This case was last updated from Santa Clara County Superior Courts on 08/14/2019 at 07:56:00 (UTC).

Stevenson, Sr. v. SJBH LLC

Case Summary

On 09/24/2018 Stevenson, Sr filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against SJBH 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:

    ******5053

  • Filing Date:

    09/24/2018

  • 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

Stevenson, Robert John, Sr.

Defendant

SJBH LLC

Not Classified By Court

Superior Court of California

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Marder, William Lucas

Hyun, Dennis Sangwon

Defendant Attorneys

Spring, Mark Steven

Ghali, Teresa Wang

Desbaillets, Candace

Not Classified By Court Attorney

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

 

Court Documents

Application: Pro Hac Vice

Application Pro Hac Vice Heath Edwards: Comment: HEATH EDWARDS * Denied; Order issued 1/7/19.

Civil Lawsuit Notice

Civil Lawsuit Notice: Comment: 1st CMC set for 1/11/19 at 10am in D1; assigned to Hon. Brian C. Walsh

Civil Lawsuit Notice

Civil Lawsuit Notice: Comment: 1st CMC set for 1/11/19 at 10am in D1; assigned to Hon. Brian C. Walsh

Notice

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

Acknowledgement/Receipt

Acknowledgement Receipt: Comment: Notice and Acknowledgment

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

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies):

Civil Case Cover Sheet

Civil Case Cover Sheet: Comment: COMPLEX

Summons: Issued/Filed

Summons Issued Filed: Comment: Summons

Declaration

Teresa W. Ghali Declaration: Comment: Declaration of T. Ghali ISO Defendant's Application to Appear PHV

Declaration

Andy Naylor Declaration: Comment: Declaration of A. Naylor ISO Defendant's Application to Appear PHV

Application: Pro Hac Vice

Application Pro Hac Vice Andy Naylor: Comment: Defendant's Application for N. Naylor to Appear PHV

Notice

Notice PHV Application Andy Naylor: Comment: Defendant's Notice of Application for A. Naylor to Appear PHV

Order

Order Denying Pro Hac Vice Application by Heath Edwards: Comment: Order Denying Pro Hac Vice Application by Heath Edwards - signed/BCW

Proof of Service: Mail

Proof of Service Mail: Comment: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Declaration

Teresa W. Ghali Declaration: Comment: DECLARATION OF TERESA W. GHALI IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION OF HEATH EDWARDS TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE

Declaration

Heath Edwards Declaration: Comment: DECLARATION OF HEATH EDWARDS IN SUPPORT OF HIS APPLICATION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE

Notice

Notice of PHV Application Heath Edwards:

12 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/13/2019
  • Conference: Case Management - Judicial Officer: Walsh, Brian C; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Comment: (2nd CMC) Proposed Wage and Hour Class Action * Discovery and responsive pleading deadline stayed, as of 10/19/18, when the case was deemed complex. Mediation set for 8/5/19 with Todd Smith.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice CMC reset from 5-17-19 to 9-13-19: Comment: CMC reset from 5/17/19 to 9/13/19

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice CMC 5-17-19 at 10am in D1: Comment: CMC set for 5/17/19 at 10am in D1

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Conference: Case Management - Joint CMC Statement: Judicial Officer: Walsh, Brian C; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Result: Held; Comment: (1st CMC) Proposed Wage and Hour Class Action * Discovery and responsive pleading deadline stayed, as of 10/19/18, when the case was deemed complex.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2019
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/16/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Order - Order Denying Pro Hac Vice Application by Andy Naylor: Comment: Order Denying Pro Hac Vice Application by Andy Naylor - signed/BCW

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service: Mail - Proof of Service: Comment: Proof of Service: Mail

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Statement: Case Management Conference - Joint CMC Statement: Comment: Joint Case Management Conference Statement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service: Mail - Proof of Service Mail: Comment: Proof of Service: Mail

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Declaration - Teresa W. Ghali Declaration: Comment: Declaration of T. Ghali ISO Defendant's Application to Appear PHV

    Read MoreRead Less
7 More Docket Entries
  • 01/04/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice of PHV Application Heath Edwards:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Application: Pro Hac Vice - Application Pro Hac Vice Heath Edwards: Comment: HEATH EDWARDS * Denied; Order issued 1/7/19.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice CMC reset from 1-11-19 to 1-18-19: Comment: CMC reset from 1/11/19 to 1/18/19

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Acknowledgement/Receipt - Acknowledgement Receipt: Comment: Notice and Acknowledgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2018
  • 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
  • 09/25/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil Lawsuit Notice - Civil Lawsuit Notice: Comment: 1st CMC set for 1/11/19 at 10am in D1; assigned to Hon. Brian C. Walsh

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil Lawsuit Notice - Civil Lawsuit Notice: Comment: 1st CMC set for 1/11/19 at 10am in D1; assigned to Hon. Brian C. Walsh

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies):

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet: Comment: COMPLEX

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Summons: Issued/Filed - Summons Issued Filed: Comment: Summons

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

William L. Marder, Cal Bar No. 170131 POLARIS LAW GROUP, LLP

| 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, California 95023

| Telephone: 831.531.4214

Facsimile: 831.634.0333

Dennis S. Hyun (State Bar No. 224240) HYUN LEGAL, APC

515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250

Los Angeles, CA 90071 |

(213) 488-6555

(213) 488-6554 facsimile

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class

E-FILED

9/24/2018 10:49 AM Clerk of Court

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

18CV335053

Reviewed By: R. Walker

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

ROBERT JOHN STEVENSON SR., as an

individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, V. SIBH LLC, a Delaware limited liability

company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

Defendants.

caseno. 18CV335053

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR:

(1) VIOLATION OF CAL. LABOR CODE § 226(a);

(2) VIOLATION OF CAL. LABOR CODE §§ 510, 558, AND 1194;

(3) VIOLATION OF CAL. LABOR CODE § 2698, ET SEQ.; AND

(4) VIOLATION OF CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200, ET SEQ.

DEMAND EXCEEDS $25,000.00

Plaintiff Robert John Stevenson, Sr. (“Plaintiff”’) hereby submits this Class Action

Complaint (“Complaint”) against Defendant SIBH, LLC (the “Company” or “Defendant™), a

Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1-50 (hereinafter collectively referred to as

“Defendants”), individually and on behalf of a Class of all other similarly situated current and

former employees of Defendants for penalties and/or damages for violations of the California wage statements and pay all overtime wages owed as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This class action is within the Court’s jurisdiction under California Labor Code §§ 201-203, 226, 510, 558, 1194, and 2698, et seq. and the California Industrial Welfare Commission’s (“IWC”) Wage Orders.

2. This Complaint challenges systemic illegal employment practices resulting in violations of the California Labor Code against employees of Defendants.

3. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants jointly and severally have acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights of all employees by failing to keep accurate records and failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements identifying all required information, including without limitation, the correct overtime rate, and paying overtime at the correct rate of pay.

4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants have engaged in, among other things a system of willful violations of the California Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Orders by creating and maintaining policies, practices and customs that knowingly deny employees the above stated rights and benefits.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. The Court has jurisdiction over the violations of the California Labor Code §§ 201-203, 226, 510, 558, 1194, and 2698, ef seq. As alleged below, Plaintiffjurisdictional requirements to proceed under the Private Attorney General’s Act (the “PAGA”), Labor Code § 2698, ef seq.

6. Venue is proper in Santa Clara County because Defendants are headquartered in this County.

PARTIES

7. On or about February 20, 2017, Plaintiff began working for Defendants as a non- exempt employee. Plaintiff’s last day worked was June 25, 2018.

8. Defendant is a limited liability company operating healthcare facilities in

California. 9. Plaintiff was and is a victim of the policies, practices, and customs of Defendants complained of in this action in ways that have deprived Plaintiff of the rights guaranteed by California Labor Code §§ 201-203, 226, 510, 558, 1194, and 2698, et seq. and the applicable IWC Wage Orders.

10. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all times herein mentioned Defendants and DOES 1 through 50 are and were business entities, individuals, and partnerships, licensed to do business and actually doing business in the State of California.

11. As such, and based upon all the facts and circumstances incident to Defendants’ business in California, Defendants are subject to California Labor Code §§ 226, 510, 558, 1194, and 2698, ef seq. and the IWC Wage Orders.

12. Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities, whether individual, partner or corporate, of the Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and for that reason, said Defendants are sued under such fictitious names, and Plaintiff prays for leave to amend this complaint when the true names and capacities are known. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each of said fictitious Defendants was responsible in some way for the matters alleged herein and proximately caused Plaintiff and members of the general public and class to be subject to the illegal employment practices, wrongs and injuries complained of herein.

13. 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 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.

14. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all times material hereto, each of the Defendants named herein was the agent, employee, alter ego and/or joint venturer of, or working in concert with each of the other co- Defendants and was acting within the course and scope of such agency, employment, joint venture, or concerted activity. To the extent said acts, conduct, and omissions were perpetrated by certain Defendants, each of the remaining Defendants confirmed and ratified said acts, conduct, and omissions of the acting Defendants. 15. At all times herein mentioned, 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.

16. At all times herein mentioned, the acts and omissions of various Defendants, and each of them, concurred and contributed to the various acts and omissions of each and all of the other Defendants in proximately causing the injuries and damages as herein alleged. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, ratified each and every act or omission complained of herein. At all times herein mentioned, the Defendants, and each of them, aided and abetted the acts and omissions of each and all of the other Defendants in proximately causing the damages as herein alleged.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

17. Definition: The named individual Plaintiff seeks class certification, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 382, of the following class:

a. All current and former California non-exempt employees who worked over 8 hours in a workday and/or 40 hours in a workweek and earned additional non-discretionary pay covering the same time period at any time from September 24, 2014, through the present (the “Overtime Class™)

b. All current and former California employees who received a wage statement containing payment of overtime from Defendant at any time during the period of time from September 24, 2017, through the present (“Wage Statement Class™).

18. Numerosity and Ascertainability: The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members would be impractical, if not impossible. The identity of the members of the Class is readily ascertainable by review of the Company’s records, including payroll records. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the Company failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements to employees in violation of Labor Code § 226 and failed to pay overtime wages for all overtime hours worked in violation of Labor Code §§ 510,

558, and 1194.

19. Adequacy of Representation: The named Plaintiff is fully prepared to take all necessary steps to represent fairly and adequately the interests of the class defined above.

Plaintiff’s attorneys are ready, Willing and able to fully and adequately represent the class and the named Plaintiffs. Plaintiff’s attorneys have prosecuted and settled wage-and-hour class actions in the past and currently have a number of wage-and-hour class actions pending in California courts.

20. The Company uniformly administered a corporate policy, practice of failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements to employees in violation of Labor Code § 226 and failing to pay overtime wages for all overtime hours worked in violation of Labor Code §§ 510, 558, and 1194.

21. Common Question of Law and Fact: There are predominant common questions of law and fact and a community of interest amongst Plaintiffs and the claims of the Class concerning the Company’s failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements to employees in violation of Labor Code § 226 and failure to pay overtime wages for all overtime hours worked in violation of Labor Code §§ 510, 558, and 1194.

22. Typicality: The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of the claims of all members of the Class in that Plaintiff has suffered the harm alleged in this Complaint in a similar and typical manner as the Class members. Plaintiff and Class Members not provided proper and accurate payroll records identifying all information required by Labor Code § 226(a). Specifically, Defendants’ pay statements identify inaccurate rates for overtime wages in violation of Labor Code § 226(a)(9). For example, for the pay statement with the pay date of July 13, 2018, two separate overtime rates are identified: one for $10.49 and another for $21. Neither of these rates is accurate. Because the straight time rate is $21 per hour, pursuant to Labor Code § 510, the correct overtime rate is $31.50. Nowhere on the pay statement is $31.50 identified. Plaintiff and Class Members also earned non-discretionary incentive pay, but said pay was not factored into the regular rate of pay for purposes of paying overtime during pay periods covered by the incentive pay. Accordingly, Defendants owe additional overtime pay. Further, because of the overtime regular rate violations, the overtime rate listed on wage statements is inaccurate in violation of Labor Code § 226(a)(9). Thus, Plaintiff is a member of the Class and has suffered the alleged violations of California Labor Code §§ 226, 510, 558, and 1194, et seq., and the applicable IWC Wage Orders. 23. The California Labor Code and upon which Plaintiff bases these claims is broadly remedial in nature. These laws and labor standards serve an important public interest in establishing minimum working conditions and standards in California. These laws and labor standards protect the average working employee from exploitation by employers who may seek to take advantage of superior economic and bargaining power in setting onerous terms and conditions of employment.

24. The nature of this action and the format of laws available to Plaintiff and members of the Class identified herein make the class action format a particularly efficient and appropriate procedure to redress the wrongs alleged herein. If each employee were required to file an individual lawsuit, the corporate Defendant would necessarily gain an unconscionable advantage since it would be able to exploit and overwhelm the limited resources of the individual Plaintiff with Defendants’ vastly superior financial and legal resources. Requiring each Class member to pursue an individual remedy would also discourage the assertion of lawful claims by employees who would be disinclined to file an action against their former and/or current employer for real and justifiable fear of retaliation and permanent damage to their careers at subsequent employment. |

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

26. Such a pattern, practice and uniform administration of corporate policy regarding illegal employee compensation described herein is unlawful and creates an entitlement to recovery by Plaintiffs and the Class identified herein, in a civil action any and all applicable

penalties and/or damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit according to the mandate of California Labor Code §§ 226, 558, 1194 and 2698, et seq., the applicable IWC Wage Orders, and Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5.

27. Proof of a common business practice or factual pattern, which the named Plaintiffs experienced and are representative of, will establish the right of each of the members of the Class to recovery on the causes of action alleged herein.

28. The Class is commonly entitled to a specific fund with respect to the compensation illegally and unfairly retained by the Company. The Class is commonly entitled to restitution of those funds being improperly withheld by the Company. This action is brought for the benefit of the entire class and will result in the creation of a common fund.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 226(a) |

(AGAINST THE COMPANY AND DOES 1-50 BY PLAINTIFF AND THE CLASS)

29. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 28 as

though fully set for herein.

30. The Company failed in its affirmative obligation to provide accurate itemized

wage statements in violation of Labor Code § 226(a). Plaintiff and Class Members not provided proper and accurate payroll records identifying all information required by Labor Code § 226(a). Specifically, Defendants’ pay statefnents identify inaccurate rates for overtime wages in violation of Labor Code § 226(a)(9). For example, for the pay statement with the pay date of July 13, 2018, two separate overtime rates are identified: one for $10.49 and another for $21. Neither of these rates is accurate. Because the straight time rate is $21 per hour, pursuant to Labor Code § 510, the correct overtime rate is $31.50. Nowhere on the pay statement is $31.50 identified. Plaintiff and Class Members also earned non-discretionary incentive pay, but said pay was not factored into the regular rate of pay for purposes of paying overtime during pay periods covered by the incentive pay. Accordingly, Defendants owe additional overtime pay. Further, because of the overtime regular rate violations, the overtime rate listed on wage statements is inaccurate in violation of Labor Code § 226(a)(9). Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that that the Company’s violation of Section 226(a)(9) is class-wide. described herein is unlawful and creates an entitlement to recovery by Plaintiffs and the Class identified herein, in a civil action, for all damages or penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 226, including interest thereon, attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit according to the mandate of California Labor Code § 226.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §§ 510, 558, AND 1194

(AGAINST THE COMPANY AND DOES 1-50 BY PLAINTIFF AND THE CLASS)

32. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 28 as though fully set for herein.

33. This cause of action is brought pursuant to Labor Code §§ 510, 558, 1194, and 1197.1, which require an employer to pay employees overtime at a rate of one and one-half the employee’s regular rate of pay for any work in excess of eight hours in a workday or 40 hours in a workweek.

34. Asanpattern and practice, Defendant suffered and permitted employees to work in excess of eight hours in a workday and/or over 40 hours in a workweek without payment of full overtime wages. Specifically, Plaintiff and Class Members earned additional non-discretionary incentive pay which was not factored into the regular rate for purposes of paying overtime. Therefore, Defendants owe Plaintiff and Class Members additional overtime pay.

35. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges Defendants willfully failed to pay employees all overtime wages all hours worked. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges Defendants’ willful failure to provide all overtime wages due and owing them 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 other members of the Class who have separated from employment are entitled to compensation pursuant to Labor Code section 203.

36. Such a pattern, practice and uniform administration of corporate policy regarding illegal employee compensation as described herein is unlawful and creates an entitlement to recovery by Plaintiff and the Class in a civil action, for the unpaid balance of the full amount of the mandate of California Labor Code §§ 510, 558, 1194, and 1197.1.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 2698, ET SEQ.

(AGAINST THE COMPANY AND DOES 1-50 BY PLAINTIFF)

37. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 36 as though fully set for herein.

38. Plaintiff brings this cause of action as a proxy for the State of California on behalf of all Aggrieved Employees. Plaintiff seeks penalties on behalf of the State of California for violations committed against all aggrieved employees at any time from July 17, 2017, through the present for Defendants’ violations of Labor Code §§ 201-203, 226, 510, and 1194, arising from Defendants’ failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements and pay overtime based on the correct higher regular rate of pay.

39. On or about July 17, 2018, Plaintiff sent notice to the Labor Workforce Development Agency (the “LLWDA”) of the violations of Labor Code §§ 201-203, 226, 510, 558, and 1194.

40. As of the date of the filing of this Complaint, the LWDA has not notified Plaintiff whether it intends to investigate the claims. Therefore, Plaintiff may seek applicable penalties under the PAGA.

41. Such a pattern, practice and uniform administration of corporate policy as described herein is unlawful and creates an entitlement to recovery by the Plaintiff on behalf of the State of California, in a civil action, for penalties pursuant to the PAGA, Labor Code § 2699(a), including interest thereon, attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit according to the mandate of PAGA for Defendant’s violations of Labor Code §§ 201-203, 226, 510, 558, and 1194, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200

(BY PLAINTIFF AND THE CLASS AGAINST DEFENDANT)

42. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 41 as though fully set for herein.

43. Defendant has engaged and continue to engage in unfair and unlawful business practices in California by practicing, employing and utilizing the employment practices outlined above, include, to wit, by failing to pay overtime for all hours worked and engaging in Unfair Business Practices in violation of the UCL, all in violation of the California Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Orders.

44. Defendant’s utilization of such unfair and unlawful business practices constitutes unfair, unlawful competition and provides an unfair advantage over Defendant’s competitors.

45. Plaintiff seeks as an individual and on behalf of other members of the Class similarly situated, full restitution of monies, as necessary and according to proof, to restore any and all monies withheld, acquired and/or converted by the Defendants by means of the unfair practices complained of herein. Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief to enjoin the unfair business practices alleged herein.

46. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all times herein mentioned Defendant has engaged in unlawful, deceptive and unfair business practices, as proscribed by California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., including those set forth herein above thereby depriving Plaintiff and other members of the Class the minimum working condition standards and conditions due to them under the California laws and the applicable IWC Wage Orders as specifically described therein.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

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

this suit is brought against Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows:

1. For an order certifying the proposed Class;

2, For an order appointing Plaintiff as the representative of the Class as described herein;

3. For an order appointing counsel for Plaintiff as Class counsel;

4. Upon the First Cause of Action, for damages and/or penalties pursuant to

California Labor Code § 226, and for costs and attorneys’ fees;

5. Upon the Second Cause of Action, for all damages and/or penalties pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 201-203, 510, 558, and 1194, and for costs and attorneys’ fees;

6. Upon the Third Cause of Action, for civil penalties according to proof pursuant to Labor Code § 2698, ef seq. and for costs and attorneys’ fees;

7 Upon the Fourth Cause of Action, for restitution in the form of unpaid overtime wages, any available injunctive relief to enjoin the unfair business practices, and for costs;

8. On all causes of action, for attorneys’ fees and costs as provided by California Labor Code §§ 226, 558, 1194, and 2698, ef seq., and Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5; and

9. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

DATED: September 17, 2018 POLARIS LAW GROUP; LLP .