This case was last updated from Santa Clara County Superior Courts on 08/07/2019 at 12:52:20 (UTC).

Shuff v. Stevens Creek Quarry, Inc., et al.

Case Summary

On 01/19/2018 Shuff filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against Stevens Creek Quarry, 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:

    ******2077

  • Filing Date:

    01/19/2018

  • 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

Judge

Kuhnle, Thomas

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

SHUFF, WILLIAM

Howland, John

Defendants

VOSS, RICHARD A.

STEVENS CREEK QUARRY, INC.

Other

Superior Court of California

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Matern, Matthew John

Sokolowski, Andrew Joseph

Defendant Attorney

Kornbluh, David Irwin

Other Attorney

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

 

Court Documents

Statement: Case Management Conference

2002314_4932002230-0: Comment: Joint Case Management Statement (Statements)

Summons: Issued/Filed

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

Complaint: Amended

Complaint First Amended: Comment: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Amendments)

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

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

Notice: Comment: Civil Lawsuit Notice (1st CMC set for 5/4/18 at 10am in D5; assigned to Hon. Thomas E. Kuhnle)

Civil Case Cover Sheet

Civil Case Cover Sheet: Comment: CIVIL CASE COVERSHEET

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

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

Summons: Issued/Filed

Summons: Comment: SUMMONS

Order

Order re Demurrer to Class Allegations in First Amended Complaint: Comment: Order re Demurrer to Class Allegations in First Amended Complaint - signed/TEK

Response/Reply

Reply: Comment: Reply

Opposition/Objections

Opposition: Comment: PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS DEMURRER TO CLASS ALLEGATIONS

Proof of Service

Proof of Service:

Request: Judicial Notice

Request Judicial Notice:

Declaration: In Support

Declaration In Support:

Memorandum: Points and Authorities

Memorandum Points and Authorities:

Demurrer

Demurrer: Comment: Demurrer to First Amended Complaint (8/3/18, 9am, D5)

Notice

Notice CMC 8-3-18 at 10am in D5: Comment: CMC set for 8/3/18 at 10am in D5

38 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/06/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Order - Order After HRG 8-2-19: Comment: Order re Motion to Compel Plaintiff Shuff's Responses to Special Interrogatories and for Sanctions - signed/TEK

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Motion: Compel - Motion Compel Plaintiff William Shuff's Responses to Special Interrogs and Sanctions HRG 8-2-19: David I. Kornbluh Declaration HRG 8-2-19: Plaintiff's Statement re Deft's Request for Discovery Sanctions: Andrew J. Sokolowski Declaration: Minutes Non-Criminal: Judicial Officer: Kuhnle, Thomas; Hearing Time: 9:00 AM; Result: Heard: Granted; Comment: Motion by Defendant Stevens Creek Quarry to Compel Plaintiff William Shuff's Responses to Special Interrogatories and for Sanctions in the amount of $900. IDC completed 5/30/19.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Conference: Case Management - Joint CMC Statement: Minutes Non-Criminal: Judicial Officer: Kuhnle, Thomas; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Result: Continued: Party's Motion; Comment: (6th CMC) Proposed Class Action * Employment * Discovery stayed and responsive pleading deadline stayed, as of 1/29/18, when the case was deemed complex. 1st Amended Complaint filed 3/29/18; responsive pleading due by 8/17/18 (filed).

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

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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Declaration - Andrew J. Sokolowski Declaration: Comment: Declaration of Andrew J. Sokolowski in Support of Plaintiff's Statement Opposing Request for Sanctions

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Statement - Plaintiff's Statement re Deft's Request for Discovery Sanctions: Comment: Plaintiff's Statement Regarding Defendants' Request for Discovery Sanctions

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Statement: Case Management Conference - Joint CMC Statement: Comment: joint Case Management Statement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice CMC reset from 7-26-19 to 8-2-19: Comment: CMC reset from 7/26/19 to 8/2/19

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Declaration - David I. Kornbluh Declaration HRG 8-2-19: Comment: Declaration of David I. Kornbluh in Support of Stevens Creek Quarry, Inc.'s Motion to Compel William Shuff's Responses to Special Interrogatories and for Sanctions

    Read MoreRead Less
50 More Docket Entries
  • 04/26/2018
  • Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - Comment: Richard A. Voss

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2018
  • First Paper Filed - Fee - Comment: Taken on Notice of appearance. atty: David Kornbluh

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2018
  • First Paper Filed - Fee - Comment: Taken on Notice of appearance. atty: David Kornbluh

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Summons: Issued/Filed - Summons Issued Filed 1st Amended Complaint: Comment: on First Amended Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Complaint: Amended - Complaint First Amended: Comment: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Amendments)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2018
  • 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
  • 01/19/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice: Comment: Civil Lawsuit Notice (1st CMC set for 5/4/18 at 10am in D5; assigned to Hon. Thomas E. Kuhnle)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet: Comment: CIVIL CASE COVERSHEET

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies): Comment: COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Summons: Issued/Filed - Summons: Comment: SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

MATERN LAW GROUP, PC

MATTHEW J. MATERN (SBN 159798) ANDREW J. SOKOLOWSKI (SBN 226685) 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, California 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900

Facsimile: (310) 531-1901

Attorneys for Plaintiff WILLIAM SHUFF, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated

E-FILED

1/19/2018 1:07 PM Clerk of Court Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

18CV 322077

Reviewed By: T. Ngo

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

WILLIAM SHUPFF, an individual, on behalf of

himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, Vs.

STEVENS CREEK QUARRY, INC., a California corporation; RICHARD A. VOSS, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

Defendants.

CASE NO.: 18CV 322077

CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT FOR:

1. Failure to Provide Required Meal

Periods

Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods

Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

Failure to Pay Minimum Wages

Failure to Pay All Wages Due to

Discharged and Quitting Employees

Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized

Wage Statements

7. Failure to Indemnify Employees for Necessary Expenditures Incurred in Discharge of Duties

8. Unfair and Unlawful Business Practices

NP Plaintiff WILLIAM SHUFF (“PLAINTIFF”) an individual, demanding a jury trial, on

behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated, alleges as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. The Superior Court of the State of California has jurisdiction in this matter because PLAINTIFF 1s a resident and a citizen of the State of California, and Defendants STEVENS CREEK QUARRY, INC. (“STEVENS CREEK?”), a California corporation, and RICHARD A. VOSS (“DEFENDANT VOSS”), an individual; and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive (collectively “DEFENDANTS”), are qualified to do business in California and regularly conduct business in California, and/or are citizens or residents of California. Further, no federal question is at issue because the claims are based solely on California law.

2. Venue 1s proper in this judicial district and the County of Santa Clara, California because PLAINTIFF, and other persons similarly situated, performed work for DEFENDANTS in the County of Santa Clara, DEFENDANTS maintain offices and facilities and transact business in the County of Santa Clara, and because DEFENDANTS’ illegal employment policies and practices which are the subject of this action were applied, at least in part, to PLAINTIFF, and other persons similarly situated, in the County of Santa Clara.

PLAINTIFFE

3. PLAINTIFF 1is a resident and a citizen of the State of California and a former employee of DEFENDANTS at times material to this complaint. On information and belief, PLAINTIFF worked for DEFENDANTS until sometime in early- or mid-2014.

4. PLAINTIFF was a putative class member in a previously-filed class action lawsuit, Tellez v. Rich Voss Trucking, Inc., et al., Case No. 1-12-CV-227103 (Santa Clara County Superior Court) (the “Tellez Lawsuit”). The Tellez Lawsuit was filed on or about June 22, 2012, named STEVENS CREEK as a defendant, and defined the putative class to include PLAINTIFF. On or about March 29, 2017, the Court in the Tellez Lawsuit issued an order denying the plaintiff’s motion for class certification. Accordingly, PLAINTIFF’s claims, including the class claims alleged in this Complaint, were tolled during the pendency of the Tellez Lawsuit and until including the class claims, are thus timely filed under the tolling doctrine set forth in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah (1974) 414 U.S. 538; Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker (1983) 462 U.S. 345; and Resh v. China Agritech, Inc. (9th Cir. 2017) 857 F.3d 994.

5. PLAINTIFF brings this class action to recover, among other things, wages and penalties from unpaid wages earned and due, including but not limited to unpaid minimum wages, unpaid and illegally or improperly calculated overtime compensation, meal and rest period premium wages, waiting time penalties due to discharged and quitting employees, unreimbursed necessary expenditures and/or losses incurred in discharging their duties, damages and/or penalties related to DEFENDANTS’ inaccurate wage statements, restitution, and interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses.

6. PLAINTIFF brings this action on behalf of himself and the following similarly situated class of individuals (“CLASS MEMBERS”): all current and former non-exempt employees of DEFENDANTS in the State of California at any time during the four (4) years preceding PLAINTIFF’s separation from employment with DEFENDANTS, and accounting for the time that has elapsed since the denial of certification in the Tellez Lawsuit and the filing date of this Complaint, and ending at the time this action is certified as a class action and notice is sent to the CLASS MEMBERS (the “CLASS PERIOD”). PLAINTIFF reserves the right to name additional class representatives and/or to amend the foregoing class definition.

DEFENDANTS

7. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and therecon alleges, that STEVENS CREEK is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a California corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. PLAINTIFF is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that STEVENS CREEK 1is authorized to conduct business in the State of California, and does conduct business in the State of California. Specifically, STEVENS CREEK maintains offices and facilities, conducts business, and engages in the illegal and unlawful conduct alleged in this Complaint in the County of Santa Clara, State of California.

8. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DEFENDANT times material to this complaint, DEFENDANT VOSS was the owner and President of STEVENS CREEK, and a joint employer of PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS. On information and belief, DEFENDANT VOSS directly or indirectly employed or exercised control over the wages, hours, and working conditions of PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS, and DEFENDANT VOSS caused the wage and hour violations alleged herein, including but not limited to violations of the California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions Code, and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) wage order.

9. Upon information and belief, STEVENS CREEK is, and at all times material to this complaint was, the alter ego of DEFENDANT VOSS. On further information and belief, the factors supporting the alter ego status of STEVENS CREEK include but are not limited to the following: DEFENDANTS VOSS owns or controls a majority of the shares of STEVENS CREEK such that there i1s unity of interests between DEFENDANTS VOSS and STEVENS CREEK; DEFENDANT VOSS dictates the day-to-day business of STEVENS CREEK and he controls the implementation of company policies and procedures; DEFENDANT VOSS improperly disregards the separate corporate form of STEVENS CREEK, and he treats the assets of the entity as his own; STEVENS CREEK is undercapitalized, commingles assets, and 1is essentially a shell entity created by DEFENDANT VOSS to avoid personal liability, such that it would be inequitable to hold only STEVENS CREEK solely liable for certain acts and omissions described herein.

10. The true names and capacities of DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are unknown to PLAINTIFF at this time, and PLAINTIFF therefore sues such DOE Defendants under fictitious names. On information and belief, PLAINTIFF alleges that each Defendant designatedsome manner highly responsible for the occurrences alleged herein, and that PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS’ injuries and damages, as alleged herein, were proximately caused by the conduct of such DOE Defendants. PLAINTIFF will seek leave of the court to amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities of such DOE Defendants when ascertained.

11. At all relevant times herein, DEFENDANTS were the joint employers of times material to this complaint DEFENDANTS were the alter egos, divisions, affiliates, integrated enterprises, joint employers, subsidiaries, parents, principals, related entities, co- conspirators, authorized agents, partners, joint venturers, and/or guarantors, actual or ostensible, of each other. Each Defendant was completely dominated by his, her or its co-Defendant, and cach was the alter ego of the other.

12. At all relevant times herein, PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS were employed by DEFENDANTS under employment agreements that were partly written, partly oral, and partly implied. In perpetrating the acts and omissions alleged herein, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, acted pursuant to, and in furtherance of, their policies and practices of not paying PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS all wages earned and due, through methods and schemes which include, but are not limited to, failing to pay overtime premiums; failing to provide rest and meal periods; failing to properly maintain records; failing to provide accurate itemized statements for each pay period; failing to properly compensate PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS for necessary expenditures; and requiring, permitting or suffering the employees to work off the clock, in violation of the California Labor Code and the applicable Welfare Commission (“IWC””) Orders.

13. On information and belief, PLAINTIFF alleges that each and every one of the acts and omissions alleged herein were performed by, and/or attributable to, all DEFENDANTS, each acting as agents and/or employees, and/or under the direction and control of, each of the other DEFENDANTS, and that said acts and failures to act were within the course and scope of said agency, employment and/or direction and control.

14. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS have suffered, and continue to suffer, loss of earnings in amounts as yet unascertained, but subject to proof at trial, and within the jurisdiction of this Court.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

15. This action 1s appropriately suited for a class action because: b. This action involves common questions of law and fact to the potential class because the action focuses on DEFENDANTS’ uniform illegal policies and/or practices, which was applied to all CLASS MEMBERS.

C. The claims of PLAINTIFF are typical of the class because DEFENDANTS subjected all CLASS MEMBERS to identical violations of the Labor Code, the applicable IWC wage order, and the Business and Professions Code.

d. PLAINTIFF 1s able to fairly and adequately protect the interests of all members of the class because it is in his best interests to prosecute the claims alleged in this Complaint to obtain full compensation due to the CLASS MEMBERS, and PLAINTIFF has retained attorneys with extensive experience in litigating wage and hour class actions.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods [Cal. Labor Code §§ 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197] (Against all DEFENDANTYS)

16. PLAINTIFF incorporates the foregoing Paragraphs by reference, as if set forth fully herein.

17. During the CLASS PERIOD, as part of DEFENDANTS’ illegal policies and practices, DEFENDANTS required, permitted or otherwise suffered PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS to take less than the 30-minute meal period, to work through them, to take them after the end of the fifth hour or work, and have failed to otherwise provide the required meal periods to PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS pursuant to California Labor Code § 226.7 and 512.

18. DEFENDANTS further violated California Labor Code §§ 226.7 by failing to compensate PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS who were not provided with a legally compliant meal period with one additional hour of compensation at each employee’s regular rate of pay for each workday that a meal period was not provided. 20. As a proximate result of the aforementioned violations, PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS have been damaged in an amount according to proof at trial, and seek all wages earned and due, interest, penalties, expenses, attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods [Cal. Labor Code §§ 226.7] (Against all DEFENDANTYS)

21. PLAINTIFF incorporates the foregoing Paragraphs by reference, as if set forth fully herein.

22. At all times relevant herein, as part of DEFENDANTS’ illegal policies and practices, DEFENDANTS failed to provide rest periods to PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS as required under California Labor Code §§ 226.7.

23. DEFENDANTS further violated California Labor Code § 226.7 by failing to pay PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS who were not provided with a rest period, in accordance with the applicable wage order, one additional hour of compensation at each employee’s regular rate of pay for each workday that a rest period was not provided.

24. As a proximate result of the aforementioned violations, PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS have been damaged in an amount according to proof at trial, and seek all wages earned and due, interest, penalties, expenses, attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Failure to Pay Overtime Wages [Cal. Labor Code §§ 510, 1194]

(Against all DEFENDANTS)

25. PLAINTIFF incorporates the foregoing Paragraphs by reference, as if set forth fully herein.

26. Pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 510, 1194, DEFENDANTS are required to compensate PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS for all overtime, which 1s calculated at one and day and/or forty (40) hours per week, and for the first eight (8) hours on the seventh consecutive workday, with double time for all hours worked in excess of twelve (12) hours in any workday and for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours on the seventh consecutive day of work in any workweek.

27. PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS are current and former non-exempt employees entitled to the protections of California Labor Code §§ 510, 1194, and IWC Wage Order No. 16-2001. During the CLASS PERIOD, DEFENDANTS failed to compensate PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS for all overtime hours worked as required under the foregoing provisions of the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Order by, among other things: failing to pay overtime at one and one-half (1 '2) or double the regular rate of pay as provided by California Labor Code §§ 510, 1194; miscalculating the regular rate of pay for overtime purposes; requiring, permitting or suffering PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS to work off the clock; requiring, permitting or suffering PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS to work through meal; illegally and 1naccurately recording time in which PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS worked; enforcing an unlawful rounding policy resulting, in practice over time, in the systematic underpayment of overtime wages to PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS; and other methods to be discovered.

28. In violation of California law, DEFENDANTS have knowingly and willfully refused to perform their obligations to compensate PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS for all wages earned and all hours worked. As a proximate result, PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS have suffered, and continue to suffer, substantial losses related to the use and enjoyment of such wages, lost interest on such wages, and expenses and attorneys’ fees in seeking to compel DEFENDANTS to fully perform their obligations under state law, all to their respective damages in amounts according to proof at time of trial, and within the jurisdiction of this Court.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Failure to Pay Minimum Wages

[Cal Labor Code §§ 1194, 1197] (Against all DEFENDANTS)

30. PLAINTIFF incorporates the foregoing Paragraphs by reference, as if set forth fully herein.

31. Pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 1194, 1197, payment to an employee of less than the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in a payroll period is unlawful.

32. During the CLASS PERIOD, DEFENDANTS failed to pay PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS minimum wages for all hours worked by, among other things: requiring, permitting or suffering PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS to work off the clock; requiring, permitting or suffering PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS to work through meal breaks; illegally and inaccurately recording time in which PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS worked; enforcing an unlawful rounding policy resulting, in practice over time, in the systematic failure to compensate PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS for all hours worked; and other methods to be discovered.

33. DEFENDANTS’ conduct described herein violates California Labor Code §§ 1194, 1197. As a proximate result of the aforementioned violations, PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS have been damaged in an amount according to proof at trial. Therefore, PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS are entitled to recover the unpaid balance of wages owed to them by DEFENDANTS, plus interest, penalties, attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs of suit.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Failure to Pay All Wages Due to Discharged and Quitting Employees [Cal. Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203] (Against all DEFENDANTYS)

34, PLAINTIFF incorporates the foregoing Paragraphs by reference, as if set forth fully herein. required to pay all earned and unpaid wages to an employee who is discharged. California Labor Code § 201 mandates that if an employer discharges an employee, the employee’s wages accrued and unpaid at the time of discharge are due and payable immediately.

36. Furthermore, pursuant to California Labor Code § 202, DEFENDANTS are required to pay all accrued wages due to an employee no later than 72 hours after the employee quits his or her employment, unless the employee provided 72 hours previous notice of his or her intention to quit, in which case the employee is entitled to his or wages at the time of quitting.

37. California Labor Code § 203 provides that if an employer willfully fails to pay, in accordance with California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202, any wages of an employee who is discharged or who quits, the employer 1s liable for waiting time penalties in the form of continued compensation to the employee at the same rate for up to 30 workdays.

38. During the CLASS PERIOD, DEFENDANTS have willfully failed to pay accrued wages and other compensation to PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS in accordance with California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202.

39. As a result, PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS are entitled to all available statutory penalties, including the waiting time penalties provided in California Labor Code § 203, together with interest thereon, as well as other available remedies.

40. As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ unlawful actions and omissions, PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS have been deprived of compensation in an amount according to proof at the time of trial, but in excess of the jurisdiction of this Court, and are entitled to recovery of such amounts, plus interest thereon, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements [Cal. Labor Code §§ 226, 1174] (Against all DEFENDANTYS)

41. PLAINTIFF incorporates the foregoing Paragraphs by reference, as if set forth fully herein. PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS with timely, accurate, and itemized wage statements in writing showing each employee’s gross wages earned, total hours worked, the number of piece- rate units earned and any applicable piece rate, all deductions made, net wages earned, the inclusive dates of the pay period, only the last four digits of the employee’s social security number or an employee identification number, the name and address of the legal entity or entities employing PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS, and all applicable hourly rates in effect during each pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate, in violation of California Labor Code § 226.

43. During the CLASS PERIOD, DEFENDANTS knowingly and intentionally failed to provide PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS with timely, accurate, and itemized wage statements in accordance with California Labor Code § 226(a).

44. As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ unlawful actions and omissions, PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS have been damaged in an amount according to proof at trial, and seek all wages earned and due, plus interest thereon. Additionally, PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS are entitled to all available statutory penalties, including but not limited to civil penalties pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 226(e), 226.3, and 1174.5, and an award of costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ fees, including but not limited to those provided in California Labor Code § 226(e), as well as other available remedies.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Failure to Indemnify Employees for Necessary Expenditures Incurred in Discharge of Duties [Cal. Labor Code § 2802] (Against all DEFENDANTS)

45. PLAINTIFF incorporates the foregoing Paragraphs by reference, as if set forth fully herein.

46. California Labor Code § 2802(a) requires an employer to indemnify an employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the 47. During the CLASS PERIOD, DEFENDANTS knowingly and willfully failed to indemnify PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS for all business expenses and/or losses incurred in direct consequence of the discharge of their duties while working under the direction of DEFENDANTS, including but not limited to expenses for uniforms, cell phone usage, and other employment-related expenses, in violation of California Labor Code § 2802.

48. As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ unlawful actions and omissions, PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS have been damaged in an amount according to proof at trial, and seek reimbursement of all necessary expenditures, plus interest thereon pursuant to California Labor Code § 2802(b). Additionally, PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS are entitled to all available statutory penalties and an award of costs, interest, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ fees, including those provided in California Labor Code § 2802(c), as well as other available remedies.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Unfair and Unlawful Business Practices [Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et. seq.] (Against all DEFENDANTYS)

49. PLAINTIFF incorporates the foregoing Paragraphs by reference, as if set forth fully herein. DEFENDANTS’ failure and refusal to indemnify PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS for necessary expenditures and/or losses incurring in discharging their duties.

51. DEFENDANTS’ violations of California wage and hour laws constitute a business practice because DEFENDANTS’ aforementioned acts and omissions were done repeatedly over a significant period of time, and in a systematic manner, to the detriment of PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS.

52. DEFENDANTS have avoided payment of wages, overtime wages, meal and rest period premium wages, and other benefits as required by the California Labor Code, the California Code of Regulations, and the applicable IWC Wage Order. Further, DEFENDANTS have failed to record, report, and pay the correct sums of assessment to the state authorities under the California Labor Code and other applicable regulations.

53. As a result of DEFENDANTS’ unfair and unlawful business practices, DEFENDANTS have reaped unfair and illegal profits during the CLASS PERIOD at the expense of PLAINTIFF, CLASS MEMBERS, and members of the public. DEFENDANTS should be made to disgorge their ill-gotten gains and to restore them to PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, respectfully prays for relief against DEFENDANTS, and each of them, as follows:

1. For compensatory damages in an amount to be ascertained at trial;

2. For restitution of all monies due to PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS, as well as disgorged profits from DEFENDANTS’ unfair and unlawful business practices;

3. For meal and rest period compensation pursuant to California Labor Code § 226.7;

4. For liquidated damages pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 1194.2 and 1197.1;

5. For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining DEFENDANTS from violating the relevant provisions of the California Labor Code and the IWC Wage Orders, and from engaging in the unlawful business practices complained of herein;

6. For waiting time penalties pursuant to California Labor Code § 203;

7. For statutory and civil penalties according to proof, including but not limited to all penalties authorized by the California Labor Code §§ 226(e);

8. For interest on the unpaid wages at 10% per annum pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 218.6, 1194, 2802, California Civil Code §§ 3287, 3288, and/or any other applicable provision providing for pre-judgment interest;

9. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 218.5, 226(e), 1194, 2802, California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, and any other applicable provisions providing for attorneys’ fees and costs;

10. For declaratory relief;

11. For an order requiring and certifying the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Causes of Action as a class action;

12. For an order appointing PLAINTIFF as class representative, and PLAINTIFF’s 13. For such further relief that the Court may deem just and proper.

DATED: January 19, 2018

Respectfully submitted, MATERN LAW GROUP, PC

MATTHEW J. MATERN

ANDREW J. SOKOLOWSKI

Attorneys for Plaintiff

WILLIAM SHUFF, individually, and on behalf of other persons similarly situated

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

PLAINTIFF hereby demands a jury trial with respect to all issues triable of right by jury.

DATED: January 19, 2018

By:

Respectfully submitted,

MATERN LAW GROUP, PC

MATTHEW J: MATERN

ANDREW J. SOKOLOWSKI