This case was last updated from Santa Clara County Superior Courts on 08/07/2019 at 12:30:04 (UTC).

Stollman v. Old Pro, Inc., et al.

Case Summary

On 01/16/2018 Stollman filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against Old Pro, Inc . This case was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Courts, Downtown Superior Court located in Santa Clara, California. The Judge overseeing this case is Kuhnle, Thomas. The case status is Disposed - Other Disposed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ******1842

  • Filing Date:

    01/16/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Other Disposed

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    Santa Clara County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Downtown Superior Court

  • County, State:

    Santa Clara, California

Judge Details

Judge

Kuhnle, Thomas

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Stollman, Samantha

Defendants

Local Union 271

Sinchek, Steve

Dan Gordon's

Old Pro, Inc.

Gordon Biersch Brewing Company

GBPA, Inc.

Gordon, Dan

Other

Superior Court of California

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Mechtenberg, Ted David

Da Vega, Mathew S.

Defendant Attorneys

Fitzgerald, John L.

Fitzgerald, John Laurence

Other Attorney

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

 

Court Documents

Summons: Issued/Filed

Summons Issued Filed 1st Amended Complaint: Comment: on 1st Amended Complaint

Statement: Case Management Conference

Case Management Statement: Comment: Joint Case Management Conference Statement

Order: Deeming Case Complex

Order Deeming Case Complex & Staying Discovery: Guidelines for Motions relating to Class Certification: Comment: and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline signed/TEK

Notice

Civil Lawsuit Notice: ADR CV-5003: Comment: Civil Lawsuit Notice (1st CMC set for 5/11/18 at 10am in D5; assigned to Hon. Thomas E. Kuhnle)

Order: Deeming Case Complex

Order Deeming Case Complex & Staying Discovery: Guidelines for Motions relating to Class Certification: Comment: and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline signed/TEK

Notice

Civil Lawsuit Notice: ADR CV-5003: Comment: Civil Lawsuit Notice (1st CMC set for 5/11/18 at 10am in D5; assigned to Hon. Thomas E. Kuhnle)

Civil Case Cover Sheet

Civil Case Cover Sheet: Comment: COMPLEX

Summons: Issued/Filed

Summons Issued Filed:

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

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

Answer (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

Answer Response Denial Demurrer - First Appearance: Comment: Old Pro, Inc.'s Answer to First Amended Complaint; Atty Fitzgerald

Answer (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

Answer Response Denial Demurrer - First Appearance: Comment: Steve Sinchek's Answer to First Amended Complaint; Atty Fitzgerald

Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)

Proof of Service of Summons Complaint:

Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)

Proof of Service of Summons Complaint:

Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)

Proof of Service of Summons Complaint:

Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)

Proof of Service of Summons Complaint:

Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)

Proof of Service of Summons Complaint:

Notice

Notice CMC 7-20-18 at 10am in D5: Comment: CMC set for 7/20/18 at 10am in D5

Complaint: Amended

Complaint First Amended: Comment: First Amended Complaint

21 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/23/2019
  • Conference: Case Management - Judicial Officer: Kuhnle, Thomas; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Comment: Compliance Hearing Following Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. At least 10 court days before the hearing, class counsel and the settlement administrator shall submit a summary accounting of the net settlement fund identifying distributions made as ordered herein, the number and value of any uncashed checks, amounts remitted to Defendant, the status of any unresolved issues, and any other matters appropriate to bring to this Court's attention. Counsel shall also submit an amended judgment as described in Code of Civil Procedure section 384, subdivision (b); upon filing and entry, the Clerk shall transmit a copy of the Amended Judgment to the Judicial Council. Counsel may appear at the compliance hearing telephonically.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Judgment - Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement; Judgment: Comment: Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement; Judgment - signed/TEK

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Order - Order re Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement: Comment: Order re Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement - signed/TEK

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Motion: Final Fairness Hearing - Motion Final Approval of Class Action Settlement HRG 1-25-19: Matthew S. Da Vega Declaration: Proposed Final Approval Order: Proof of Service: Order re Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement: Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement; Judgment: Judicial Officer: Kuhnle, Thomas; Hearing Time: 9:00 AM; Result: Heard: Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2019
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Declaration - Supplemental Sofia Munoz Declaration: Comment: SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF SOFIA MUNOZ ON BEHALF OF CPT GROUP, INC., WITH RESPECT TO NOTIFICATION AND ADMINISTRATION

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service - Proof of Service: Comment: PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC MAIL of Notice of Motion and Motion for Final Approval

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Order: Proposed - Proposed Final Approval Order:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Declaration - Matthew S. Da Vega Declaration: Comment: Declaration of Matthew S. Da Vega ISO of Motion for Finall Approval of Class Settlement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Motion: Order - Motion Final Approval of Class Action Settlement HRG 1-25-19: Comment: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement HRG 1-25-19

    Read MoreRead Less
24 More Docket Entries
  • 05/11/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Summons: Issued/Filed - Summons Issued Filed 1st Amended Complaint: Comment: on 1st Amended Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Statement: Case Management Conference - Case Management Statement: Comment: Joint Case Management Conference Statement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2018
  • Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - Comment: Gordon Biersch Brewing Company

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2018
  • Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - Comment: Dan Gordon's

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2018
  • Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - Comment: Local Union 271

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Order: Deeming Case Complex - Order Deeming Case Complex & Staying Discovery: Guidelines for Motions relating to Class Certification: Comment: and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline signed/TEK

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/16/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Civil Lawsuit Notice: ADR CV-5003: Comment: Civil Lawsuit Notice (1st CMC set for 5/11/18 at 10am in D5; assigned to Hon. Thomas E. Kuhnle)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/16/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet: Comment: COMPLEX

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/16/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Summons: Issued/Filed - Summons Issued Filed:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/16/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies): Comment: Proposed Class Action

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

Matthew S. Da Vega, SBN 195443 Matthew Fisher, SBN 229532 Ted Mechtenberg, SBN 219602

E-FILED

1/16/2018 11:55 AM Clerk of Court Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

DA VEGA | FISHER | MECHTENBERG, LLP 18CV 321842

940 Stewart Dr., #229 Sunnyvale, CA 94085 Telephone: 408.758.8974 Facsimile: 877.535.9358 Mdavega@mdmflaw.com

Reviewed By: R. Walker

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Plaintiff Class

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

SAMANTHA STOLLMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

VS.

OLD PRO, INC.; LOCAL UNION 271, DAN GORDON’s, GORDON BIERSCH BREWING COMPANY, STEVE SINCHEK and DOES 1-100, inclusive,

Defendants.

caseNo. 18C V321842

CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT FOR:

(1) FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME

WAGES (CAL. LABOR CODE §§ 204, 510, 1194 and I.W.C. WAGE ORDERS NO. 5-2001, 15-2001);

(2) FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGE

(CAL. LABOR CODE §§ 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1; and IL.W.C. WAGE ORDERS NO. 5-2001, 15-2001);

3) FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL

BREAKS (CAL. LABOR CODE §§ 226.7, 512 and LW.C. WAGE ORDER NO. 5-2001, 15-2001);

4) FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST

BREAKS (CAL. LABOR CODE § 226.7 and .W.C. WAGE ORDER NO. 5-2001, 15-2001);

(5) FAILURE TO FURNISH TIMELY/ACCURATE WAGE STATEMENTS (RECORD-KEEPING VIOLATIONS) (CAL LABOR CODE §§

226, 1174);

(6) FAILURE TO PAY ALL WAGES DUE AT DISCHARGE IN TIMELY MANNER - “WAITING TIME PENALTIES”)

(7) UNLAWFUL AND/OR UNFAIR

BUSINESS PRACTICES (CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200, et seq.)(“UCL”);

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff Samantha Stollman (“Stollman” or “Plaintiff), bring this action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated (“Class Members™), and on information and belief alleges against Defendants Old Pro, Inc., Local Union 271, Dan Gordon’s, Gordon Biersch Brewing

Company, Steve Sinchek, and Does 1-100 (collectively “Defendants”) the following:

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. This case 1s brought as a class action under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §382 to address Defendants’ violations of various California Labor Codes, Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) wage orders, and Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”).

2. Plaintiff Stollman is a former waitress employee of Defendant employer Old Pro, Inc. Plaintiff and Class Members were/are employed as waiters, waitresses, and bartenders (hereinafter “Servers”) by Defendants at the following restaurants and bars owned and/or operated by individual Steve Sinchek: (1) Old Pro — located at 541 Ramona St., Palo Alto, CA 94301, (2) Local Union 271 — located at 271 University Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301, and (3) Dan Gordon’s — located at 640 Emerson St, Palo Alto, CA 94301)

3. Plaintiff allege Defendants have engaged in, among other things a system of willful violations of the California Labor Code, applicable IWC wage orders, and UCL.

4. Defendants acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to their employee Servers rights by failing to provide Servers pay for all wages earned including regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wage, or for “on-duty” meal periods or “on- duty” rest breaks (Defendants’ required servers to work “off the clock™ and also prevented Servers from taking duty-free meal/rest periods, and then intentionally “rolled the clocks by changing the actual time the Server clocked in and out to make it appear as if the Servers had not worked overtime or had taken a complete duty-free meal and/or rest period, failing to keep and provide accurate and timely records of wages earned and other legally mandated records, and failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members whose employment has terminated (voluntarily resigned or were terminated) a final payment of his or her wages in a prompt and timely manner in conformity with Labor Codes §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 216, 226, 226.3, 226.7, 510, 512, 581, 1174, 1174.5, 1182.12, 1194, 1194.2, 1194.3, 1194.5, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 1199, and other unfair and unlawful conduct in violation of the Business & Professional Code §17200, et seq.

5. The policies, practices and customs of Defendants described herein are also violations of California Industrial Welfare Commission (I.W.C.) Wage Order 5-2001, 8 Cal. Code of Reg.§ 11050 ("Wage Order 5-2001"), California . W.C. Wage Order 15-2001, 8 Cal. Code of Reg.§ 11150 ("Wage Order 15-2001")

6. The policies, practices and customs of Defendants described herein have resulted in unjust enrichment of Defendants and an unfair business advantage over businesses that routinely adhere to the strictures of the California Labor Code and IWC wage orders, and thus violate the UCL.

7. The “Class Period” 1s designated as the time from January 16, 2014 (4 years prior to the filing date of the original complaint on January 16, 2018), through the entry of judgment, based on the allegation that the violations of California’s wage and hour laws and UCL, as described herein, have been ongoing for at least the four (4) years prior to the filing of the original Complaint and are continuing.

8. During the relevant Class Period, Defendants have had a standard and uniform policies that violate California’s Labor Codes, . W.C. orders, and UCL as follows:

a. Defendants required Plaintiff and Class Members (current and former California-based Server employees working for Defendants to perform work without compensation during regular hours, overtime hours, and/or paid minimum wage for said hours. On a daily basis Servers are required to perform work before and/or after their scheduled shifts without pay --- in violation of Labor Code §§ 204, 510, 1182.11, 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 1199 (and I.W.C. Orders 5-2001 and 15-2001); their meal and/or rest breaks on a regular basis because Defendants intentional understaffed and overworked the Servers, failed to relieve the Servers of all their duties, did not permit Servers a reasonable opportunity to take an uninterrupted 30 minute meal break and/or 10 minute rest break, impeded/discouraged them from taking said meal and/or rest breaks, and failed to provide compensation for said “on-duty” meal/rest periods --- 1n violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512 (and I.W.C. Orders 5-2001 and 15-2001);

b. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and Class Members, with accurate and timely pay stubs (accurate, semi-monthly, itemized statements of the total number of hours cach of them worked, applicable hourly rate of pay, and/or wages earned) --- in violation of Labor Code § 226; and

C. Defendants have willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members whose employment has terminated (voluntarily resigned or were terminated) a final payment of his or her total wages in a prompt and timely manner ---- in violation of Labor Codes §§ 201 - 203.

9. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the proposed Class, seek unpaid compensation (including unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and res periods), interest thereon, waiting time penalties, penalties and relief for failure to provide accurate and timely itemized statements of total hours worked/wages earned, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, under Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 218.5, 218.6, 226, 226.7, 510, 512,581, 1174, 1194, 1197.1, 1999, 2699.3, 2699.5, C.C.P. § 1021.5, California common law, (and I.W.C. orders 5-2001, 15-2001).

10. Under California Business & Professions Code (“Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code™)

§§ 17200, et seq. (“UCL”), and pursuant to class action procedures provided for in these statutes, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated also seek injunctive relief and restitution of all benefits the Defendants have received from their violations, as described herein, during the relevant Class Period.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11. Jurisdiction: This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the laws of

the State of California including Code of Civil Procedure § 410.10. Defendants owns and/or lease property in Santa Clara County. Defendant’s headquarters are located in Palo Alto, California in Santa Clara County. Defendants employ hundreds of individual Servers within Santa Clara County and has obtained the benefits of the laws of the State of California and the California labor market. Defendants regularly do business in Santa Clara County and has employed and does employ an estimated 100+ individual Servers in Santa Clara County and/or California. Defendants run a number of restaurants in Santa Clara County where the same practices of failing to pay overtime wages and requiring Servers to work during meal and/or rest breaks (thus having Server’s work “off the clock™ without compensation). Many of the acts, as well as the course of conduct alleged herein, occurred within Santa Clara County. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ claims for failure to pay regular, overtime, and minimum wages, for failure to provide required meal/rest breaks (or pay a premium in licu thereof); for penalties for failure to pay wages of discharged employees; for penalties for failure to provide itemized statements of hours worked and all applicable hourly rates; and for injunctive relief and restitution of ill-gotten benefits arising from Defendants’ unlawful business practices.

12. Venue: Venue is proper in this county pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§395(a) and/or 395.5. Defendants are California Corporations owned and operated by the same individual(s) and transacts business and may be found within Santa Clara County. The unlawful acts, as well as the course of conduct alleged herein, occurred in Santa Clara County. Defendants maintain offices, transact business, have agents, and employ numerous Class Members in Santa Clara County (estimated at 100 or more current Servers), and are otherwise within this Court’s jurisdiction for purposes of service of process. The unlawful acts alleged herein have had a direct effect on Plaintiff and those similarly situated within the State of California and within Santa Clara County.

THE PARTIES

hourly rate was $12/hr. Whileother Servers would typically work 5 to 6 days a week, from 8 to 12 hours a day (generally working 7 to 8+ hour shifts and sometimes 12 hour shifts) but required to work a few hours of overtime each week without compensation, typicallylast shift to prepare for the following day. DefendantsClass Members for the 30 minutes to 1 hour of work performed after the final night shift. Further Plaintiff and other servers were no permitted duty-free meal and/or rest breaks and were required to work during such on a daily basis often eating while performing work. Approximately 20 to 30+ Servers each day are required to work at Defendants’ restaurants “off the clock™ after shifts and/or during meal and/or rest breaks. Plaintiff estimates she and other servers was denied duty- free meal and rest breaks almost ever day of work.

14. Defendant Old Pro, Inc. (“Old Pro”): At all relevant times, Defendantcorporation organized under the laws of the State of California, and authorized and qualified to do business in Santa Clara County. Old Pro 1s located at 541 Ramona St., Palo Alto, CA 94301. Old Pro 1s a restaurant and bar owned and operated by Defendant Steve Senchik. It has and currently employs dozens of Server Class members. Plaintiff alleges that the practices and policies that are complained of in this Complaint have been occurring throughout the Class Period and are currently applied by Old Pro in California. Old Pro 1s, and at all relevant times has been, an employer subject to the California Labor Code.

15. Defendant Local Union 271 (“Local Union™): At all relevant times, Defendant Local Union was and 1s a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California, and authorized and qualified to do business in Santa Clara County. Local Union 271 1s located at 271 University Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301. Local Union is a restaurant and bar owned and operated by Defendant Steve Senchik. It has and currently employs dozens of Server Class members. Plaintiff alleges that the practices and policies that are complained of in this Complaint have been occurring throughout the Class Period and are currently applied by Local Union in California. Local Union is, and at all relevant times has been, an employer subject to the California Labor Code. and 1s a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California, and authorized and qualified to do business in Santa Clara County. Dan Gordon’s is located at 640 Emerson St, Palo Alto, CA 94301. DG’s 1s a restaurant and bar owned and operated by Defendant Steve Senchik. It has and currently employs dozens of Server Class members. Plaintiff alleges that the practices and policies that are complained of in this Complaint have been occurring throughout the Class Period and are currently applied by DG’s in California. DG’s 1s, and at all relevant times has been, an employer subject to the California Labor Code.

17. Defendant Gordon Biersch Brewing Company (“Gordon Biersch”): At all relevant times, Defendant Gordon Biersch was and is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California, and authorized and qualified to do business in Santa Clara County. Gordon Biersch is parent entity and/or corporation that owns and operates Dan Gordon’s restaurant and bar. It is owned and/or operated by Defendant Steve Senchik. It has and currently employs dozens of Server Class members. Plaintiff alleges that the practices and policies that are complained of in this Complaint have been occurring throughout the Class Period and are currently applied by Gordon Biersch in California. Local Union is, and at all relevant times has been, an employer subject to the California Labor Code.

FICTIOUS DEFENDANTS

19. Defendants Does 1-100, inclusive, are sued herein under fictitious names. Their true names and capacities are unknown to Plaintiff at this time. When their true names and capacities are ascertained, Plaintiff will amend this Complaint by inserting their true names and capacities. Plaintiff are informed and believe, and thereon allege that each of the fictitiously- named Defendants 1s responsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged herein and that Plaintiff’s and the proposed Class Members’ damages and penalties alleged herein were proximately caused by such Defendants.

AGENCY

20. Plaintiff 1s informed, believe, and thereon allege that each of the Defendants herein was, at all times relevant in this action, the agent, employee, representing partner, and/or joint venture of the remaining Defendants and was acting within the course and scope of that relationship. Plaintiff are further informed, believe, and thereon allege that each of the Defendants herein gave consent to, ratified, and authorized the acts alleged herein to the remaining Defendants.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

21. Plaintiff bring this action individually and as a class action on behalf of opt-out

classes (the “Class”) defined as follows:

All current and former California based non-exempt employee who worked for Defendants as Servers from November 9, 2013 until the entry of judgment.

22. Plaintiff believe this includes, but is not limited to, Defendants’ employees working as a “Servers” and/or variants of Servers (i.e. waiters, waitress, and bar tenders) as their specific titles may have changed over time. Plaintiff reserve the right under Rule 3.765(b), California Rules of Court, to amend or modify the class description with greater specificity or further division into a subclasses or limitations to particular issues. 24. The Plaintiff and Class Members assert the following claims:

a. Plaintiff and Class members were not paid for all hours work including regular hours, overtime hours, and/or minimum wage for said hours worked as required by California Labor Code §§ 204, 510, 1182.11, 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 1199 and I.W.C. Orders;

b. Plaintiff and Class members were not provided duty-free meal breaks (or paid in lieu thereof) as required by California Labor Code §§226.7; 512 and . W.C. Orders;

C. Plaintiff and Class members were not provided duty-free rest breaks (or paid in lieu thereof) as required by Labor Code §226.7 and I. W.C. Orders;

d. Plaintiff and Class members were not paid upon their separation from employment with Defendants as required by Labor Code §§ 201 - 203;

c. Plaintiff and Class members did not receive pay stubs in conformity with Labor Code §226;

25. This action 1s brought, and may properly be maintained, as a class action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §382 (and the analogous provisions of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1)-(4) and 23(b)) as to violations of California Labor Codes, . W.C. Wage Orders, and UCL for unpaid regular hours worked, overtime hours worked, and/or minimum pay for said hours, wages for missed meal and rest break violations, waiting time penalties, failure to furnish timely, itemized wage statements, and attorneys' fees and costs. The similarly situated employees are known to Defendants and are readily identifiable and locatable through Defendants' own employment records. There 1s a well-defined community of interest in the litigation, and the proposed class 1s easily ascertainable. As described below, this action also satisfies the numerosity, commonality, predominance, typicality, adequacy, and superiority requirements of these provisions.

Numerosity:

26. A class action is the only available method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Although the exact number and identities of all Class Members are unknown to Plaintiff at this time and can only be ascertained through appropriate discovery, Plaintiff are informed and believe that the Class includes at least 100 persons. On information and belief, therefore, Plaintiff allege that the members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members 1s impractical, if not impossible. Membership in the Class will be determined upon analysis of, inter alia, employee and payroll records maintained by Defendants.

Commonality and Predominance:

27. The Plaintiff and the Class share a community of interest because there are numerous common issues of fact and law that predominate over any questions and issues solely affecting individual members. Such common factual and legal issues include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. Whether Defendants knowingly and willfully violated Labor Code §§ 204, 510, 1182.11, 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 1199, by failing to pay wages for regular hours worked, overtime hours worked, and/or minimum wage for said hours, to Plaintiff and Class Members;

b. Whether Defendants violated Labor Code §§226.7, 512 by failing to provide duty-free meal breaks (or one additional hour of pay in lieu thereof) to Plaintiff and Class Members;

C. Whether Defendants violated Labor Code §226.7 by failing to provide duty-free rest breaks (or one additional hour of pay in lieu thereof) to Plaintiff and Class Members;

d. Whether Defendants violated Labor Code §§226 and 1174 by failing to keep accurate records of Plaintiff and Class Members’ hours of work;

c. Whether Defendants violated Labor Code §§201, 202, 203 by failing to pay all wages due and owing at the time that certain Plaintiff” and Class Members’ employment with Defendants terminated;

f. Whether former employees are entitled to “waiting time” penalties pursuant to Labor Code §203; serve as a predicate violations of Business & Professions Code §§17200, ef seq. (“UCL”). Typicality: 28. Plaintiff’ claims 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, Defendants’ common course of conduct in violation of law as alleged herein.

Adequacy of Representation:

29. Plaintiff are adequate representatives of the Class in that Plaintiff have the same interests in the litigation of this case as the Class Members as they include current and former Servers at Defendants. Plaintiff are committed to vigorous prosecution of this case and have retained competent counsel who are experienced in class actions and wage and hour litigation of this nature. Plaintiff are not subject to any individual defenses different from those conceivably applicable to the Class as a whole.

Superiority of Class Action:

30. A class action 1s superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy because individual litigation of the claims of all Class Members 1s impractical.

31. The California Labor Code and Wage Order provisions upon which Plaintiff and Class Members assert these claims are 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.

32. 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 Defendants would necessarily gain an unconscionable advantage since they would be able to exploit and overwhelm the limited resources of each individual class pursue an individual remedy would also discourage the assertion of lawful claims by employees who would be disinclined to file an action against their current or former employer for real and justifiable fear of retaliation and permanent damage to their careers at subsequent employment.

33. Even if every Class Member could afford individual litigation, the court system could not. It would be unduly burdensome to the courts in which individual litigation of numerous cases would proceed. Individualized litigation would also present the potential for varying, inconsistent, or contradictory judgments and would magnify the delay and expense to all parties and to the court system resulting from multiple trials of the same complex factual issues. By contrast, the conduct of this action as a class action, with respect to some or all of the issues presented herein, presents fewer management difficulties, conserves the resources of the parties and the court system, and protects the rights of each Class Member. Plaintiff anticipate no management difficulties in this litigation.

34. Further, the Defendants have also acted, or have refused to act, in respects generally applicable to the Class, thereby making appropriate relief with regard to the members of

the Class as a whole, as requested herein.

COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

35. Plaintiff are informed and believes and based thereon allege the following;:

36. Defendants have for years failed to: 1) pay Class Members for work performed including regular hours, overtime hours, and/or minimum wage for said hours worked; 2) provide Class Members the opportunity to take duty-free meal periods/rest breaks (or pay premiums for failure to provide duty-free meal periods/rest breaks); 3) provide Class Members accurate and timely wage statements; and 4) pay all wages due upon termination; thereby enjoying a significant competitive edge over their competitors.

37. Defendants have and had a consistent and uniform policy, practice and procedure of willfully failing to comply with California’s wage and hour laws, . W.C orders and UCL as described herein.

38. Regular Time, Overtime, and Minimum Wage Violations: Plaintiff and Class for Defendants’ various restaurants/bars. Servers were hired by Defendants as non-exempt employees and paid an hourly rate (typically for $12/hr. and above). Defendants’ policy and practice 1s to require Servers to work prior to and/or after their scheduled shifts without compensation (i.e. requiring them to clean up and/or prepare the restaurant/bar for the following day and/or shift after they had clocked out of their scheduled shifts). Defendants pay Servers only for their schedule shift time and not for the approximate 30 minutes to 1-hour additional work done prior to and after the schedule shift (typically 8 hour shift). Therefore Defendants fail to provide compensation of 30 minutes to 1 hour each day to Servers providing said pre/post shift work. Therefore, Plaintiff Class and Members are entitled to recover wages and/or penalties as provided by Labor Code §§ 204, 510, 1182.11, 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 1199 and applicable IWC Wage Orders.

39. Meal and Rest Break Violations: Defendants’ practices and policies regarding meal and rest breaks as described herein, resulted in the systemic and uniform failure to provide Servers with meal and/or rest breaks as required by Labor Code § 226.7, Labor Code § 512. Defendants have failed to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with a full 30-minute duty-free meal period for each workday. When Plaintiff and other Class Members were not provided duty- free and/or on-time meal periods they were not provided with an additional hours pay as required by California Labor Codes.

40. Defendants have also failed to provide Plaintiff and Class Members duty-free rest periods 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. When Plaintiff and Class Members were not provided their duty-free rest periods they were not provided with additional compensation pursuant to Labor Code § 226.7. Defendants intentionally and knowingly understaffed, overworked, and required Servers to work through and/or during meal and/or rest breaks and by also delaying the taking of such meal and/or rest breaks past the legally required times. Plaintiff estimate that they, and other Servers at Defendants, would typically be required to work through/during and/or be delayed in taking numerous meal periods and rest breaks each week on an almost daily basis. that Servers were not working overtime (when in fact the Servers were working uncompensated regular time/overtime) and/or taking their duty-free meal and/or rest breaks at the legally appropriate time (when in fact the Servers were required to work through/during the meal/rest break and/or were taking them late).

41. Therefore, Plaintiff Class and Members are entitled to recover wages and/or penalties as provided by Labor Code § 558 and applicable IWC Wage Orders. Since Defendants required these employees to work during meal periods in violation of Labor Code § 226.7, these current and/or former aggrieved employees seek wages of one additional hour of pay as permitted by Labor Code § 226.7(c) as well as all available penalties as set forth in Labor Code § 2699(f).

42. Further, Plaintiff and Class Members were also at all times entitled to rest breaks as authorized and permitted by applicable . W.C. Wage Order. Defendants failed to authorize or permit rest breaks as required by Labor Code § 226.7, Labor Code § 512, and I.W.C. Orders. Therefore, Plaintiff, on behalf of the Class Members, seeks recovery of wages and/or penalties as provided by Labor Code § 558 and applicable IWC Wage Orders. Because Defendants required its employees to work during rest periods in violation of Labor Code § 226.7, Plaintiff and Class Members also seeks wages of one additional hour of pay as permitted by Labor Code § 226.7(¢c) as well as all available penalties as set forth in Labor Code § 2699(f.)

43. Plaintiff estimate, based on observation and conversations with Servers at Defendants, that typically Servers were not provided the opportunity for duty-free meal periods 4 to 5 times a week and/or duty-free rest breaks 4 to 5 times a week, including taking such meal periods after the 5 hour and lack of or late second meal period on shifts longer than 10 hours. Further, Defendants were not accurately keeping track of Servers meal/rest breaks periods and in fact falsified such records. Defendants despite knowing that the employees were not provided their duty-free meal periods/rest breaks the Servers were not being paid an additional hours wage for the rest/meal periods.

44. Defendants’ uniform failure to allow duty-free rest and/or meal periods to these employees during their workday and other derivative claims were done with a systematic policy regular rate of pay, or alternatively, premium compensation, if applicable. Defendants’ failure to provide such compensation in lieu of meal periods or rest breaks violated Labor Code §§ 204 and 204(b), such that penalties are recoverable as set forth in Labor Code § 210 and/or § 1194, et.seq

45. Wage Statement Violations: Defendants’ practices and policies, as described above, resulted in the systemic and uniform failure to provide timely and/or accurate wage statements in violation of Labor Code §§ 226, 226.3, and 1174. Despite knowledge of Plaintiff’ and Class Members’ entitlement to additional pay for hours worked pre and post normal shift times (including regular hours, overtime hours, and minimum wage) and failure to provide a duty-free/on-time meal periods and/or rest breaks, Defendants have violated California Labor Code §1174 by failing to provide or require the use, maintenance, or submission of accurate time records by members of the Class. Defendants failed to take appropriate steps to correct its mistakes. As described above, Class Members’ pay-stubs did not accurately reflect all of the hours worked and correct pay rates, including work performed during meal periods and/or rest breaks, and Defendants did not provide those employees payment of an additional hour(s) of pay at the employee’s/Class Member’s regular rate for each duty-free meal period and/or rest break that was not provided. Defendants’ failure to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with timely and/or accurate, semi-monthly itemized statements were done knowingly and intentionally.

46. Wages Owed Upon Separation/Termination Violations: Defendants’ practices and policies resulted in the systemic and uniform failure to provide Plaintiff and some Class Members, upon termination or separation, the total wages they were owed. Plaintiff and Class Member’s employees who quit, were laid off, or were terminated were not paid the wages owed them in accord with Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 206, 226.7, 512, and 1174.

47. As adirect and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, as set forth herein, Plaintiff and the Class Members have sustained damages, including for the lack of pay for all hours worked (including regular hours, overtime hours, and/or minimum wage for said hours), wages for failure to provide duty-free/on-time meal periods and/or rest breaks and loss of interest on those wages, in an amount to be established at trial. As a further direct and proximate result of recover “waiting time” penalties and penalties for failure to provide accurate and timely semi- monthly statements, all in amounts to be established at trial. Plaintiff and the Class Members are also entitled to recover prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to statute.

CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES

(Labor Code §§ 204,510, 1194, 1199) (Plaintiff Against All Defendants and Does 1-100)

48. Plaintiff incorporates by reference in this cause of action each allegation of all of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully restated herein, and further allege against Defendants and Does 1-100, and each of them, as follows:

49. During the Class Period Plaintiff and Class Members often worked in excess of 8 hours in a work day and/or 40 hours in a work week without compensation in violation of Labor Code §510. The precise number of hours will be proven at trial.

50. On information and belief, at all relative times, Defendants were aware of, and were under a duty to comply with, various provisions of the California Labor Code. These provisions include

a. Labor Code § 510: “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 or 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 ...

b. Labor Code § 1194: “Notwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser

wage, any employee receiving less than . . . 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 . . . overtime compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.”

C. Labor Code § 1198: “The maximum hours of work and the standard

conditions of labor fixed by the commission shall be the maximum hours of work and the than those fixed by the order or under conditions of labor prohibited by the order is unlawful.”

d. Labor Code § 1199: “Every employer or other person acting either

individually or as an officer, agent, or employee of another person is guilty of a misdemeanor and is punishable by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) or by imprisonment for not less than 30 days, or by both, who does any of the following: (a) Requires or causes any employee to work for longer hours than those fixed, or under conditions of labor prohibited by an order of the commission . . . [or] (c) Violates or refuses or neglects to comply with any provision of this chapter or any order of the commission.”

51. By refusing to compensate Plaintiff and the Class Members for overtime wages earned, Defendants violated and continue to violate those California Labor Codes and I.W.C. wage orders, including Labor Code§§ 204, 510, 1194, 1198, 1199 and Wage Orders 5-2001, 15- 2001).

52. As adirect and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, as set forth herein, Plaintiff and the Class Members have sustained damages, including loss of earnings for unpaid hours of overtime worked on behalf of Defendants in an amount to be established at trial. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, as set forth herein, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to recover interest on the overtime wages earned but not paid, at a rate of 10% per year, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs per Labor Code §§218.5,

218.6, and 1194, and the assessment of any other statutory penalties provided by the Labor Code.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PAY MIMIMUM WAGE

(Labor Code §§ 1182.12,1194,1197,1197.1;)

(Plaintiff Against All Defendants and Does 1-100)

53. Plaintiff incorporates by reference in this cause of action each allegation of all of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully restated herein, and further allege against Defendants and Does 1-100, and each of them, as follows:

54. Labor Code §§ 1182.12, 1194, 1197 and 1197.1 (and . W.C. Wage Orders 5-2001 and 15-2001, establish and protect the right of employees in California to receive minimum California during the Class Period has been $8/hr. from the beginning of Class Period until June 30, 2014, $9/hr. from July 1, 2014 to Jan. 1, 2016, and $10/hr. from Jan. 1, 2016 on.

55. Atall relevant times, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked due to its failure to compensate Plaintiff and Class Members for all work performed, specifically for work performed pre and post scheduled shifts and/or during meal and/or rest breaks, and by requiring Servers to perform work prior to and after regular scheduled shifts.

56. As adirect and proximate result of the Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have been deprived of their minimum wages in an amount to be proven at trial, and are entitled to recover such amounts, plus interest and penalties thereon, attorney’s fees and costs, under Labor Code §§ 218.5, 218.6, 558, 1182.12, 1194, 1194.2, 1197.1, LW.C. Wage

Orders 5-2000 and 5-7 2001, and are entitled to injunctive relief.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PROVIDE MANDATED MEAL PERIODS

(Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512) (Plaintiff Against All Defendants and Does 1-100)

57. Plaintiff incorporates by reference in this cause of action each allegation of all of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully restated herein, and further allege against Defendants and Does 1-100, and each of them, as follows:

58. Plaintiff and Class Members regularly work in excess of five (5) hours per day without being afforded a duty-free meal period of not less than 30 minutes as required by Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512 and I.W.C Wage Orders 5-1001, 15-2001.

59. California Labor Code § 512 provides that an employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more than five (5) hours per day without providing the employee with a meal period of not less than 30 minutes.

60. Furthermore, California Labor Code § 226.7 provides that:

(a) No employer shall require any employee to work during any

meal or rest period mandated by an applicable order of the

Industrial Welfare Commission. rest period in accordance with an applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, the employer shall pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each work day that the meal or rest period is not provided.

61. Asadirect and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct in not providing for duty-free meal periods, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to one additional hour of pay at their regular rate as wages under Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512 for each day in which the proper meal period was not provided. In addition, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to interests,

penalties, attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to C.C.P. §1021.5.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PROVIDE MANDATED REST PERIODS

(Labor Code § 226.7) (Plaintiff Against All Defendants and Does 1-100)

62. Plaintiff incorporates by reference in this cause of action each allegation of all of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully restated herein, and further allege against Defendants and Does 1-100, and each of them, as follows:

63. Plaintiff and Class Members regularly work in excess of four (4) hours per day without being afforded a rest period of not less than ten (10) minutes as required by Labor Code § 226.7 and I.W.C Order 5-2001, 15-2001 (employees are entitled to 10 minutes rest for shifts from 3 72 hours to 6 hours in length, 20 minutes for shifts of more than 6 hours up to 10 hours, 30 minutes for shifts of more than 10 hours up to 14 hours, and so) (See Brinker Restaurant Corp., et al v. Superior Court (2012), 53 Cal. 4th 1004, 1029.

64. California Labor Code § 226.7 mandates that no employer shall require any employee to work during any meal or rest period.

65. California Labor Code § 226.7 provides that:

(a) No employer shall require any employee to work during any meal or rest period mandated by an applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission. compensation for each work day that the meal or rest period is not provided.

66. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct in not providing for duty-free rest periods, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to one additional hour of pay at their regular rate as wages under Labor Code § 226.7, for each day in which the proper rest break was not provided. In addition, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to interests,

penalties, attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to C.C.P. §1021.5.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PROVIDE TIMELY AND ACCURATE WAGE STATEMENTS

(Labor Code § 226) (Plaintiff Against All Defendants and Does 1-100)

67. Plaintiff incorporates by reference in this cause of action each allegation of all of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully restated herein, and further allege against Defendants and Does 1-100, and each of them, as follows:

68. Labor Code § 226(a) provides as follows:

Every employer shall, ssmimonthly or at the time of each payment of wages, furnish each of his or her employees, either as a detachable part of the check, draft or voucher paying the employee’s wages, or separately when wages are paid by personal check or cash, an itemized statement in writing showing (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee . . . (3) the number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece rate if the employee 1s paid on a piece-rate basis, (4) all deductions . . ., (5) net wages earned . . . and (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee.

69. Labor Code § 226(e) provides as follows:

An employee suffering injury as a result of a knowing and intentional failure by an employer to comply with subdivision

(a) shall be entitled to recover the greater of all actual damages or fifty dollars ($50) for the initial pay period in which a violation occurs and one hundred dollars ($100) per employee for each violation in a subsequent pay period, not exceeding an aggregate penalty of four thousand dollars ($4,000), and shall be entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney fees. information and belief, this was the direct and proximate result of a willful refusal by Defendants to provide such accurate statements.

71. Defendants knowingly and intentionally failed to provide timely, accurate, itemized wage statements to Plaintiff and Class Members in accordance with Labor Code § 226(a). The statements provided to Plaintiff and Class Members have not accurately reflected the total hours worked, all applicable hourly rates in effect, and all gross and net wages earned during the pay period.

72. Asadirect and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct in failing to provide accurate itemized wages statements, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered actual damages and harm by being unable to determine their applicable hourly rate or the amount of regular time or overtime worked each pay period, which prevented them from becoming aware of these violations and asserting their statutory protections under California law. Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to recover the greater of all actual damages or fifty dollars ($50.00) for the initial pay period in which a violation occurs and one hundred dollars ($100.00) per employee for each violation in a subsequent pay period, not exceeding an aggregate penalty of four thousand dollars ($4,000.00). Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to seek penalties, and attorneys’ fees

and costs as provided by Labor Code §§ 226(e), 226(h), 226.3, and 1174.5.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PAY ALL WAGES DUE AT TERMINATION - WAITING TIME PENALITIES

(Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203) (Plaintiff Against All Defendants and Does 1-100)

73. Plaintiff incorporates by reference in this cause of action each allegation of all of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully restated herein, and further allege against Defendants and Does 1-100, and each of them, as follows:

74. California Labor Code § 201 requires Defendants to pay its discharged employees all wages due immediately upon discharge or termination of employment.

75. California Labor Code § 202 requires that if an employee 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 i1s 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.”

76. California Labor Code § 203 provides that if an employer willfully fails to timely pay any wages that are due to an employee who quits or i1s discharged, the employer must, as a penalty, continue to pay the employees’ wages until the back wages are paid in full or an action 1s commenced. The penalty accrues for up to 30 days of wages. To this end, Labor Code § 203

provides 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 who quits, the wages of the employee shall continue as a penalty form 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.

77. Plaintiff and Class Members who have been discharged or who have quit are entitled to unpaid compensation, pursuant to Labor Code § 203, but to date have not received such compensation.

78. During the relevant time period, Plaintiff and many Class Members were employed by Defendants and were thereafter terminated or resigned from their positions with Defendants. Defendants, however, did not pay such Plaintiff and Class Members all wages due upon their termination or within 72 hours of their resignation of employment. On information and belief, Plaintiff allege that such non-payment was the direct and proximate result of a willful refusal to do so by Defendants.

79. As adirect and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful and willful conduct in not paying compensation for all hours worked, many Class Members are entitled to up to 30 days wages as a penalty (“waiting time penalty”) under Labor Code § 203, together with reasonable

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION UNFAIR PRACTICE UNDER THE UNFAIR COMPETITION ACT

(California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200-17208) (Plaintiff Against All Defendants and Does 1-100)

80. Platiff incorporates by reference in this cause of action each allegation of all of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully restated herein, and further allege against Defendants and Does 1-100, and each of them, as follows:

81. Platiff bring this cause of action on behalf of herself and the Class as well as on behalf of the general public, seeking equitable and statutory relief to stop the misconduct of Defendants, as complained of herein, and to compel disgorgement of all profits obtained by Defendants through the unfair, unlawful, and/or fraudulent business practices described herein.

82. The conduct of Defendants, as alleged herein, constitutes an unlawful business practice as set forth in Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, ef seq.

83. Specifically, Defendants conducted business activities while failing to comply with California Labor Codes and IWC wage orders as described in this Complaint. Defendants, and each of them, have intentionally and improperly failed to pay Class Members for all hours worked including regular hours, overtime hours, and/or minimum wage for said hours; additional wages for their failure to provide duty-free meal periods and/or rest breaks; and failed to provide other benefits in violation of the California Labor Code and IWC wage orders. Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code prohibits unfair competition by prohibiting unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices or acts. Defendants’ failure to adopt policies in accordance and/or adherence with these laws, all of which are binding upon and burdensome to Defendants’ competitors, engenders an unfair competitive advantage for Defendants, thereby constituting an unfair business practice, as set forth in California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.

84. Furthermore, Defendants has under-reported to federal and state authorities the wages earned by their employees and, therefore, have underpaid state and federal taxes, employer matching funds, unemployment premiums, Social Security, Medicare, and Workers’ 85. Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein has damaged Plaintiff and the Class Members by wrongfully denying them earned wages, failing to pay them all wages due upon termination of employment, and failing to provide accurate and timely itemized wage statements. Such conduct was substantially injurious to Plaintiff and the Class.

86. Under the circumstances alleged herein, it would be inequitable and result in a miscarriage of justice for Defendants to continue to retain the property of Plaintiff and the Class Members, entitling Plaintiff and the Class Members to restitution of the unfair benefits obtained and disgorgement of Defendants’ 1ll-gotten gains.

87. As adirect and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful and unfair business practices, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to, and hereby do, seek restitution and disgorgement of these ill-gotten gains, including but not limited to, restitution of all unpaid wages, plus interest thereon, as well as attorney’s fees and costs, and other appropriate injunctive

and other relief available under California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Proposed Class pray for judgment

and the following specific relief against Defendants, jointly and separately, as follows:

A. That the Court determine that this action may be maintained and certified as a class action under California Code of Civil Procedure § 382;

B. That the Court appoint Plaintiff as representatives of the Class(es);

C. That the Court appoint Counsel for Plaintiff as Class Counsel;

D. That Defendants are found to have violated the provisions of the Labor Code and/or . W.C. wage orders as to the Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to pay Plaintiff and Class Members all wages owed including regular hours, overtime hours and/or minimum wage for said hours in violation of Labor Code §§ 204, 510, 1182.11, 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 1199 and I.W.C. Orders;

E. That Defendants are found to have violated meal period and rest brake provisions F. That Defendants are found to have violated the record-keeping provisions of Labor Code §§ 226, 1174(d), 1174.5, and I. W.C. Orders;

G. That Defendants are found to have violated Labor Code §§ 201-203 for willful failure to pay all wages owed at the time of termination/separation of employment to Class Members who no longer work for Defendants;

H. That Defendants are found to have violated Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq., by failing to pay all wages owed, pay for missed meal/rest periods, pay waiting period penalties, and by failing to provide itemized wage statements;

I. That Defendants’ violations as described above are found to have been willful;

J. That Plaintiff and Class Members receive an award of damages for the amount of unpaid compensation (including for regular hours, overtime hours, and minimum wage for said hours, and failure to provided duty-free meal periods/rest breaks), interest thereon, and penalties subject to proof at trial;

K. That Defendants be ordered and enjoined to pay restitution to Plaintiff and Class Members due to Defendants’ unlawful activities, pursuant to Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.;

L. That Defendants further be enjoined to cease and desist from unlawful activities in violation of Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, ef seq.;

M. That Plaintiff and Class Members be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Labor Code §§ 218.5, 226(e), 1194, Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, and/or other applicable law; and

N. That Plaintiff and the Class Members be awarded prejudgment interest on all damages and other relief awarded pursuant to Labor Code § 218.6 and Civil Code § 3287, and/or other applicable law;

O. Actual and/or liquidated damages pursuant to Labor Code §226(e) for failure to provided accurate itemized wages statements pursuant to Labor Code §226(a);

P. Waiting time penalties as provided by Labor Code §203, in amounts according to Q. That Plaintiff and the Class Members receive an award of such other and further

relief as this Court may deem appropriate.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, hereby demand a trial by

jury for all 1ssues so triable.

A A ‘