempt employees work(ed) in excess of five hours, or a second meal period for days on which the non-exempt employees work(ed) in excess of ten hours, and failing to pay one hour of additional wages in

lieu of each meal period not provided. DEFENDANT is liable for one hour of additional wages 17 at each of the affected Class Members’ regular rate of compensation for each workday for which a meal period was not lawfully provided.

59. As a result of the unlawful acts of DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF and Class Members have been deprived of additional wages in amounts to be proven at trial and are entitled to recover such amounts, plus interest and penalties thereon, attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit in addition to any other relief requested below.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §§ 226.7 AND INDUSTRIAL WELFARE

COMMISSION WAGE ORDER 4 (REST PERIODS)

(PLAINTIFF, Individually and on Behalf of the Class Members, Against DEFENDANT and DOES 1 through 50) 60. All prior allegations are re-alleged and incorporated herein by this reference. 61. Section 12 of Industrial W elfare Commission Wage Order 4 provides, in pertinent

part, as follows:

Every employer shall authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods, which insofar as practicable shall be in the middle of each work period. The authorized rest period time shall be based on the total hours worked daily at the rate of ten (10) minutes net rest time per four (4) hours or major fraction thereof....Authorized rest period time shall be counted as hours worked for which there shall be no deduction from wages.

62. California Labor Code section 226.7 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

(b) An employer shall not require an employee to work during any meal or rest or recovery period mandated pursuant to an applicable statute, or applicable regulation, standard, or order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, or the Division of Occupational Safety and Health.

(c) If an employer fails to provide an employee a meal or rest or recovery period in accordance with an with a state law, including, but not limited to, an applicable statute or applicable regulation, standard, or order of the Industrial Welfare

18 Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, or the Division of Occupational Safety and Health, the employer shall pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee's reqular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal or rest or recovery period is not provided.

63. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that he and Class Members systematically worked periods of more than 3 2 hours in a workday without being provided a mandated paid ten-minute, duty-free compensated rest period while in the employ of DEFENDANT for every four hours worked or major fraction thereof. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that, at all times mentioned herein, DEFENDANT did not maintain a company policy that authorized and permitted its employees to take a compensated rest period for every four hours worked or major fraction thereof during any given workday including workdays during which their employees worked more than 3 %2 hours. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that he and Class Members were not provided with all of their daily rest periods while in the employ of DEFENDANT in accordance to California law. PLAINTIFF is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DEFENDANT never paid PLAINTIFF or any of the other affected Class Members an additional one (1)-hour’s wage for each rest period that was not provided as stated above.

64. Accordingly, DEFENDANT violated California Labor Code section 226.7 and section 12 of Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 4 and/or any other applicable Wage Order by failing to provide their employees who worked more than 3 %2 hours in a workday with a rest period every four hours or major fraction thereof as required by California law and failing to pay one hour of additional wages in lieu of each rest period not provided. DEFENDANT is liable for one hour of additional wages at each of the affected Class Members’ regular rate of compensation for each workday for which a rest period was not lawfully provided.

65. As a result of the unlawful acts of DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF and Class Members have been deprived of additional wages in amounts to be proven at trial and are entitled to recover such amounts, plus interest and penalties thereon, attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit, in addition to any other relief requested below.

[11]

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO FURNISH ITEMIZED STATEMENTS OF WAGES

(PLAINTIFF, Individually and on Behalf of the Class Members, Against DEFENDANT and DOES 1 through 50)

66. All prior allegations are re-alleged and incorporated herein by this reference.

67. DEFENDANT is required to maintain accurate records of, among other things, gross wages, the beginning date of the applicable pay period, total hours worked, net wages earned, and all applicable hourly rates and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate for each pay period for PLAINTIFF and each of the Class Members.

68. @ DEFENDANT was required to furnish such records to PLAINTIFF and Class Members semi-monthly or at the time of payment of wages and to properly itemize the paycheck as required by the California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Order, and the California Code of Regulations, including, but not limited to, California Labor Code section 226.

69. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that DEFENDANT failed to accurately maintain and furnish records of the wages eamed by PLAINTIFF and Class Members. Plaintiff is informed and believes that, as a result of the aforementioned practices alleged throughout this complaint, DEFENDANT failed to provide and possibly maintain accurate records of total hours worked, piece-rate units earned and the applicable piece-rate, net wages and gross wages earned, and all applicable hourly rates and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate for each pay period for PLAINTIFF and each of the Class Members.

70. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANT’s failure to issue accurate, itemized wages statements to PLAINTIFF and Class Members, PLAINTIFF and Class Members suffered damage.

71. PLAINTIFF and Class Members are, therefore, entitled to penalties pursuant to Labor Code section 226 along with interest on those penalties and attorneys’ fees, as required by Labor Code section 226, in addition to the relief requested below.

[11]

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY WAGES DUE AT TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF

LABOR CODE §§ 201, 202, & 203 (PLAINTIFF, Individually and On Behalf of the Class Members, Against DEFENDANT and DOES 1 through 50) 72. All prior allegations are re-alleged and incorporated herein by this reference. 73. California Labor Code section 201 provides, in pertinent part: “If an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge are due and payable immediately . . .” Cal. Lab. Code § 201.

74. California Labor Code section 202 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

If an employee not having a written contract for a definite period quits his or her employment, his or her wages shall become due and payable not later than 72 hours thereafter, unless the employee has given 72 hours previous notice of his or her intention to quit, in which case the employee is entitled to his or her wages at the time of quitting. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an employee who quits without providing a 72-hour notice shall be entitled to receive payment by mailrequests and designates a mailing address. The date of the mailing shall constitute the date of payment for purposes of the requirement to provide payment within 72 hours of the notice of quitting.

75. California Labor Code section 203 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

If an employer willfully fails to pay, without abatement or reduction, in accordance with Sections 201, 201.5, 202, and 205.5, any wages of an employee who is discharged or quit, the wages of the employee shall continue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or until an action therefore is commenced; but the wages shall not continue for more than 30 days. An employee who secretes or absents herself or herself to avoid payment to her or her, or who refuses to receive the payment when fully tendered to her or her, including any penalty then accrued under this section, is not entitled to any benefit under this section for the time during which he or she so avoids payment. Suit may be filed for these penalties at any time before the expiration of the statue of limitations on an action for the wages from which the penalties arises.

[11]

21 76. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Class Members were terminated or have voluntarily left DEFENDANT’s employ, and PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that they have not received compensation for all wages earned, including, but not limited to, minimum wages, overtime, and double time wages, owed in accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code sections 201, 202, and 203.

77. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that this failure by DEFENDANT to pay was willful and intentional.

78. In addition, PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that since Class Members’ termination from employment with DEFENDANT, DEFENDANT continually failed to pay the minimum wage, regular and overtime compensation that is due and owing, thereby entitling the Class Members to waiting time penalties for the unpaid wages owed pursuant to California Labor Code sections 201, 202, and 203.

79. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Class Members did not secret or absent themselves from DEFENDANT nor did they refuse to accept the earned and unpaid wages from DEFENDANT. Accordingly, DEFENDANT is liable for waiting time penalties for the unpaid wages pursuant to California Labor Code sections 201, 202, and 203.

80. In addition, PLAINTIFF, on behalf of the Class Members, has incurred, and will continue to incur, legal expenses, including costs. PLAINTIFF, on behalf of the Class Members, is presently unaware of the precise amount of these fees and expenses and prays for leave of this Court to amend the Complaint when the amounts are fully known. PLAINTIFF and Class Members are entitled to recover expenses, and costs according to proof.

[1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [11]

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO REIMBURSE BUSINESS EXPENSES IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 2802

(PLAINTIFF, Individually and on Behalf of the Class Members, Against DEFENDANT and DOES 1 through 50) 81. All prior allegations are re-alleged and incorporated herein by this reference.

82. California Labor Code section 2802 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

An employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties,obedience to the directions of the employer, even though unlawful, unless the employee, at the time of obeying the directions, believed them to be unlawful.

83. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that during the course of their employment with DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF and the affected Class Members had incurred various business expenses, including but not limited to expenses for traveling to and from the various job sites to which PLAINTIFF and the affected Class Members were assigned to work, without reimbursement for such business expenses and in violation of California Labor Code section 2802.

84. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANT’s failure to reimburse PLAINTIFF and the affected Class Members for their reasonably incurred business expenses, PLAINTIFF and the affected Class Members suffered damage. A ccordingly, DEFENDANT is liable for such unreimbursed amounts and any other applicable penalties pursuant to Section 98 of the California Labor Code.

85. In addition, PLAINTIFF, on behalf of the Class Members, has incurred, and will continue to incur, legal expenses, including costs. PLAINTIFF, on behalf of the Class Members, is presently unaware of the precise amount of these fees and expenses and prays for leave of this Court to amend the Complaint when the amounts are fully known. PLAINTIFF and Class Members are entitled to recover expenses, and costs according to proof pursuant to California

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW

(BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE §17200, ET SEQ.) (PLAINTIFF, Individually and on Behalf of the Class Members, Against DEFENDANT and DOES 1 through 50)

86. All prior allegations are re-alleged and incorporated herein by this reference.

87. DEFENDANT has engaged and continues to engage in unfair business practices in California by practicing, employing, and utilizing the employment policy of failing to pay PLAINTIFF and Class Members employment compensation as required by the California law cited herein above and by violating applicable provisions of the California Labor Code, including, but not limited to, California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1174, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, certain provisions of the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 4 and/or any other applicable Wage Order, as alleged herein. DEFENDANT’s utilization of such illegal and unfair business practices constitutes unfair competition and provides DEFENDANT with an unfair advantage over DEFENDA NT’s competitors.

88. PLAINTIFF seeks on her own behalf, on behalf of those similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public full restitution and disgorgement of all employment compensation wrongfully withheld, as necessary and according to proof, to restore any and all monies withheld, acquired, and/or converted by the DEFENDANT by means of the unfair and unlawful practices complained of herein. The restitution and disgorgement requested includes all wages earned and unpaid, including interest thereon. The acts complained of herein occurred, at least in part, within the last four (4) years preceding the filing of the Complaint in this action and continue to the present.

89. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times herein mentioned DEFENDANT has engaged in unlawful and unfair business practices as proscribed by California Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq. by depriving PLAINTIFF

and Class Members of the minimum working conditions and standards due to them under the

24 California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, and Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, as identified herein.

90. California Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq. prohibits acts of unfair competition, which mean and include any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice. Under California law, wages unlawfully withheld from an employee constitutes an unfair business act, entitling PLAINTIFF and Class Members to a restitution remedy authorized by California Business and Professions Code section 17203. PLAINTIFF and Class Members and the general public are, therefore, entitled to the relief requested below.

91. In addition, PLAINTIFF has incurred, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of the Class Members, and will continue to incur, legal expenses and attorneys’ fees. PLAINTIFF, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of the Class Members, is presently unaware of the precise amount of these fees and expenses and prays for leave of this Court to amend the Complaint when the amounts are fully known. Pursuant to California Labor Code sections 1194 and California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, PLAINTIFF and Class Members are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs according to proof.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays as follows:

1. That the Court determine that Causes of Action One through Eight may be

maintained as a Class A ction;

2. For the attorneys appearing in the above caption to be named as Class Counsel;

3. With respect to the First Cause of A ction:

a. For damages, including all wages due and owing;

b. Forliquidated damages;

c. For interest thereon from the date such amounts were due;

d. Foran award of costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees. 4, With respect to the Second through Fourth Causes of A ction:

a. For damages, including all wages due and owing;

b. Forinterest thereon from the date such amounts were due;

29 .C)'I

L

~

e

C.

For an award of costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees.

With respect to the Fifth Cause of A ction:

a. b.

C.

For penalties as authorized by California Labor Code section 226(e); For injunctive relief pursuant to California Labor Code section 226(h);

For an award of costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees.

With respect to the Sixth Cause of A ction:

d.

b.

For penalties as authorized by California Labor Code section 203(a);

For an award of costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees.

With respect to the Seventh Cause of A ction:

d.

b.

For an award of reimbursement of necessary expenditures pursuant to California Labor Code section 2802(b) including interest from the date on which the employee incurred the necessary expenditure or loss;

For an award of costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees.

With respect to the Eighth Cause of A ction:

d.

For an accounting, under administration of Plaintiff and/or the receiver and subject to Court review, to determine the amount to be returned by Defendant, and the amounts to be refunded to members of the classes who are owed monies by Defendant

For an Order requiring Defendant to make full restitution and payment pursuant to California law;

For an Order for preliminary and/or permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant from engaging in the acts complained of herein;

For all other appropriate injunctive, declaratory and equitable relief;

For interest to the extent permitted by law; and

For an award of costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees incurred in the investigation, filing and prosecution of this action pursuant to California Code

of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, California Business and Professions Code

26 section 17200 et. seq., California Labor Code section 1194 and/or any other applicable provision of law. 9. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. PLAINTIFF, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated Class Members, and on behalf of all aggrieved employees hereby demands trial by jury of Causes of Action One through

Seven to the extent authorized by law.

Dated: September4, 2018 SUTTON HAGUE LAW CORPORATION, P.C.

JARED HAGUE

S. BRETT SUTTON

ANTHONY GUZMAN

Attorneys for Plaintiff

JUSTIN SCHOELKOPH