This case was last updated from Santa Clara County Superior Courts on 04/15/2020 at 09:57:10 (UTC).

Villareal v. Mission Trail Waste Systems, Inc.

Case Summary

On 11/19/2018 Villareal filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against Mission Trail Waste Systems, Inc. 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:

    ******8479

  • Filing Date:

    11/19/2018

  • 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

Villareal, Thomas

Defendant

Mission Trail Waste Systems, Inc.

Not Classified By Court

Superior Court of California

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Workman, Robin Gibson

Defendant Attorneys

Reid, Felicia Ruth

Forgie, Ian W.

Not Classified By Court Attorney

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

 

Court Documents

Notice

Notice CMC 8-30-19 at 10am in D5: Comment: CMC set for 8/30/19 at 10am in D5

Statement: Case Management Conference

Joint CMC Statement: Comment: Joint Case Management Statement

Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)

Proof of Service of Summons Complaint: Comment: Proof of Service of Summons/Complaint

Answer (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

Answer to Complaint: Comment: ANSWER TO 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

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies):

Civil Case Cover Sheet

Civil Case Cover Sheet:

Summons: Issued/Filed

Summons:

Order

Order and Notice FF HRG reset to 4-17-20: Comment: Order & Notice: Final Fairness Hearing reset from 3/27/20 to 4/17/20 - signed/PML

Memorandum: Points and Authorities

Memorandum of Points & Authorities: Comment: Memorandum of Points & Authorities: Fees Brief

Motion: Order

Motion: Final Approval HRG 3-27-20: Comment: Final Approval HRG 3/27/20

Order: Proposed

Proposed Order: Comment: Proposed Order

Notice: Change Address/Firm Name

Notice of Change of Address:

Declaration

Eric Bishop Declaration: Comment: Declaration of Eric Bishop

Memorandum: Points and Authorities

Memorandum Points and Authorities:

Motion: Preliminary Approval

Motion Preliminary Approval HRG 11-22-19: Comment: HRG 11/22/19

Statement: Case Management Conference

Joint CMC Statement: Comment: Case Management Statement

Civil Lawsuit Notice

Civil Lawsuit Notice:

25 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/10/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketMotion: Final Fairness Hearing - Motion: Final Approval HRG 3-27-20: Memorandum of Points & Authorities: Memorandum of Points & Authorities: Robin Workman Declaration: Jennifer Mills Declaration: Request for Judicial Notice: Proposed Order: Judicial Officer: Lucas, Patricia M; Hearing Time: 9:00 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketOrder - Order and Notice FF HRG reset to 4-17-20: Comment: Order & Notice: Final Fairness Hearing reset from 3/27/20 to 4/17/20 - signed/PML

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketOrder: Proposed - Proposed Order: Comment: Proposed Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketRequest - Request for Judicial Notice: Comment: Request for Judicial Notice

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketDeclaration - Jennifer Mills Declaration: Comment: Declaration of Jennifer Mills

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketDeclaration - Robin Workman Declaration: Comment: Declaration of Robin G. Workman

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketMemorandum: Points and Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities: Comment: Memorandum of Points & Authorities: Fees Brief

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketMemorandum: Points and Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities: Comment: Memorandum of Points & Authorities: Final Approval

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2020
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketMotion: Order - Motion: Final Approval HRG 3-27-20: Comment: Final Approval HRG 3/27/20

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/26/2019
  • 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
22 More Docket Entries
  • 03/08/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketConference: Case Management - Joint CMC Statement: Minutes Non-Criminal: Judicial Officer: Kuhnle, Thomas; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Result: Held; Comment: (1st CMC) Proposed Wage and Hour Class Action. Discovery and responsive pleading deadline stayed, as of 12/5/18, when the case was deemed complex.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketMinute Order - Minutes Non-Criminal:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketStatement: Case Management Conference - Joint CMC Statement: Comment: Joint Case Management Statement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketAnswer (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Answer to Complaint: Comment: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketProof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - Proof of Service of Summons Complaint: Comment: Proof of Service of Summons/Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2018
  • 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
  • 12/05/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketCivil Lawsuit Notice - Civil Lawsuit Notice:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketComplaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies):

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketSummons: Issued/Filed - Summons:

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

E-FILED

11/19/2018 3:48 PM Clerk of Court

WORKMAN LAW FIRM, PC Superior Court of CA, Robin G. Workman (Bar #145810) County of Santa Clara robin@workmanlawpc.com 18CV338479

Rachel E. Davey (Bar #316096) Reviewed By: S. Alvarez

rachel@workmanlawpc.com 177 Post Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 782-3660 Facsimile: (415) 788-1028

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Thomas Villarreal on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 18CV338479

THOMAS VILLAREAL, on behalf of himself and all| NO-

others similarly situated, COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Unlimited Civil Case

vs The Amount Demanded Exceeds $25,000

MISSION TRAIL WASTE SYSTEMS, INC., and Does 1 through 50, inclusive,

Defendants. Plaintiff Thomas Villarreal (“Plaintiff”) by his attorneys, brings this action on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, on information and belief, except those allegations that pertain to the named Plaintiff and his attorneys (which are alleged on personal knowledge), hereby alleges as follows:

JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS

2. Defendant Mission Trail Waste Systems, Inc.,relevant times was, a corporation doing business within the State of California and 1s an employer under applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Orders. Defendant’s headquarters are located in Santa Clara, California.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

3. This action seeks relief for unremedied violations of California law, including, inter alia; damages, reimbursements, restitution, penalties, interest and attorneys’ fees, as appropriate, to members of the proposed classes, aggrieved employees, and to victims of the practices at issue, who have not been provided statutory meal breaks, or compensation for missed meal breaks, as required by California Labor Code sections 226.7, 512, and 558; who have not been provided statutory rest breaks, or compensation for missed rest breaks, as required by California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 558; who have not been timely paid for all wages earned, even upon termination, in violation of California Labor Code sections 201-204; who have not been furnished with accurate wage statements in violation of California Labor Code section 226; who were not allowed to review and/or obtain a copy of their personnel file in violation of California Labor Code section 1198.5; and, who were required to submit their fingerprints as a prerequisite of whose employment, which were shared with a third party in violation of California Labor Code section 1051. Plaintiff 1s informed and believes that the damages, reimbursements, restitution, penalties, interest and attorneys’ fees do not exceed an aggregate of $4,999,999.99 and that Plaintiff’s individual claims do not exceed $74,999.99.

4. The names and capacities of defendants sued herein under California Code of Civil Procedure section 474 as Does 1 through 50, inclusive, are presently not known to Plaintiff, who therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek to amend this Complaint and include these Doe defendants’ names and capacities when they are ascertained. and for the injuries suffered by Plaintiff, the members of the class, aggrieved employees, and the general public.

5. At all times mentioned in the causes of action alleged herein, each and every Defendant was an agent and/or employee of each and every other Defendant. In doing the things alleged 1n the causes of action stated herein, each and every Defendant was acting within the course and scope of this agency or employment and was acting with the consent, permission and authorization of each of the remaining Defendants. All actions of each Defendant as alleged in the causes of action stated herein were ratified and approved by every other Defendant or their officers or managing agents.

6. Plaintiff is a current employee of Defendant. Defendant employs Plaintiff as an hourly-paid sanitary truck route driver in California. Plaintiff, and those similarly situated employees, drive routes to pick up waste in the Santa Clara, California, area. Defendant routinely requires Plaintiff, and similarly situated drivers, to work more than five hours per day without receiving mandated off-duty meal periods. Whether or not Plaintiff and similarly situated drivers indicate on their time sheets that they take statutory meal breaks, Defendant “auto-deducts™ a 30- minute meal break from the daily hours worked by drivers, and does not pay drivers for that 30 minutes worked, or the one-hour of premium pay at each driver’s regular rate of pay for forgoing the meal break. Although Defendant auto-deducts 30 minutes from Plaintiff’s, and similarly situated drivers’ wage statements for meal breaks, Plaintiff and similarly situated drivers routinely miss such meal breaks. This is because, to makewaste pick ups set by Defendant, and transport all of this waste to the dump Defendant designates before it closes, Plaintiff and similarly situated drivers cannot stop to take their statutory 30-minute uninterrupted meal breaks. Defendant is aware of this, because Defendant sets drivers’ route assignments. For these reasons, Defendant fails to provide Plaintiff and similarly situated drivers with uninterrupted 30-minute off-duty meal breaks. Plaintiff and similarly situated drivers sometimes also sometimes work “double shifts.” When this occurs, they often work in excess of 10 hours per day. When they do so, Defendant does not provide Plaintiff and those similarly situated drivers with a second meal do not receive statutory meal breaks, Defendant does not pay Plaintiff, or those similarly situated drivers, with the additional hour of compensation as required by Labor Code sections 226.7 and 558 and the applicable Wage Order. As a result, Defendant did not pay Plaintiff, or those similarly situated drivers, with all wages due as required by Labor Code sections 201-204.

7. Defendant routinely requires Plaintiff, and similarly situated drivers, to work more than 3.5 hours per day without receiving mandated off-duty, uninterrupted rest periods, in violation of California Labor Code sections 226.7, 558, 1198, and applicable Wage Orders. In addition, Plaintiff and similarly situated drivers often work in excess of 8 hours per day, even exceeding 12 hours per day, but Defendant does not authorize and permit them to take a second or third statutory rest break, respectively. Plaintiff and similarly situated drivers cannot take mandated 10-minute rest breaks because they do not have time to do so in order to meet the driving schedules set by Defendant. When the drivers do not receive uninterrupted 10-minute off- duty rest breaks, Defendant does not pay Plaintiff, or those similarly situated drivers, with the additional hour of compensation as required by Labor Code section 226.7 and applicable Wage Orders. As a result, Defendant did not pay Plaintiff, or those similarly situated drivers, with all wages due as required by Labor Code sections 201-204.

8. Because Defendant did not adequately keep records of Plaintiff’s and similarly situated drivers’ meal breaks taken and not taken, as required by Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512, Defendant failed to maintain accurate and complete payroll records, as required by Labor Code section 1174(d). This failure gives rise to civil penalties under Labor Code section 1174.5.

9. Defendant also failed to furnish accurate itemized statements to Plaintiff, and other similarly situated drivers, containing information as required by California Labor Code section 226. Because Defendant “auto-deducts” 30-minute meal breaks from drivers’ hours worked, and because Defendant does not pay the additional hour of compensation when drivers are not provided meal and/or rest breaks as required by Labor Code section 226.7 and applicable Wage Orders, the wage statements do not reflect all hours worked, all gross or net wages earned, or the hours worked and the corresponding hourly rates in violation of Labor Code sections 226(a)(1), 10. During Plaintiff’s employment in either 2017 or 2018, Plaintiff requested Defendant permit him to inspect his payroll records for the last three years. Defendant failed to permit Plaintiff to inspect or copy all of the records he requested within 21 days, in violation of California Labor Code section 226 subsection (¢). Defendant violated subsection (¢) with respect to other drivers’ requests for the same, because Defendant admitted it no longer has access to the records from 2016 and prior, because it changed payroll companies in 2016. Plaintiff and similarly situated drivers who were denied this request are therefore entitled to statutory penalties pursuant to section 226 subsection (f).

11. During Plaintiff’s employment, Plaintiff requested Defendant permit him to inspect his personnel records for the past three years, including records relating to his performance or to any grievance concerning him, maintained by Defendant, pursuant to California Labor Code section 1198.5. After 30 days, Defendant had provided Plaintiff with some,personnel records Defendant 1s required to keep pursuant to section 1198.5. Because Defendant failed to permit Plaintiff, and similarly situated drivers to review their complete personnel files in violation of section 1198.5, they are entitled to penalties pursuant to section 1198.5 subsection (k).

12. Because Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly aggrieved drivers an extra hour at the regular rate for forgone meal breaks and rest breaks, Defendant failed to timely pay Plaintiff and similarly aggrieved drivers all wages when due, in violation of Labor Code section 204. Plaintiff therefore seeks to recover civil penalties for this violation as a representative of the State, pursuant to Labor Code sections 210, 2699.3 and 2699.5.

13. Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and proposed class members an extra hour at the regular rate for their forgone meal breaks and rest breaks. During the relevant period, the employment of many proposed class members with Defendant ended and they were not paid all wages due either immediately or within 72 hours of termination or resignation, in violation of Labor Code sections 201 and 202. Plaintiff therefore seeks wages as civil penalties on behalf of those proposed class members who were not paid all wages due either immediately or within 72 of 14. During Plaintiff’s employment, Defendant violated California Labor Code section 1051 because Defendant obtained Plaintiff’s and all other hourly employees’ fingerprints on its ADP thumb scanning device, as a prerequisite of their employment. Defendant then shared these fingerprints with a third-party company. Defendant knowingly permitted this practice, in violation of California Labor Code section 1052.

15. Given the violations of the aforementioned Labor Code sections and Wage Orders, Defendant is therefore liable for unfair business practices, in violation of California Business & Professions Code section 17200, et. seq.

16. Given the violations of the aforementioned Labor Code sections and Wage Orders, Defendant is therefore liable for civil penalties set forth within, and authorized by, the PAGA, California Labor Code section 2698, et. seq.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

17. Plaintiff 1s, and during all relevant times, was, a resident of the State of California. Plaintiff sues on behalf of himself and the following subclasses of employees of Defendant in California:

() all drivers employed by Defendant in California during the four years preceding

the filing of this complaint to present;

(b) All persons in the employ of Defendant in California who, from the one year preceding the filing of this complaint to the present, made requests to copy or inspect their records containing information employers must keep pursuant to Labor Code section 226 subsection (a);

(c) All persons in the employ of Defendant in California who, from the one year preceding the filing of this complaint to the present, made requests to copy or inspect their personnel records; and

(d) All persons in the employ of Defendant in California, from the four years preceding the filing of this complaint to present, who, as a condition of their required to use their fingerprints for the purposes of clocking in and out from work.

18. Because Plaintiff, in his employment with Defendant as a driver, was routinely required to work without statutory meal periods, for which Plaintiff was not properly compensated, was routinely required to work without statutory rest periods, for which Plaintiff was not properly compensated, was not permitted to inspect either his payroll records for the last three years or his complete personnel file for the past three years, failed to receive timely and accurate wage statements, and was not paid all wages earned when they were due, and was required to provide his fingerprints, which were used for time keeping purposes, as a condition of employment, Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the proposed class.

19. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the members of the proposed class in that he has no disabling conflict of interest that would be antagonistic to those of the other members of the proposed class. Plaintiff retained counsel who are competent and experienced in the prosecution of class action wage and hour violations.

20. The proposed subclasses are sufficiently numerous and the class members are geographically dispersed throughout California, the joinder of whom in one action 1s impracticable, such that the disposition of whose claims in a class action will provide substantial benefits to both the parties and the Court.

21. There 1s a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact involved affecting the parties to be represented. The questions of law and fact common to the proposed classes predominate over questions that may affect individual class members, include but are not limited to the following:

(a) Whether Defendant implemented and engaged in a practice whereby Defendant

(2)

(h)

(1) COMPLAINT

Whether Defendant implemented and engaged in a practice whereby Defendant unlawfully failed to provide rest breaks, or provide compensation for missed rest breaks, to Plaintiff and the proposed class members

Whether Defendant implemented and engaged in a practice whereby Defendant unlawfully failed to maintain accurate payroll records for Plaintiff and proposed class members

Whether Defendant implemented and engaged in a practice whereby Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff and proposed class members accurate itemized wage statements;

Whether Defendant implemented and engaged in a practice whereby Defendant failed to permit employees to inspect or copy their wage statements;

Whether Defendant implemented and engaged in a practice whereby Defendant failed to permit employees to inspect personnel records;

Whether Defendant implemented and engaged in a practice whereby Defendant failed to timely pay Plaintiff and proposed class members all wages when due; Whether Defendant implemented and engaged in a practice whereby Defendant failed to pay proposed class members all wages due at the time of termination in violation of California Labor Code sections 201-203;

Whether Defendant implemented and engaged in a practice whereby Defendant obtained Plaintiff’s and proposed class members’ fingerprints as a prerequisite of their employment and shared these fingerprints with a third party;

Whether the practices of Defendant as alleged herein violated, inter alia, applicable provisions of the California Labor Code, including but not limited to sections 201-204, 226, 226.7, 512, 1051, 1174, 1198, 1198.5, the Unfair Competition Law codified in California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq., and the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (the PAGA), 22. Plaintiff and the proposed class members have all similarly suffered irreparable harm and damages as a result of Defendant’s unlawful and wrongful conduct, including but not limited to Defendant’s pattern and practice of failure to provide rest and meal periods and compensation for work without rest and meal periods; pattern and practice of failing to furnish accurate itemized wages statements; pattern and practice of failing to permit employees to inspect complete records for the past three years of their payroll records and their personnel files within the statutory time frames required; pattern and practice of failing to provide accurate wage statements; pattern and practice of requiring employees to provide their finger prints as a condition of employment, and pattern and practice of failing to pay its employees all wages when due. These issues are common to all proposed class members, making class treatment especially appropriate. Because the actions of Defendant toward proposed class members follow common patterns, all of which are reflected in the records possessed by Defendant, this action will provide substantial benefits to all proposed class members. Absent this action, Defendant’s unlawful

conduct will continue unremedied and uncorrected.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Applicable to Subclass (a))

(Meal Break Violations: Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7 & 512 & Applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders §11)

23. Plaintiff and proposed class members incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth herein.

24. Throughout the approximately 20 years of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant, Defendant engaged in a pattern and practice of requiring Plaintiff, and similarly situated drivers, to work more than five hours per day without receiving statutory 30-minute off-duty meal periods. Defendant also engaged in a pattern and practice of requiring Plaintiff and proposed class members to work more than 10 hours a day without providing Plaintiff and proposed class members with a second, statutory 30-minute off-duty meal break. Defendant likewise did not pay Plaintiff or proposed class members an additional hour of compensation when Plaintiff or failure violated California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512 and section 11 of the applicable Wage Order.

25. Defendant requires Plaintiff and each of the proposed class members to adhere to a driving route for waste pick-ups. These routes often do not allow for off-duty 30-minute meal breaks. Additionally, in order to makepick-up locations, while driving safely and within the speed limits, and make it to the dump by the designated time, drivers do not have time to take their statutory 30-minute off-duty meal breaks. As such, when Plaintiff and proposed class members drive these routes, they do not receive mandated 30-minute off-duty meal breaks.

26. Defendant is aware that drivers are often unable to take their statutory 30-minute off-duty meal breaks, but does not pay Plaintiff, or proposed class members, with the additional hour of compensation, as required by section 11 of applicable Wage Orders and Labor Code sections 226.7 and 558. Instead, Defendant engages in the pattern and practice of “auto- deducting” 30 minutes of time worked for meal breaks. This violation of section 11 of applicable Wage Orders i1s also a violation of Labor Code sections 558 and 1198, for which Defendant is liable for penalties under the PAGA, Labor Code section 2699 et seq.

27. As a result of Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiff and proposed class members for missed meal periods, Defendant did not pay Plaintiff, or those similarly situated employees, with all wages due as required by Labor Code sections 201-204, for which Plaintiff seeks penalties pursuant to Labor Code sections 203, 210, 558, 1198, 2699.3, and 2699.5.

28. As Defendant augmented time sheets to reflect Plaintiff and proposed class members did not work during hours they did work, and did not pay Plaintiff or proposed class members the additional hour of compensation when they were not provided meal breaks as required by Labor Code sections 226.7 and 558, Defendant did not furnish Plaintiff or proposed class members with accurate wage statements, in violation of Labor Code section 226 subsection (a), as the wage statements do not reflect all gross wages earned (§ 226(a)(1)), total hours worked 29. As a result of Defendant’s failures, Plaintiff and the proposed class members are entitled to recover the additional hour of compensation as set forth in California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 5358.

30. Plaintiff and proposed class members are therefore entitled to the relief

requested below.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Applicable to Subclass (a))

(Rest Break Violations: Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7 & Applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders §12)

31. Plaintiff and the proposed class members incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs of this complaint as 1f fully set forth herein.

32. During all relevant periods, Defendant routinely required Plaintiff and proposed class members to work more than 3.5 hours without providing Plaintiff and proposed class members with mandated 10-minute rest breaks. Defendant likewise did not pay Plaintiff or proposed class members an additional hour of compensation when Plaintiff or proposed class members did not receive the mandated 10-minute meal breaks. This failure violated section 12 of applicable Wage Orders and California Labor Code section 226.7. This violation of section 12 of applicable Wage Orders is also a violation of Labor Code section 1198, for which Defendant is liable for penalties under the PAGA, Labor Code section 2698 et seq. Plaintiff also seeks civil penalties for this violation pursuant to Labor Code section 558, because Defendant violates “any provision regulating hours and days of work in any order of the Industrial Welfare Commission,” here, section 12 of applicable Wage Orders.

33. Defendant requires Plaintiff and each of the proposed class members to adhere to a driving route for waste pick-ups. These routes often do not allow for off-duty 10-minute rest breaks. Additionally, in order to makepick-up locations, while driving safely and within the speed limits, and make it to the dump by the designated time, drivers do and proposed class members drive these routes, they do not receive mandated 10-minute off- duty rest breaks.

34. Defendant is aware that drivers are often unable to take their statutory 10- minute off-duty rest breaks, but does not pay Plaintiff, or proposed class members, with the additional hour of compensation, as required by applicable Wage Orders and Labor Code section 226.7.

35. As a result of Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiff and proposed class members for missed rest periods, Defendant also did not pay Plaintiff, or proposed class members, with all wages due as required by Labor Code sections 201-204, for which Plaintiff seeks penalties pursuant to Labor Code sections 203, 210, 558, 1198, and 2698 et seq.

36. Because Defendant did not pay Plaintiff or proposed class members the additional hour of compensation when they were not provided rest breaks as required by Labor Code sections 226.7 and section 12 of applicable Wage Orders, Defendant did not furnish Plaintiff or proposed class members with accurate wage statements, in violation of Labor Code section 226(a), as the wage statements do not reflect all gross wages earned (§ 226(a)(1)), total hours worked (§ 226(a)(2)), or net wages earned (§ 226(a)(9)).

37. As a result of Defendant’s failures, Plaintiff and proposed class members are entitled to recover the additional hour of compensation as set forth in California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 558.

38. Plaintiff and proposed class members are therefore entitled to the relief requested below.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Applicable to Subclass (a))

(Inaccurate Wage Statements: Cal. Lab. Code § 226)

39. Plaintiff and proposed class members incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 40. During the relevant time period, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff, and proposed receive mandated off-duty meal or rest breaks. In addition, because Defendant auto-deducted time for meal periods for which Plaintiffs and class members did not receive, Defendant routinely issued wage statements that did not accurately reflect all hours worked, or all gross or net wages carned. As such, Defendant failed to furnish accurate itemized wage statements to Plaintiff and proposed class members containing information as required by California Labor Code section 226 subdivision (a) paragraphs (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked, and (5) net wages earned. These failures caused Plaintiff and proposed class members to suffer injury as defined by California Labor Code section 226(e)(2)(B)(1). As a result of Defendant’s failures, Plaintiff and proposed class members are entitled to recover the penalties and attorneys’ fees as set forth in California Labor Code section 226(e)(1).

41. Asaresult of Defendant’s violations of Labor Code section 226(a), Plaintiff and proposed class members are also entitled to recover the penalties, and interest thereon, as set forth in California Labor Code section 226.3.

42. Plaintiff also seeks penalties for Defendant’s violations of Labor Code section 226 subsection (a), paragraphs (1), (2), and (5) pursuant to Labor Code sections 2699.3 and 2699.5, and attorneys’ fees pursuant to section 2699(g)(1).

43. Plaintiff and proposed class members are therefore entitled to the relief requested below.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Applicable to Subclass (b))

(Failure To Permit Employee Inspection Of Payroll Records: Cal. Lab. Code § 226(c))

44. Plaintiff and proposed class members incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth herein.

45. During Plaintiff’s employment in either 2017 or 2018, Plaintiff that requested Defendant permit him to inspect his payroll records for the last three years, as specified in Labor Code section 226 subsection (b). Defendant failed to permit Plaintiff to inspect or copy all of the records he requested within 21 days, in violation of California Labor Code section 226 subsection Defendant admitted 1t no longer has access to the records from 2016 and prior, because it changed payroll companies in 2016. Plaintiff and similarly situated drivers who were denied this request are therefore entitled to statutory penalties pursuant to section 226 subsection (f).

46. Plaintiff and proposed class members are therefore entitled to the relief requested

below.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Applicable to Subclass (¢))

(Failure To Permit Employee Inspection Of Personnel Records: Cal. Lab. Code § 1198.5)

47. Plaintiff and proposed class members incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth herein.

48. During Plaintiff’s employment, Plaintiff requested that Defendant permit him to inspect his personnel records for the past three years, including records relating to his performance or to any grievance concerning him, maintained by Defendant, pursuant to California Labor Code section 1198.5. After 30 days, Defendant had provided Plaintiff with some,personnel records Defendant 1s required to keep pursuant to section 1198.5. Because Defendant failed to permit Plaintiff, and similarly situated drivers to review their complete personnel files in violation of section 1198.5, they are entitled to penalties pursuant to section 1198.5 subsection (k).

49. Plaintiff and proposed class members are therefore entitled to the relief requested below.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Applicable to Subclass (d))

(Improper Acquisition And Use Of Employees’ Fingerprints: Violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1051 and 1054)

50. Plaintiff and the proposed class members incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs of this complaint as 1f fully set forth herein.

51. During Plaintiff’s employment, Defendant obtained Plaintiff’s and proposed class members’ fingerprints on its thumb-scanning system, as a condition of their employment. Defendant shared these fingerprints with a third-party in violation of California Labor Code 52. Defendant is liable to Plaintiff, and proposed class members, for all recovery allowed by California Labor Code section 1054, including, but not limited to, treble damages. 53. Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, are therefore entitled to the relief

requested below.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Applicable to all Subclasses)

(Unlawful, Unfair And Fraudulent Business Practices: Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.)

54. Plaintiff and proposed class members incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth herein.

55. Business & Professions Code section 17200, et seq., prohibits acts of unfair competition, defined as an “unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.”

56. The policies, acts and practices heretofore described were and are unlawful business acts or practices because Defendant’s (1) failure to provide meal breaks, or provide compensation for missed meal breaks, to Plaintiff and proposed class members, as required by California Labor Code sections 226.7, 512, 558, 1198, and section 11 of applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders (“Wage Orders™); (2) failure to provide rest breaks, or provide compensation for missed rest breaks to Plaintiff and proposed class members, as required by California Labor Code sections 226.7 558, 1198, and section 12 of applicable Wage Orders; (3) failure to maintain accurate records of Plaintiff’s and proposed class members’ payroll records showing hours worked daily and wages earned in violation of California Labor Code section 1174; (4) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements to Plaintiff and proposed class members containing information as required by California Labor Code section 226; (5) failure to permit employees to inspect or copy wage statements in violation of California Labor Code section 226(c¢); (6) failure to permit employees to inspect personnel records, in violation of California Labor Code section 1198.5; (7) failure to timely pay Plaintiff and proposed class members all wages when due, in violation of California Labor Code section 204; (8) failure to pay members of sections 201-203; and, (9) violation of California Labor Code section 1051 in that Defendant obtained employees’ fingerprints as a prerequisite of their employment and shared these fingerprints with a third party; violate applicable Labor Code sections, Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Labor Code section 2698 et seq., and other provisions of California common and/or statutory law. Plaintiff reserves the right to allege additional statutory and common law violations by Defendant. Such conduct 1s ongoing to this date.

57. Further, the policies, acts or practices described herein were and are an unfair business acts or practices because any justifications for Defendant’s illegal and wrongful conduct were and are vastly outweighed by the harm such conduct caused to Plaintiff, proposed class members, aggrieved employees, and the members of the general public. Such conduct is ongoing to this date.

58. As a result of its unlawful and/or unfair and/or fraudulent acts, Defendant reaps and continues to reap unfair benefits and illegal profits at the expense of Plaintiff and proposed class members. Defendant should be made to disgorge ill-gotten gains and provide restitution to Plaintiff and proposed class members for the wrongfully withheld wages pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17203.

59. Accordingly, Plaintiff and proposed class members respectfully request that the Court award judgment and relief in their favor, to provide restitution, and other types of equitable relief.

60. Plaintiff and the proposed class members are therefore entitled to the relief

requested below.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (the “PAGA”): Cal. Lab. Code § 2698, et. seq.)

61. Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 62. The policies, acts and practices heretofore described were and are unlawful because to Plaintiff and proposed class members, as required by California Labor Code sections 226.7, 512,558, 1198, and section 11 of applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders (“Wage Orders”); (2) failure to provide rest breaks, or provide compensation for missed rest breaks to Plaintiff and proposed class members, as required by California Labor Code sections 226.7, 558, 1198, and section 12 of applicable Wage Orders; (3) failure to maintain accurate records of Plaintiff’s and proposed class members’ payroll records showing hours worked daily and wages earned in violation of California Labor Code section 1174; (4) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements to Plaintiff and proposed class members containing information as required by California Labor Code section 226; (5) failure to permit employees to inspect or copy wage statements in violation of California Labor Code section 226(¢); (6) failure to permit employees to inspect personnel records, in violation of California Labor Code section 1198.5; (7) failure to timely pay Plaintiff and proposed class members all wages when due, in violation of California Labor Code section 204; (8) failure to pay members of the proposed class all wages due at the time of termination in violation of California Labor Code sections 201-203; and, (9) violation of California Labor Code section 1051 in that Defendant obtained employees’ fingerprints as a condition precedent to their securing and retaining employment and shared these fingerprints with a third party; violate applicable Labor Code sections and gives rise to statutory and civil penalties as a result of such conduct, including but not limited to penalties as provided by Labor Code sections 203, 210, 226(e), 226(f), 226.3, 558, 1054, 1174.5, 1198.5(k), 2699(a), 2699(f), and 2699.5, and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. Plaintiff, as an aggrieved employee, hereby seeks recovery of civil penalties as prescribed by the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004 on behalf of himself and other current and former employees of Defendant against whom one or more of the violations of the Labor Code was committed. Plaintiff further seeks attorneys’ fees to achieve the same, pursuant to Labor Code section 2699(g)(1).

63. On June 29, 2018, Plaintiff gave written notice to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency by online submission through their website and by certified mail California Labor Code section 2699.3. Plaintiff has not received written notification by the LWDA of an intention to investigate the allegations set forth in Plaintiff’s June 29, 2018, letter or written notice of cure by September 3, 2018, 65 calendar days after the postmark date of the notice

given to the LWDA, as prescribed by California Labor Code section 2699.3(a)(2)(A).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WIHEREFORE Plaintiff prays for judgment and relief as follows:

1. An order certifying that the action may be maintained as a class action;

2. Compensatory and statutory damages, penalties and restitution, as appropriate and available under each cause of action, in an amount to be proven at trial based on, inter alia, the unpaid balance of compensation Defendant owes;

3. Reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Labor Code sections 218.5,

226(e)(1) and 2699(g)(1);

4. Costs of this suit;

5. Pre- and post-judgment interest; and

6. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

7. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the damages, back wages, restitution, value

of injunctive relief sought, penalties, interest and attorneys’ fees do not exceed an aggregate of $4,999,999.99 and that the pro-rata value of Plaintiff’s individual claims, including damages, back wages, restitution, injunctive relief, interest, attorneys” fees, and penalties, does not exceed $74,999.99.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.

%

Date: November 19, 2018 WORKMAN LAW FIRM, P/C/

]/ //

J

By: