This case was last updated from Santa Clara County Superior Courts on 08/08/2019 at 09:22:55 (UTC).

Turner v. Aemetis, Inc., et al.

Case Summary

On 08/28/2018 Turner filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against Aemetis, 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 Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ******3697

  • Filing Date:

    08/28/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    Santa Clara County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Downtown Superior Court

  • County, State:

    Santa Clara, California

Judge Details

Judge

Kuhnle, Thomas

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Turner, Michael

Defendants

Aemetis Advanced Fuels Keyes, Inc.

Aemetis, Inc.

Not Classified By Court

Superior Court of California

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Han, Douglas

Park, Daniel J

Tatavos-Gharajeh, Shunt

Defendant Attorneys

McIntyre, John F.

Elliot, Kevin R.

Not Classified By Court Attorney

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

 

Court Documents

Notice

Notice CMC reset from 8-9-19 to 12-6-19: Comment: CMC reset from 8/9/19 to 12/6/19

Statement: Case Management Conference

Joint CMC Statement: Comment: Joint Case Management Statement

Minute Order

Minutes Non-Criminal:

Notice

Notice CMC 8-9-19 at 10am in D5: Comment: CMC set for 8/9/19 at 10am in D5

Declaration

John F. McIntyre, Jr. Declaration HRG 2-8-19: Comment: Declaration of John F. McIntyre, Jr.

Declaration

Andrew B. Foster Declaration: Comment: Declaration of Andrew B. Foster

Declaration

Todd Waltz Declaration HRG 2-8-19: Comment: Declaration of Todd Waltz

Memorandum: Points and Authorities

Memorandum Points and Authorities HRG 2-8-19: Comment: HRG 2/8/19

Motion: Dismiss

Motion Dismiss HRG 2-8-19: Comment: Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Stay Proceedings and Compel Arbitration HRG 2/8/19

Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)

Proof of Service of Summons Complaint: Comment: Proof of Service of Summons - Aemetis, Inc.

Proof of Service

Proof of Service: Comment: Proof of Service of Plaintiff Michael Turner's Notice of Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery - Defendant Aemetis Advanced Fuels Keyes, Inc.

Proof of Service

Proof of Service: Comment: Proof of Service of Plaintiff Michael Turner's Notice of Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery - Defendant Aemetis, Inc.

Notice

Notice: Comment: Plaintiff Michael Turner's Notice of Posting Complex Fees

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

Civil Lawsuit Notice

Civil Lawsuit Notice: Comment: 1st CMC set for 12/7/18 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: Class Action Complaint for Collection of Due and Unpaid Wages

23 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/06/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Conference: Case Management - Joint CMC Statement: Judicial Officer: Kuhnle, Thomas; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Comment: (3rd CMC) Proposed Wage and Hour Class Action * Discovery and responsive pleading deadline stayed, as of 9/4/18, when the case was deemed complex. At the 12/7/18 CMC, the Court ordered discovery to remain stayed until 2/8/19; and responsive pleadings are to be filed by 12/31/18. On 2/8/19, the matter was ordered to arbitration and the matter was stayed pending arbitration. Parties have agreed to mediation; CMC was reset from 8/9/19 to 12/6/19.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice CMC reset from 8-9-19 to 12-6-19: Comment: CMC reset from 8/9/19 to 12/6/19

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Statement: Case Management Conference - Joint CMC Statement: Comment: Joint Case Management Statement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice CMC 8-9-19 at 10am in D5: Comment: CMC set for 8/9/19 at 10am in D5

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Conference: Case Management - Minutes Non-Criminal: Judicial Officer: Kuhnle, Thomas; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Result: Held; Comment: (2nd CMC) Proposed Wage and Hour Class Action * Discovery and responsive pleading deadline stayed, as of 9/4/18, when the case was deemed complex. At the 12/7/18 CMC, the Court ordered discovery to remain stayed until 2/8/19; and responsive pleadings are to be filed by 12/31/18.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Motion: Stay - Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies): Motion Dismiss HRG 2-8-19: Memorandum Points and Authorities HRG 2-8-19: Todd Waltz Declaration HRG 2-8-19: Andrew B. Foster Declaration: John F. McIntyre, Jr. Declaration HRG 2-8-19: Proof of Service Mail HRG 2-8-19: Opposition to Motion to Dismiss or Stay Proceedings: Daniel J. Park Declaration: Michael Turner Declaration: Proof of Service: Reply ISO Motion to Dismiss or Stay HRG 2-8-19: Declaration of Deniese Gutierrez-Contreras HRG 2-8-19: Supplemental Declaration of Andrew Foster HRG 2-8-19: Objection to Declaration of Michael Turner HRG 2-8-19: Objection to Declaration of Daniel Park HRG 2-8-19: Proof of Service: Order re Motion to Dismiss, or, in alternative, Stay Proceedings and Compel Arbitration: Minutes Non-Criminal: Judicial Officer: Kuhnle, Thomas; Hearing Time: 9:00 AM; Result: Heard: Granted in part; Comment: Motion by Defendants Aemetis, Inc. and Aemetis Advanced Fuels Keyes, Inc. to Dismiss, or, in the alternative, Stay Proceedings and Compel Arbitration

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Minute Order - Minutes Non-Criminal:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Minute Order - Minutes Non-Criminal:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Order - Order re Motion to Dismiss, or, in alternative, Stay Proceedings and Compel Arbitration: Comment: Order re Motion to Dismiss, or, in alternative, Stay Proceedings and Compel Arbitration - signed/TEK

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service - Proof of Service: Comment: Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
20 More Docket Entries
  • 09/19/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - Proof of Service of Summons Complaint: Comment: Proof of Service of Summons - Aemetis Advanced Fuels Keyes, Inc.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - Proof of Service of Summons Complaint: Comment: Proof of Service of Summons - Aemetis, Inc.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service - Proof of Service: Comment: Proof of Service of Plaintiff Michael Turner's Notice of Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery - Defendant Aemetis Advanced Fuels Keyes, Inc.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service - Proof of Service: Comment: Proof of Service of Plaintiff Michael Turner's Notice of Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery - Defendant Aemetis, Inc.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice: Comment: Plaintiff Michael Turner's Notice of Posting Complex Fees

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Order: Deeming Case Complex - Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline: Comment: Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline signed/TEK

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil Lawsuit Notice - Civil Lawsuit Notice: Comment: 1st CMC set for 12/7/18 at 10am in D5; assigned to Hon. Thomas E. Kuhnle

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet: Comment: COMPLEX

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Summons: Issued/Filed - Summons Issued Filed:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies): Comment: Class Action Complaint for Collection of Due and Unpaid Wages

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

E-FILED

8/28/2018 3:31 PM

Douglas Han (SBN 232858) Clerk of Court

Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh (SBN 272164) ggfi?&?gfc SO : :EE; fcclz;b;,é Daniel J. Park (SBN 274973) 18CV333697

JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION

411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500 Glendale, California 91203 Telephone (818) 230-7502 Facsimile (818) 230-7502

Reviewed By: R. Walker

Attorneys for Plaintiff

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

MICHAEL TURNER, individually, and on Case No.: 18C V333697

behalf of other members of the general public

similarly situated, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR

COLLECTION OF DUE AND

Plaintiff, UNPAID WAGES V. (1) Collection of Due and Unpaid

Wages per California Labor Code §

AEMETIS, INC., an unknown entity; 229,

AEMETIS ADVANCED FUELS KEYES, (2) Violation of California Business &

INC., an unknown entity; and DOES 1 through Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.

100, inclusive,

Defendants.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This class action is brought pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382. The monetary damages and restitution sought by Plaintiff exceeds the minimal jurisdiction limits of the Superior Court and will be established according to proof at trial.

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the California Constitution, Article VI, Section 10, which grants the superior court “original jurisdiction in all other causes” except those given by statute to other courts. The statutes under which this action 1s brought do not specify any other basis for jurisdiction.

3. This Court also has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to California Labor Code section 229, which allows actions for the collection of due and unpaid wages from any private agreement to arbitrate.

4. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendants because, upon information and belief, Defendants maintain its principle place of business in California, have sufficient minimum contacts in California, or otherwise intentionally avail themselves of the California market so as to render the exercise of jurisdiction over them by the California courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

5. Venue is proper in this Court because, upon information and belief, Defendants maintain its corporate headquarters in Cupertino, and transact business in the State of California, including the County of Santa Clara. The majority of the acts and omissions alleged herein relating to Plaintiff took place in the State of California. Defendants employed Plaintiff within the State of California.

/1] /1] /1]

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff MICHAEL TURNER is an individual residing in the State of California.

7. Defendant AEMETIS, INC. at all times herein mentioned, was and 1s, upon information and belief, an unknown business entity, and at all times herein mentioned, was and is, an employer whose employees are engaged throughout, including the County of Santa Clara.

8. Defendant AEMETIS ADVANCED FUELS KEYES, INC. at all times herein mentioned, was and is, upon information and belief, an unknown business entity, and at all times herein mentioned, was and is, an employer whose employees are engaged throughout the State of California.

0. At all times herein relevant, Defendants AEMETIS, INC., AEMETIS ADVANCED FUELS KEYES, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, and each of them, were the agents, partners, joint venturers, joint employers, representatives, servants, employees, successors-in-interest, co-conspirators and assigns, each of the other, and at all times relevant hereto were acting within the course and scope of their authority as such agents, partners, joint venturers, joint employers, representatives, servants, employees, successors, co-conspirators and assigns, and all acts or omissions alleged herein were duly committed with the ratification, knowledge, permission, encouragement, authorization, and consent of each defendant designated herein.

10. The true names and capacities, whether corporate, associate, individual or otherwise, of Defendants DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff, who sues said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on that information and belief alleges, that each of the Defendants designated as a DOE 1is legally responsible for the events and happenings referred to in this Complaint, and unlawfully caused the injuries and damages to Plaintiff and the other class members as alleged in this Complaint. Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to show the true names and

capacities when the same have been ascertained. 11. Defendants AEMETIS, INC., AEMETIS ADVANCED FUELS KEYES, INC. and DOES 1 through 100 will hereinafter collectively be referred to as “Defendants.”

12. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants directly or indirectly controlled or affected the working conditions, wages, working hours, and conditions of employment of Plaintiff and the other class members so as to make each of said Defendants employers and employers liable under the statutory provisions set forth herein.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

13. Plaintiff brings this action on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the general public similarly situated, and, thus, seeks class certification under Code of Civil Procedure section 382.

14. The proposed class is defined as follows:

All current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees employed by

Defendants (directly or through a staffing agency) within the State of California

at any time during the period from four years preceding the filing of this

Complaint to final judgment.

15. Plaintiff reserves the right to establish subclasses as appropriate.

16. The class is ascertainable and there is a well-defined community of interest in the litigation:

a. Numerosity: The class members are so numerous that joinder of all class members is impracticable. The membership of the entire class is unknown to Plaintiff at this time; however, the class is estimated to be greater than fifty (50) individuals and the identity of such membership i1s readily ascertainable by inspection of Defendants’ employment records.

b. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of all other class members’ claims as demonstrated herein. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the other class members with whom he has a well-

defined community of interest.

/1]

Superiority: A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation because individual joinder of all class members 1s impractical.

Public Policy Considerations: Certification of this lawsuit as a class

action will advance public policy objectives. Employers of this great state violate employment and labor laws every day. Current employees are often afraid to assert their rights out of fear of direct or indirect retaliation. However, class actions provide the class members who are not named in the complaint anonymity that allows for the vindication of

their rights.

17. There are common questions of law and fact as to the class members that

predominate over questions affecting only individual members. The following common

questions of law or fact, among others, exist as to the members of the class:

a.

Whether Defendants’ failure to pay wages, without abatement or reduction, in accordance with the California Labor Code, was willful; Whether Defendants had a corporate policy and practice of failing to pay their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California C. Whether Defendants required Plaintiff and the other class members to work over eight (8) hours per day and/or over forty (40) hours per week and failed to pay the legally required overtime compensation to Plaintiff and the other class members;

d. Whether Defendants required Plaintiff and the other class members to work seven consecutive days per week and failed to pay the legally required double overtime compensation on the seventh day to Plaintiff and the other class members;

c. Whether Defendants failed to pay minimum wages to Plaintiff and the other class members for all hours worked;

f. Whether Defendants’ conduct was willful or reckless;

g, Whether Defendants engaged in unfair business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code section 17200, et seq.;

h. The appropriate amount of damages, restitution, and/or monetary penalties resulting from Defendants’ violation of California law; and

1. Whether Plaintiff and the other class members are entitled to compensatory damages pursuant to the California Labor Code.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

18. At all relevant times set forth herein, Defendants employed Plaintiff and other persons as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California, including the County of Santa Clara.

19. Defendants, jointly and severally, employed Plaintiff as an hourly-paid, non- exempt employee, from approximately December 2014 to approximately July 2015, in the State of California.

20. Defendants, jointly and severally, hired Plaintiff and the other class members and classified them as hourly-paid, non-exempt employees, and failed to compensate them for all hours worked, including minimum wage and overtime.

/1]

22. Defendants exercised sufficient authority over the terms and conditions of Plaintiff and the other class members’ employment for them to be joint employers of Plaintiff and the other class members.

23. Defendants directly hired and paid wages and benefits to Plaintiff and the other class members.

24. Defendants continue to employ hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California.

25. Plaintiff and the other class members worked over eight (8) hours in a day, and/or forty (40) hours in a week during their employment with Defendants.

26. Plaintiff and the other class members worked seven consecutive days in a week during their employment with Defendants

27. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants engaged in a uniform policy and systematic scheme of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California. This scheme involved, inter alia, failing to pay them for all hours worked in violation of California law.

28. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and the other class members were entitled to receive certain due and unpaid wages for overtime compensation and that they were not receiving wages for overtime compensation. 30. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should have known that they had a duty to compensate Plaintiff and the other class members pursuant to California law, and that Defendants had the financial ability to pay such compensation, but willfully, knowingly, and intentionally failed to do so, and falsely represented to Plaintiff and the other class members that they were properly denied wages, all in order to increase Defendants’ profits.

31. At all material times set forth herein, Defendants failed to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and the other class members for all hours worked. Plaintiff and the other class members were required to work more than eight (8) hours per day and/or forty (40) hours per week without overtime compensation.

32. At all material times set forth herein, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the other class members at least minimum wages for all hours worked.

33. At all material times set forth herein, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the other class members all overtime wages owed to them.

34, At all material times set forth herein, Defendants failed to properly compensate Plaintiff and the other class members pursuant to California law in order to increase Defendants’ profits.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Collection of Due and Unpaid Wages) (Against DEFENDANTS and DOES 1 through 100)

36. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 35, and each and every part thereof with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein.

37. California Labor Code section 1198 and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”’) Wage Order provide that it 1s unlawful to employ persons without compensating them at a rate of pay either time-and-one-half or two-times that person’s regular rate of pay, depending on the number of hours worked by the person on a daily or weekly basis.

38. Specifically, the applicable IWC Wage Order provides that Defendants are and were required to pay Plaintiff and the other class members employed by Defendants, who work(ed) more than eight (8) hours in a day or more than forty (40) hours in a workweek, at the rate of time-and-one-half for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a day or more than forty (40) hours in a workweek.

39. The applicable IWC Wage Order further provides that Defendants are and were required to pay Plaintiff and the other class members overtime compensation at a rate of two times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of twelve (12) hours in a day.

40. California Labor Code section 510 codifies the right to overtime compensation at one-and-one-half times the regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a day or forty (40) hours in a week or for the first eight (8) hours worked on the seventh day of work, and no overtime compensation at twice the regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of twelve (12) hoursexcess of eight (8) hoursseventh day of work.

41. During the relevant time period, Plaintiff and the other class members worked in excess of eight (8) hours 1n a day, and/or in excess of forty (40) hours in a week.

/1]

43. During the relevant time period, Plaintiff and the other class members worked seven consecutive days in a week.

44. During the relevant time period, Defendants intentionally and willfully failed to pay overtime wages owed to Plaintiff and the other class members.

45. Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and the other class members the unpaid balance of overtime compensation, as required by California laws, violates the provisions of California Labor Code sections 510 and 1198, and 1s therefore unlawful.

46. Pursuant to California Labor Code section 1194, Plaintiff and the other class members are entitled to recover unpaid overtime compensation, as well as interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees.

47. During the relevant time period, Defendants failed to pay minimum wages to Plaintiff and the other class members as required, pursuant to California Labor Code sections 11194, 1197, and 1197.1.

48. Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs and the other class members the minimum wage as required violates California Labor Code sections 1194, 1197, and 1197.1. Pursuant to those sections, Plaintiff and the other class members are entitled to recover the unpaid balance of their minimum wage compensation as well as interest, costs, and attorney’s fees, and liquidated damages in an amount equal to the wages unlawfully unpaid and interest thereon.

49. Plaintiff and the other class members seek these due and unpaid wages, which includes minimum wage, underpayment of wages and overtime wages.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.) (Against DEFENDANTS and DOES 1 through 100)

50. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 49, and each and every part thereof with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein.

51. Defendants’ conduct, as alleged herein, has been, and continues to be, unfair, unlawful, and harmful to Plaintiff, other class members, the general public, and Defendants’ competitors. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to enforce important rights affecting the public interest within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.

52. Defendants’ activities as alleged herein are violations of California law, and constitute unlawful business acts and practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code section 17200, et seq.

53. A violation of California Business & Professions Code section 17200, et seq. may be predicated on the violation of any state or federal law. In this instant case, Defendants’ policies and practices of required employees, including Plaintiff and the other class members, to work overtime and minimum wage without paying them due wages in violation of California Labor Codes including but not limited to Labor Code sections 510, 1194, and 1198. These violations of California law for due and unpaid wages can be maintained pursuant to California Labor Code section 229. As a result of the herein described violations of California law, Defendants unlawfully gained an unfair advantage over other businesses.

54, Plaintiff and the other class members have been personally injured by Defendants’ unlawful business acts and practices as alleged herein, including but not necessarily limited to the loss of money and/or property.

/1] /1] /1]

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, requests a trial by jury.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other members of the general public similarly situated, prays for relief and judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows:

Class Certification

1. That this action be certified as a class action;

2. That Plaintiff be appointed as representative of the Class;

3. That counsel for Plaintiff be appointed as Class Counsel; and

4. That Defendants provide to Class Counsel immediately the names and most current contact information (address, e-mail and telephone numbers) of all class members.

As to the First Cause of Action

5. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendants violated California Labor Code sections 510, 1194, and 1198 and applicable IWC Wage Orders by willfully failing to pay all wages due and owing to Plaintiff and the other class members;

6. For general unpaid wages at minimum wage rates, or overtime wage rates and such general and special damages as may be appropriate;

7. For pre-judgment interest on any unpaid overtime compensation commencing from the date such amounts were due;

/1]

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

As to the Second Cause of Action 10. That the Court decree, adjudge and decree that Defendants violated California Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq. by failing to provide Plaintiff and the other class members all overtime and minimum wage compensation due to them and failing to pay Plaintiff’s and the other class members’ wages timely as required by California Labor Code section 201 and 202.

11. For restitution of unpaid wages to Plaintiff and all the other class members and all pre-judgment interest from the day such amounts were due and payable;

12 For the appointment of a receiver to receive, manage, and distribute any and all funds disgorged from Defendants and determined to have been wrongfully acquired by Defendants as a result of violation of California Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.;

13. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit incurred herein pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5;

14. For injunctive relief to ensure compliance with this section, pursuant to

California Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.; and

15. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. Dated: August 28, 2018 JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION By% / £ w5, Douglas Han