This case was last updated from Santa Clara County Superior Courts on 06/12/2020 at 16:42:53 (UTC).

Hightower v. Legends Hospitality, LLC

Case Summary

On 05/17/2018 Hightower filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against Legends Hospitality, 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:

    ******8576

  • Filing Date:

    05/17/2018

  • 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

Hightower, Sherri

Defendant

Legends Hospitality, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company

Not Classified By Court

Superior Court of California

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Lidman, Scott Michael

Nguyen, Elizabeth Chau

Defendant Attorneys

Sundar, Tina

Ryu, Eugene

Not Classified By Court Attorney

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

 

Court Documents

Notice

Notice CMC reset to 8-14-20: Comment: CMC reset from 4/24/20 to 8/14/20

Stipulation and Order

Stipulation and Order to Continue 2-28-20 CMC: Comment: to Continue CMC from 2/28/20 to 4/24/20 - signed/PML

Order

Order and Notice of Reassignment of Case to D3 PML: Comment: Order & Notice of Reassignment of Case to D3, Hon. Patricia M. Lucas presiding signed/PML

Notice

Notice CMC reset from 12-20-19 to 2-28-20: Comment: CMC reset from 12/20/19 to 2/28/20

Stipulation and Order

Stipulation and Order to Continue 12-20-19 CMC: Comment: Continue CMC from 12/20/19 to 2/28/20 - signed/TEK

Proof of Service

Proof of Service: Comment: Proof of Service

Notice

Notice CMC reset from 11-15-19 to 12-20-19: Comment: CMC reset from 11/15/19 to 12/20/19

Stipulation and Order

Stipulation and Order to Continue CMC from 11-15-19 to 12-20-19: Comment: to Continue CMC from 11/15/19 to 12/20/19 - signed/TEK

Statement: Case Management Conference

Joint CMC Statement: Comment: HRG 1/11/19 Case Management Statement

Statement: Case Management Conference

HRG 8 31 18 Joint Case Management Conference Statement: Comment: HRG 8/31/18 Joint Case Management Conference Statement

Notice: Related Cases

2018-08-10 Notice of Related Case.pdf: Comment: 30-2019-00981475-CU-OE-CXC

Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)

2018-05-24 POS of Summons.pdf: Comment: Proof of Service of Summons/Complaint

Order: Deeming Case Complex

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

Proof of Service: Mail

Proof of Service Mail:

Answer (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

General Denial: Comment: General Denial

Summons: Issued/Filed

2018-05-17 Summons.pdf: Comment: Summons

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies): Comment: Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet

2018-05-17 CCCS.pdf: Comment: Civil Case Cover Sheet

18 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/14/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketConference: Case Management - Joint CMC Statement: Judicial Officer: Lucas, Patricia M; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Comment: (2nd CMC) Proposed Class Action * Employment * General Denial filed 6/25/18 * Discovery and responsive pleading deadline stayed, as of 6/25/18, when the case was deemed complex. First Amended Complaint filed 9/17/18. Mediation set for 8/6/19.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketNotice - Notice CMC reset to 8-14-20: Comment: CMC reset from 4/24/20 to 8/14/20

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketStipulation and Order - Stipulation and Order to Continue 2-28-20 CMC: Comment: to Continue CMC from 2/28/20 to 4/24/20 - signed/PML

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/23/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketOrder - Order and Notice of Reassignment of Case to D3 PML: Comment: Order & Notice of Reassignment of Case to D3, Hon. Patricia M. Lucas presiding signed/PML

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketNotice - Notice CMC reset from 12-20-19 to 2-28-20: Comment: CMC reset from 12/20/19 to 2/28/20

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketStipulation and Order - Stipulation and Order to Continue 12-20-19 CMC: Comment: Continue CMC from 12/20/19 to 2/28/20 - signed/TEK

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketProof of Service - Proof of Service: Comment: Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/04/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketNotice - Notice CMC reset from 11-15-19 to 12-20-19: Comment: CMC reset from 11/15/19 to 12/20/19

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/04/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketStipulation and Order - Stipulation and Order to Continue CMC from 11-15-19 to 12-20-19: Comment: to Continue CMC from 11/15/19 to 12/20/19 - signed/TEK

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/20/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketNotice - Notice CMC reset from 11-4-19 to 11-15-19: Comment: CMC reset from 11/4/19 to 11/15/19

    Read MoreRead Less
13 More Docket Entries
  • 08/24/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketProof of Service - Proof of Service: Comment: Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketStatement: Case Management Conference - HRG 8 31 18 Joint Case Management Conference Statement: Comment: HRG 8/31/18 Joint Case Management Conference Statement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketNotice: Related Cases - 2018-08-10 Notice of Related Case.pdf: Comment: 30-2019-00981475-CU-OE-CXC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketProof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - 2018-05-24 POS of Summons.pdf: Comment: Proof of Service of Summons/Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2018
  • 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
  • 06/25/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketProof of Service: Mail - Proof of Service Mail:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketAnswer (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - General Denial: Comment: General Denial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketSummons: Issued/Filed - 2018-05-17 Summons.pdf: Comment: Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketComplaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies): Comment: Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet - 2018-05-17 CCCS.pdf: Comment: Civil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

18CV328576

Santa Clara — Civil

Electronically Filed

LIDMAN LAW, APC by Superior Court of CA, Scott M. Lidman (SBN 199433) County of Santa Clara, slidman @lidmanlaw.com on 9/17/2018 3:25 PM Elizabeth Nguyen (SBN 238571) Reviewed By: R. Walker enguyen@lidmanlaw.com Case #18CV328576

Milan Moore (SBN 308095) mmoore @lidmanlaw.com

222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segundo, California 90245

Tel: (424) 322-4772

Fax: (424) 322-4775

Envelope: 1952016

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SHERRI HIGHTOWER

HAINES LAW GROUP, APC Paul K. Haines (SBN 248226) phaines @haineslawgroup.com

222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segundo, California 90245

Tel: (424) 292-2350

Fax: (424) 292-2355

Attorneys for Plaintiff

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

SHERRI HIGHTOWER, as an individual and Case No.: 18CV328576 on behalf of all others similarly situated,

FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND L REPRESENTATIVE ACTION

Plamutt, COMPLAINT: VS. (1) FAILURE TO PAY ALL

OVERTIME WAGES OWED

LEGENDS HOSPITALITY, LLC, a Delaware (LABOR CODE §§ 204, 510, 558, limited liability company; and DOES 1 1194, 1198);

through 100, inclusive,

(2) FAILURE TO PAY ALL MINIMUM

1194, 1194.2, 1197);

(3) FAILURE TO PAY ALL WAGES A THE AGREED-UPON RATE

(LABOR CODE §§ 221-223);

(4) FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL

PERIODS (LABOR CODE §§ 226.7, 512);

(5) FAILURE TO AUTHORIZE AND PERMIT ALL REST PERIODS

(LABOR CODE §§ 226.7, 516);

(6) FAILURE TO PAY ALL WAGES OWED UPON TERMINATION

(LABOR CODE §§ 201-203);

(7) FAILURE TO PROVIDE

ACCURATE, ITEMIZED WAGE

STATEMENTS (LABOR CODE

§ 226 et seq.);

(8) FAILURE TO REIMBURSE NECESSARY BUSINESS

EXPENSES (LABOR CODE § 2802, 2804);

(9) UNFAIR COMPETITION (BUS &

PROF CODE § 17200 et seq.); and

(10) CIVIL PENALTIES UNDER THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL

ACT (LABOR CODKE § 2698 et seq.)

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE

JURISDICTION

1. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, hereby brings this FAC for recovery of unpaid wages, interest, and penalties under California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et. seq., Labor Code §§ 201-203, 218.5, 218.6., 221-223, 226 et seq., 226.7, 510,512,516, 1192, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2802, 2698 et seq., and Industrial Weltare Commission Wage Order 5 (“Wage Order 57), in addition to seeking declaratory relief and restitution. This FAC 1s brought pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 382. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendants’ violations of the California Labor Code because the amount in controversy exceeds this Court's jurisdictional minimum.

VENUE

2. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 395(a) and 395.5, as at least some of the acts and omissions complained of herein occurred in the County of Santa Clara. Defendants own, maintain offices, transact business, have agent(s) within the County of Santa Clara, and/or otherwise are found within the County of Santa Clara, and Defendants are within the jurisdiction of this Court for purposes of service of process.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff is an individual over the age of eighteen (18). At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff was and currently 1s, a California resident. During the four years immediately preceding the filing of the lawsuit in this action and within the statute of limitations periods applicable to each cause of action pled herein, Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee. Plaintiff was, and is, a victim of Defendants’ policies and/or practices complained of herein, lost money and/or property, and has been deprived of the rights guaranteed by Labor Code §§ 201-203, 221-223, 226 et seq., 226.7, 510, 512, 516, 558, 1192, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2698 et seq., and 2802; California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. (“Unfair Competition Law”); and Wage Order 5, which sets employment standards for the public housekeeping industry, which includes the industry in which Plaintiff worked for Defendants.

4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that during the four years preceding the filing of the lawsuit and continuing to the present, Defendants did (and continue to do) business by providing integrated solutions for sports, entertainment, and leisure industries. Defendants offer management consulting, advisory, and planning solutions that include financial market analysis, project development, and analytical intelligence; sales processes and infrastructure solutions, such as sales with precise execution, naming rights and sponsorships, stadium tour, special event sales, and training services; and hospitality solutions that include restaurant, catering, merchandising, facility design, and customer support services. Defendants serve professional sports owners and franchises, collegiate athletic departments, municipalities, and convention centers in the United States and internationally. Among the various locations in California at which Defendants provide services are the Live Nation venues at the Shoreline Amphitheatre in Mountain View, the Toyota Amphitheatre in Wheatland, the Glen Helen Amphitheatre in San Bernardino, the Mattress Firm Amphitheatre in Chula Vista and the FivePoint Amphitheatre in Irvine.

5. Defendants employed Plaintiff and other, similarly-situated non-exempt employees within, among other counties, Santa Clara County and the state of California and, therefore, were (and are) doing business in San Bernardino County and the State of California.

6. Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities, whether individual, partner, or corporate, of the defendants sued herein as DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, and for that reason, said defendants are sued under such fictitious names, and Plaintiff will seek leave from this Court to amend this Complaint when such true names and capacities are discovered. Plaintiff 1s informed, and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each of said fictitious defendants, whether individual, partners, or corporate, were responsible in some manner for the acts and omissions alleged herein, and proximately caused Plaintiff and the Classes (as defined in Paragraph 21) to be subject to the unlawful employment practices, wrongs, injuries and damages complained of herein.

7. Plaintiff is informed, and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times mentioned herein, Defendants were and are the employers of Plaintiff and all members of the Classes.

8. At all times herein mentioned, each of said Defendants participated in the doing of the acts hereinafter alleged to have been done by the named Defendants; and furthermore, the Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants, and employees of each and every one of the other Defendants, as well as the agents of all Defendants, and at all times herein mentioned were acting within the course and scope of said agency and employment. Defendants, and each of them, approved of, condoned, and/or otherwise ratified each and every one of the acts or omissions complained of herein.

9. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants, and each of them, were members of and engaged in a joint venture, partnership, and common enterprise, and acting within the course and scope of and in pursuance of said joint venture, partnership, and common enterprise. Further, Plaintiff alleges that all Defendants were joint employers for all purposes of Plaintiff and all members of the Classes.

GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

10. Defendants provide integrated solutions for sports, entertainment, and leisure industries. Defendants offer management consulting, advisory, and planning solutions that include financial market analysis, project development, and analytical intelligence; sales processes and infrastructure solutions, such as sales with precise execution, naming rights and sponsorships, stadium tour, special event sales, and training services; and hospitality solutions that include restaurant, catering, concession, merchandising, facility design, and customer support services. Defendants serve professional sports owners and franchises, collegiate athletic departments, municipalities, and convention centers in the United States and internationally. Among the various locations in California at which Defendants provide services are at various sports stadiums, and the Live Nation venues at the Shoreline Amphitheatre in Mountain View, the Toyota Amphitheatre in Wheatland, the Glen Helen Amphitheatre in San Bernardino, the Mattress Firm Amphitheatre in Chula Vista and the FivePoint Amphitheatre 1n Irvine.

11. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee from approximately May 2015 through November 2017. Plaintiff performed various job duties throughout her employment including, without limitation, duties as a bartender at the Live Nation venue at the Shoreline Amphitheatre in Mountain View, California, and Information Technology duties as well.

12. During her employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was not paid for all compensable work time during which she was under the direction and control of Defendants. Specifically, Plaintiff would be required to arrive at the venue at which she worked and after she arrived for work, would be required to go through a security check, wait to get her assignments for her shift and wait in lines before being able to clock in for her shift. These activities, which took anywhere from 10-15 minutes per shift, were all off-the-clock and unpaid despite them being required by Defendants. This practice by Defendants resulted in Defendants not properly tracking the time worked by Plaintiff, and also resulted in Defendants not paying Plaintiff for all wages owed for the work she performed, including failing to pay her all required minimum, agreed-upon and overtime wages.

13. Throughout Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was not provided all required meal periods due to Defendants’ meal period policies/practices, which fail to provide 30-minute first meal periods before the end of the fifth hour of work, and fail to provide second meal periods for shifts of over 10.0 hours. Specifically, in addition to performing I'T duties on occasion, Plaintiff worked at the Shoreline Amphitheatre for various entertainment events. She would arrive at approximately 4:30 p.m. and after being required to perform duties relating to preparing for the event for about an hour and a half, the gates would open to the public at approximately 6:00 p.m. after which Plaintiff was required to work until anywhere from 11:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. During these shifts, Defendants were under-staffed and Plaintiff was therefore not provided with the opportunity to take a compliant 30-minute meal period, and in fact did not even clock out for meal periods. Plaintiff’s time records even indicate the many instances when Plaintiff was not provided with and did not take a meal period. For example, on July 25, 2017, Plaintiff’s time records indicate she clocked in at 12:10 p.m. and clocked out at 10:07 p.m., for a total shift of 9 hours and 57 minutes. The entry then states, “Jul25No Break.”

14. In addition, Plaintiff was not provided the opportunity to take a second meal period for shifts that exceeded 10.0 hours. Specifically, because of her work duties and inability to take a break during the shows at which she worked, Plaintiff was unable to take a second meal period when the work period exceeded 10.0 hours per day.

15. On those occasions when Plaintiff was not provided with a legally compliant meal period and/or a second meal period when applicable, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff with the required meal period premium for each workday in which she experienced a meal period violation as mandated by Labor Code § 226.7. Upon information and belief, for at least a portion of the class period, Defendants maintained no pay code for paying meal period premiums to non- exempt employees who were not provided all meal periods required by law.

16. Throughout Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was not authorized and permitted to take compliant rest periods for every four hours worked, or major fraction thereof. As stated above, once Plaintiff arrived at work to perform her duties during a particular entertainment event, she was not permitted or authorized to take a rest period due to the demands of the job, the requirement she remain at her post and the fact that Defendants were severely under-staffed. Furthermore, as a result of Defendants’ unlawful rest period policies/practices, when Plaintiff worked a shift in excess of 6.0 hours, she was not authorized and permitted to take a 2" rest break, and when she worked a shift in excess of 10.0 hours, she was not authorized and permitted to take a 3™ rest break as required by California law. On those occasions when Plaintiff was not authorized and permitted to take all legally-compliant rest periods to which she was entitled, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff with the required rest period premium for each workday in which she experienced a rest period violation as mandated by Labor Code § 226.7. Upon information and belief, for at least a portion of the class period, Defendants maintained no pay code for paying rest period premiums to non-exempt employees who were not provided all paid rest periods required by law.

17. Plaintiff 1s informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at the time Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants was terminated on or around November 13, 2017, Defendants owed Plaintiff unpaid minimum, agreed-upon and overtime wages, and meal and rest period premiums, yet failed at the time of her separation and through the present to pay Plaintiff for all wages to which she was legally entitled, in violation of Labor Code § 203.

18. As a result of Defendants’ failure to pay all overtime, agreed-upon and/or minimum wages owed, and failure to pay all meal and rest period premium wages, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with accurate, itemized wage statements.

19. Defendants also failed to provide Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees with accurate, itemized wage statements for the independent reason that the wage statements failed to include all applicable hourly rates, including specifically the rate of pay for overtime hours. Instead, the wage statements simply had one “Pay Rate” listed, but when overtime or double time was paid, no rate was identified or listed. This directly violates Labor Code section 226(a) which requires that all applicable hourly rates be included on a wage statement.

20. Throughout Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants, Defendants failed to reimburse Plaintiff for expenses she incurred in direct consequence of the discharge of her duties including, without limitation, expenses incurredpersonal cellular phone. Specifically, during Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants, it was necessary for Plaintiff to use her personal cell phone to make and receive work-related calls and to send and receive work- related texts, including without limitation calls and/or texts related to bids for work. Indeed, Plaintiff would often receive texts to her personal cellular phone from her supervisors related to work scheduling issues. Despite the necessity of using her personal cell phone for work activities and incurring expenses in the discharge of her duties, Plaintiff was never reimbursed for a reasonable portion of her cellular phone expenses by Defendants, as mandated by Labor Code section 2802 and Cochran v. Schwan’s Home Service, Inc. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1137.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

21. Class Definitions: Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and the following Classes pursuant to § 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure:

a. The Overtime Class consists of all of Defendants’ current and former non-exempt

employees in California who worked in excess of 8 hours in a work day and/or in

excess of 40 hours in a work week, and were subject to Defendants’ timekeeping S

£

-

L

=

0a

=

policies/practices, during the four years preceding the filing of the lawsuit through the present.

The Minimum Wage Class consists of all of Defendants’ current and former non- exempt employees in California who were subject to Defendants’ timekeeping policies/practices, during the four years preceding the filing of the lawsuit through the present.

The Agreed-Upon Rate Class consists of all of Defendants’ current and former non-exempt employees in California who were subject to Defendants’ timekeeping policies/practices, during the four years preceding the filing of the lawsuit through the present.

The Meal Period Class consists of all of Defendants’ current and former non- exempt employees in California who: (i) worked at least one shift in excess of 5.0 and/or (11) who worked at least one shift of over 10.0 hours, during the four years immediately preceding the filing of the lawsuit through the present.

The Rest Period Class consists of all of Defendants’ current and former non- exempt employees in California who: (1) worked at least one shift of 3.5 hours or more; and/or (i1) worked at least one shift in excess of 10.0 hours, during the four years immediately preceding the filing of the lawsuit through the present.

The Waiting Time Penalty Class consists of all members of the: (1) Overtime Class; (11) Minimum Wage Class; (111) Agreed-Upon Rate Class; (1v) Meal Period Class, and/or (v) Rest Period Class who separated their employment with Defendants during the three years immediately preceding the filing of the lawsuit through the present.

The Wage Statement Class consists of members of the: (i) Overtime Class; (ii) Minimum Wage Class; (i11) Agreed-Upon Rate Class (iv) Meal Period Class; and/or (v) Rest Period Class.

The Employee Expense Class consists of all of Defendants’ current and former non-exempt employees in California who used their personal cell phones in connection with the discharge of their work duties, during the four years immediately preceding the filing of the lawsuit through the present.

1. The UCL Class consists of members of the: (1) Overtime Class; (1) Minimum

Wage Class; (i11) Agreed-Upon Rate Class; (iv) Meal Period Class; (v) Rest Period Class; and/or (vi) Employee Expense Class during the four years immediately preceding the filing of the lawsuit through the present 22. Plaintiff reserves the right under Rule 3.765(b) of the California Rules of Court, to amend or modify the description of the various classes with greater specificity or further division into subclasses or limitation to particular issues. 23. Numerosity/Ascertainability: The members of the Classes are so numerous that joinder of all members would be unfeasible and not practicable. The membership of the Classes 1s unknown to Plaintiff at this time; however, it 1s estimated that the members of the Classes number greater than one hundred (100) individuals. The identity of such membership is readily ascertainable via inspection of Defendants’ employment records. 24, Common Questions of Law and Fact Predominate/Well Defined Community of Interest: There are common questions of law and fact as to Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees, which predominate over questions affecting only individual members. Those common questions include, without limitation: 1. Whether Defendants properly paid all minimum wages, agreed-upon wages and/or overtime wages at the regular rate to members of the Minimum Wage Class, Agreed-Upon Wage Class and Overtime Class pursuant to Labor Code §§ 204, 221,222,510, 558, 1192, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1 and 1198;

11. Whether Defendants provided all legally compliant meal periods to members of the Meal Period Class pursuant to Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512;

11i. Whether Defendants authorized and permitted all legally compliant rest periods to members of the Rest Period Class pursuant to Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 516;

1v. Whether Defendants paid all wages owed to its terminated/separated employees at the time of said termination/separation pursuant to Labor Code §§ 201-203; V. Whether Defendants provided accurate, itemized wage statements to members of

the Classes;

Vi. Whether Defendants properly reimbursed employees for business expenses

necessarily incurred in the discharge of their duties; and

vii. Whether Defendants engaged in unlawful, unfair, illegal, and/or deceptive

business practices by and through the wage and hour policies and practices described above, and whether as a result Defendants owe the classes restitution.

25. Predominance of Common Questions: Common questions of law and fact predominate over questions that affect only individual members of the Classes. The common questions of law set forth above are numerous and substantial and stem from Defendants’ policies and/or practices applicable to each individual class member, such as Defendants’ uniform minimum wage, agreed-upon wage, overtime wage payment, meal and rest period policies/practices, and expense reimbursement practices. As such, the common questions predominate over individual questions concerning each individual class member’s showing as to their eligibility for recovery or as to the amount of their damages.

26. Typicality: The claims of Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Classes because Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee in California during the statute(s) of limitations period applicable to each cause of action pled in the FAC. As alleged herein, Plaintiff, like the members of the Classes, was not provided all legally required minimum wages, agreed-upon wages, and overtime wages, was not provided with all required meal periods, was not authorized and permitted to take all required rest periods, did not receive meal and rest period premium wages when she was not provided compliant meal periods or not authorized or permitted to take compliant rest periods, was not reimbursed for all necessary expenditures incurred in the discharge of her duties, was not provided with all wages due upon termination, and was not provided with accurate, itemized wage statements.

27. Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiff is fully prepared to take all necessary steps to represent fairly and adequately the interests of the members of the Classes. Moreover, Plaintiff’s attorneys are ready, willing and able to fully and adequately represent the members of the Classes and Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s attorneys have prosecuted and defended numerous wage- and-hour class actions in state and federal courts in the past and are committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the members of the Classes.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PAY ALL OVERTIME WAGES (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

29. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs.

30. This cause of action is brought pursuant to Labor Code §§ 204, 510, 558, 1194 and 1198 which provide that all non-exempt employees are entitled to all overtime wages for all overtime worked (hours in excessand/or 40 in one week), and provide a private right of action for the failure to pay all overtime compensation for overtime work performed.

31. At all times relevant herein, Defendants were required to properly compensate Plaintiff and the members of the Overtime Class for all overtime hours worked pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1194, and Wage Order 5. Labor Code § 510 and Wage Order 5, Section 3 require an employer to pay an employee “one and one-half (1'2) times the regular rate of pay” for work in excess of 8 hours per workday and/or in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Labor Code § 510 and Wage Order 5, Section 3 also require an employer to pay an employee double the employee’s regular rate for work in excess of 12 hours each workday and/or in excess of 8 hours on the seventh consecutive day of work in the workweek. Defendants caused Plaintiff and the members of the Overtime Class to work in excess of 8 hours in a workday and/or 40 hours in a workweek but did not properly compensate Plaintiff and the members of the Overtime Class at one and one-half their regular rate of pay for all such hours. Defendants also caused Plaintiff and the members of the Overtime Class to work, at least on occasion, in excess of 12 hours in a workday but did not properly compensate Plaintiff and the members of the Overtime Class at double their regular rate of pay for all such hours.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PAY ALL MINIMUM WAGES OWED (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

33. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs.

34, This cause of action i1s brought pursuant to Labor Code §§ 204, 558, 1194 and 1198 which provide that all non-exempt employees are entitled to all minimum wages for all hours worked, and provide a private right of action for the failure to pay all minimum wage compensation for all work performed.

33. At all times relevant herein, Defendants were required to properly compensate Plaintiff and the members of the Minimum Wage Class for all hours worked pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 1194, 1197 and 1198, and Wage Order 5. Wage Order 5, Section 4 requires an employer to pay to every employee on the established payday for the period involved not less than the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in the payroll period. Defendants caused Plaintiff and the members of the Minimum Wage Class to work hours in a workweek but did not properly compensate Plaintiff and the members of the Minimum Wage Class at least minimum wages for all such hours.

36. At all times relevant herein, Defendants lacked good faith and had no reasonable grounds for believing that their practices in failing to pay all minimum wages owed at the applicable rate was not a violation of any provision of the Labor Code relating to minimum wage, or an order of the Industrial Welfare Commission. Defendants therefore, in addition to owing minimum wages to Plaintiff and the members of the Minimum Wage Class, also owe liquidated damages in an amount equal to the wages unlawfully unpaid, and interest thereon, pursuant to Labor Code § 1194.2.

37. The foregoing practices and policies are unlawful and create entitlement to recovery by Plaintiff and the members of the Minimum Wage Class in a civil action for the unpaid amount of minimum wages owing, including interest thereon, as well as statutory penalties, liquidated damages, civil penalties, and attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, pursuant to Labor Code §§ 204, 218.5, 218.6, 558, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1 and 1198, Wage Order 5, California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, and Civil Code §§

3287(b) and 3289.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PAY ALL AGREED-UPON WAGES (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTYS)

38. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs.

39. This cause of action 1s brought pursuant to Labor Code §§ 204 and 221-223 which provide that all non-exempt employees are entitled to be paid all wages owed at the rate agreed upon with their employer, and provide a private right of action for the failure to pay all wages owed at the agreed-upon rate for all work performed.

40. At all times relevant herein, Defendants were required to properly compensate Plaintiff and the members of the Agreed-Upon Rate Class for all hours worked at the rate agreed to with Defendants, pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 221-223. At all relevant times herein, Defendants required Plaintiff and the members of the Agreed-Upon Rate Class to remain under Defendants’ control and perform work without paying them therefor, which resulted in Plaintiff and the members of the Agreed-Upon Rate Class to earn less than the agreed rate for their work. This pattern and practice by Defendants of failing to pay the agreed-upon rate for all work performed violates the Labor Code and constitutes unjust enrichment.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIODS (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTYS)

42. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs.

43. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants failed in their affirmative obligation to provide all of their non-exempt employees in California, including Plaintiff and members of the Meal Period Class, with all legally compliant meal periods in accordance with the mandates of the California Labor Code and Wage Order 5, § 11. Despite Defendants’ violations, Defendants did not pay an additional hour of pay to Plaintiff and members of the Meal Period Class at their respective regular rates of compensation, in accordance with California Labor Code §§ 226.7, and 512.

44. Asaresult, Defendants are responsible for paying premium compensation for meal period violations including interest thereon, as well as statutory penalties, civil penalties, and costs of suit, pursuant to Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512, and 558, Wage Order 5, California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and Civil Code §8§ 3287(b) and 3289.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO AUTHORIZE AND PERMIT ALL REST PERIODS (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTYS)

45. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs.

46. Wage Order 5, § 12 and California Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 516 establish the right of employees to be authorized and permitted to take a paid rest period of at least ten (10) minutes net rest time for each four (4) hour period worked, or major fraction thereof.

47. As alleged herein, Defendants failed to authorize and permit Plaintiff and members of the Rest Period Class to take all required rest periods.

48. The foregoing violations create an entitlement to recovery by Plaintiff and members of the Rest Period Class in a civil action for the unpaid amount of rest period premiums owing, including interest thereon, as well as statutory penalties, civil penalties, and costs of suit

according to California Labor Code §§ 226.7, 516, 558, Wage Order 5, California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, and Civil Code §§ 3287(b) and 3289.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PAY ALL WAGES OWED UPON TERMINATION (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

49. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs.

50. This cause of action is brought pursuant to Labor Code §§ 201-203 which require an employer to pay all wages immediately at the time of termination of employment in the event the employer discharges the employee or the employee provides at least 72 hours of notice of his/her intent to quit. In the event the employee provides less than 72 hours of notice of his/her intent to quit, said employee’s wages become due and payable not later than 72 hours upon said employee’s last date of employment.

51. Defendants failed to timely pay Plaintiff all of her final wages at the time of termination, which include, among other things, underpaid minimum and overtime wages and meal and rest period premium wages. Further, Plaintiff 1s informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that as a matter of uniform policy and practice, Defendants continue to fail to pay members of the Waiting Time Penalty Class all earned wages at the end of employment in a timely manner pursuant to the requirements of Labor Code §§ 201-203. Defendants’ failure to pay all final wages was willful within the meaning of Labor Code § 203.

52. Defendants’ willful failure to timely pay Plaintiff and the members of the Waiting Time Penalty Class their earned wages upon separation from employment results in a continued payment of wages up to thirty (30) days from the time the wages were due. Therefore, Plaintiff and members of the Waiting Time Penalty Class are entitled to compensation pursuant to Labor Code § 203, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE, ITEMIZED WAGE STATEMENTS

(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

35. Defendants’ failure to furnish Plaintiff and the members of the Wage Statement Class with complete and accurate, itemized wage statements resulted in actual injury, as said failures led to, among other things, the non-payment of all of minimum, regular and overtime wages earned and non-payment of their meal and rest period premiums, and deprived them of the information necessary to identify discrepancies in Defendants’ reported data.

56. Defendants’ failures created an entitlement to Plaintiff and members of the Wage Statement Class in a civil action for damages and/or penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 226, including statutory penalties civil penalties, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs according to suit pursuant to Labor Code § 226 et seq.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO REIMBURSE BUSINESS EXPENSES (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

57. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs.

58. It was necessary for Plaintiff and members of the Employee Expense Class to use their personal cellular phones to perform their job duties. Although Plaintiff and members of the Employee Expense Class incurred these expenses in the direct discharge of their job duties, Defendants did not reimburse these employees for such necessary work expenditures during the four years preceding the filing of the Complaint.

59. At all relevant times herein, Defendants were subject to Labor Code § 2802, which states that “an employer shall indemnify his or her employees 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.”

60. At all relevant times herein, Defendants were subject to Labor Code § 2804, which states that “any contract or agreement, express or implied, made by any employee to waive the benefits of this article or any part thereof, 1s null and void, and this article shall not deprive any employee or his personal representative of any right or remedy to which he 1s entitled under the laws of this State.

61. Asaproximate result of Defendants’ policies and/or practices in violation of Labor Code §§ 2802, and Wage Order 5, § 9, Plaintiff and members of the Employee Expense Class were damaged in sums, which will be shown according to proof.

62. Plaintiff and members of the Employee Expense Class are entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs of suit pursuant to Labor Code § 2802(c) for bringing this action.

63. Pursuant to Labor Code § 2802(b), any action brought for the reimbursement of necessary expenditures carries interest at the same rate as judgments in civil actions. Thus, Plaintiff and members of the Employee Expense Class are entitled to interest, which shall accrue from the date on which they incurred the initial necessary expenditure.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION UNFAIR COMPETITION (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTYS)

64. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs.

65. Defendants have engaged and continue to engage in unfair and/or unlawful business practices in California in violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq., by failing to pay all overtime, agreed-upon and/or minimum wages owed, failing to provide all required meal periods and failing to authorize and permit all required rest periods, failing to pay meal and rest period premium wage payments, and failing to reimburse for all necessary business expenses.

66. Defendants’ utilization of these unfair and/or unlawful business practices deprived Plaintiff and continues to deprive members of the Classes of compensation to which they are legally entitled, constitutes unfair and/or unlawful competition, and provides an unfair advantage over Defendants’ competitors who have been and/or are currently employing workers and

attempting to do so in honest compliance with applicable wage and hour laws. 67. Because Plaintiff is a victim of Defendants’ unfair and/or unlawful conduct alleged herein, Plaintiff for herself and on behalf of the members of the Classes, seeks full restitution of monies, as necessary and according to proof, to restore any and all monies withheld, acquired and/or converted by Defendants pursuant to Business and Professions Code §§ 17203 and 17208.

68. The acts complained of herein occurred within the last four years immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint in this action.

69. Plaintiff was compelled to retain the services of counsel to file this court action to protect her interests and those of the Classes, to obtain restitution and injunctive relief on behalf of Defendants’ current non-exempt employees, and to enforce important rights affecting the public interest. Plaintiff has thereby incurred the financial burden of attorneys’ fees and costs, which she is entitled to recover under Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004 (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

70. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs.

71. Defendants have committed several Labor Code violations against Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees. Plaintiff, an “aggrieved employee” within the meaning of Labor Code § 2698 er seq., acting on behalf of herself and other aggrieved employees, brings this representative action against Defendants to recover the civil penalties due to Plaintiff, other aggrieved employees, and the State of California according to proof pursuant to Labor Code § 2699 (a) and (f) including, but not limited to: (1) $100.00 for each initial violation for each failure to pay each employee and $200.00 for each subsequent violation or willful or intentional violation pursuant to Labor Code § 210 for each failure to pay each employee, plus 25% of the amount unlawfully withheld; (2) $50.00 for each initial violation and $100 for each subsequent violation pursuant to Labor Code § 558 per employee per pay period, plus an amount sufficient to recover the unpaid wages owed to each aggrieved employee; (3) $100.00 for each initial violation and $250.00 for each subsequent violation pursuant to Labor Code § 1197.1 per employee per pay period; (4) $250.00 for each initial violation and $1,000.00 for each subsequent violation pursuant

to Labor Code § 226.3 per employee per pay period; and/or (5) $100.00 for each initial violation and $200 for each subsequent violation per employee per pay period for those violations of the

Labor Code for which no civil penalty is specifically provided, based on the following Labor

Code violations :

a.

Failing to compensate Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees all overtime wages earned in violation of Labor Code §§ 204, 510, 558, 1194, and 1198; Failing to compensate Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees all minimum wages earned in violation of Labor Code §§ 1182.12, 1194, 1194.2 and 1197; Failing to provide Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees their statutorily mandated meal periods and failing to pay meal period premiums in violation of Labor Code §8§ 226.7, 512, and 558;

Failing to authorize and permit Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees their statutorily mandated rest periods and failing to pay rest period premiums in violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7, 516, and 558;

Failing to furnish Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees with complete, accurate, itemized wage statements in violation of Labor Code § 226; Failing to pay Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees all wages earned at least twice each calendar month in violation of Labor Code § 204;

Failing to timely pay Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees all final wages due in violation of Labor Code §§ 201, 202 and 203;

Failing to maintain accurate records on behalf of Plaintiff and aggrieved employees in violation of Labor Code § 1174; and

Failing to reimburse Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees for all necessary business expenditures incurred in the discharge of their duties in

violation of Labor Code § 2802.

72. On or about June 26, 2018, Plaintiff notified Legends Hospitality, LLC, and the

California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) via e-mail of Defendants’

violations of the California Labor Code and Plaintiff’s intent to bring a claim for civil penalties

under California Labor Code § 2698 et seq. with respect to violations of the California Labor

Code identified in Paragraph 71(a) — (1). Now that at least sixty-five days have passed from Plaintiff notifying Defendants of these violations and the LWDA having taken no action, Plaintiff has exhausted her administrative requirements for bringing a claim under the Private Attorneys General Act with respect to these violations.

73. Plaintiff was compelled to retain the services of counsel to file this court action to protect her interests and the interests of other aggrieved employees, and to assess and collect the civil penalties owed by Defendants. Plaintiff has thereby incurred attorneys’ fees and costs, which she is entitled to receive under California Labor Code § 2699.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment for herself and for all others on whose behalf

this suit 1s brought against Defendants, as follows:

1. For an order certifying the proposed Classes;

2. For an order appointing Plaintiff as representative of the Classes;

3. For an order appointing Counsel for Plaintiff as Counsel for the Classes;

4, Upon the First Cause of Action, for compensatory, consequential, general and

special damages according to proof pursuant to Labor Code §§ 204, 510, 558, 1194 and 1198.

3. Upon the Second Cause of Action, for compensatory, consequential, general and special damages according to proof pursuant to Labor Code §§ 204, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1 and 1198;

6. Upon the Third Cause of Action, for compensatory, consequential, general and special damages according to proof pursuant to Labor Code §§ 204, and 221-223;

7. Upon the Fourth Cause of Action, for compensatory, consequential, general and special damages according to proof pursuant to Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512, and 558;

8. Upon the Fifth Cause of Action, for compensatory, consequential, general and special damages according to proof pursuant to Labor Code §§ 226.7, 516, and 558;

9. Upon the Sixth Cause of Action, for waiting time penalties pursuant to Labor § 203;

10. Upon the Seventh Cause of Action, for penalties pursuant to Labor § 226;

11. Upon the Eighth Cause of Action, for compensatory, consequential, general and special damages according to proof pursuant to Labor Code §§ 2802;

12. Upon the Ninth Cause of Action, for restitution to Plaintiff and members of the Classes of all money and/or property unlawfully acquired by Defendants by means of any acts or practices declared by this Court to be in violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.;

13. Upon the Tenth Cause of Action, for civil penalties due to Plaintiff, other aggrieved employees, and the State of California according to proof pursuant to Labor Code § 2699(a) including, but not limited to: (1) $100.00 for each initial violation for each failure to pay each employee and $200.00 for each subsequent violation or willful or intentional violation pursuant to Labor Code § 210 for each failure to pay each employee, plus 25% of the amount unlawfully withheld; (2) $50.00 for each initial violation and $100 for each subsequent violation pursuant to Labor Code § 558 per employee per pay period, plus an amount sufficient to recover the unpaid wages owed to each aggrieved employee; (3) $100.00 for each initial violation and $250.00 for each subsequent violation pursuant to Labor Code § 1197.1 per employee per pay period; (4) $250.00 for each initial violation and $1,000.00 for each subsequent violation pursuant to Labor Code § 226.3 per employee per pay period; and/or (5) $100.00 for each initial violation and $200 for each subsequent violation per employee per pay period for those violations of the Labor Code for which no civil penalty is specifically provided, with respect to violations of the California Labor Code identified in Paragraph 71(a) — (i);

14, Prejudgment interest on all due and unpaid wages pursuant to California Labor Code § 218.6 and Civil Code §§ 3287 and 3289;

15. On all causes of action, for attorneys’ fees and costs as provided by Labor Code § 218.5 and Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and all other applicable statutes; and

//

//

// 16. For such other and further relief the Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: September 17, 2018

By:

Respectfully submitted,

LIDMAN LAW, /%L/J

Scott M. Lidman Elizabeth Nguyen

Milan Moore

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SHERRI HIGHTOWER DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial with respect to all 1ssues triable by jury.

Dated: September 17, 2018

By:

Respectfully submitted, LIDMAN LAW, APC

Scott M. Lidman Elizabeth Nguyen

Milan Moore

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SHERRI HIGHTOWER