This case was last updated from Santa Clara County Superior Courts on 08/07/2019 at 14:40:15 (UTC).

Williams v. Premier Specialty Brands LLC, et al.

Case Summary

On 02/08/2018 Williams filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against Premier Specialty Brands LLC. This case was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Courts, Downtown Superior Court located in Santa Clara, California. The Judge overseeing this case is Walsh, Brian C. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ******3126

  • Filing Date:

    02/08/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    Santa Clara County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Downtown Superior Court

  • County, State:

    Santa Clara, California

Judge Details

Judge

Walsh, Brian C

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Williams, Sigrid R.

Defendants

Premier Specialty Brands LLC

Costco Wholesale Corporation

Other

Superior Court of California

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Segal, Thomas Alistair

Pao, William Matthew

Setareh, Shaun

Defendant Attorneys

Chen, Annie Hsinyi

Fuad, David Peter

Long, Timothy Joseph

Other Attorney

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

 

Court Documents

Complaint: Amended

Complaint First Amended: Comment: First Amended Complaint

Acknowledgement/Receipt

Notice: Comment: Costco Wholesale Corporation

Document: Other

Guidelines for Motions relating to Class Certification: Comment: Guidelines for Motions for Class Certification

Order: Deeming Case Complex

Order Deeming Case Complex & Staying Discovery: Comment: and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline signed/BCW

Document: Other

ADR CV-5003: Comment: ADR CV-5003

Notice

Civil Lawsuit Notice: Comment: Civil Lawsuit Notice (1st CMC set for 6/8/18 at 10am in D1; assigned to Hon. Brian C. Walsh)

Summons: Issued/Filed

Summons Issued Filed:

Civil Case Cover Sheet

Civil Case Cover Sheet: Comment: COMPLEX

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies):

Notice

Notice Intent to Appear by Telephone: Comment: Notice

Notice

Notice CMC reset from 3-22-19 to 4-19-19: Comment: CMC reset from 3/22/19 to 4/19/19

Notice

Notice CMC reset from 1-11-19 to 3-22-19: Comment: CMC reset from 1/11/19 to 3/22/19

Notice

Notice CMC 1-11-19 at 10am in D1: Comment: CMC set for 1/11/19 at 10am in D1

Substitution: Attorney

Substitution of Attorneys: Comment: Substitution of Attorney - Civil (Without Court Order)

Notice

Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone.pdf: Comment: Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone

Notice

Notice CMC reset from 6-8-18 to 11-30-18: Comment: CMC reset from 6/8/18 to 11/30/18

Statement: Case Management Conference

Case Management Statement: Comment: JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)

Proof of Service of Summons Complaint: Comment: Premier Specialty Brands LLC

18 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/16/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Motion: Preliminary Approval - Shaun Setareh Declaration: Motion Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement HRG 8-16-19: Second Amended Complaint: Defts' Statement of Non-Opposition HRG 8-16-19: Judicial Officer: Walsh, Brian C; Hearing Time: 9:00 AM; Comment: Motion by Plaintiff Sigrid R. Williams for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Statement - Defts' Statement of Non-Opposition HRG 8-16-19: Comment: DEFENDANTS' STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Amended Complaint Filed - No Fee - Second Amended Complaint: Comment: Second Amended Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Motion: Order - Motion Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement HRG 8-16-19: Comment: Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement HRG 8/16/19

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Affidavit - Shaun Setareh Declaration:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Conference: Case Management - Judicial Officer: Walsh, Brian C; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Cancel Reason: Vacated; Comment: (2nd CMC) Proposed Class Action/Employment. Discovery stayed and responsive pleading deadline stayed, as of 2/23/18, when the case was deemed complex. 1st Amended Complaint filed 3/28/18. Mediation with Mark Rudy set for 10/22/18. SETTLED; schedule hearing date for preliminary approval of class action settlement.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice Intent to Appear by Telephone: Comment: Notice

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice Intent to Appear by Telephone HRG 5-17-19: Comment: Notice

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice Intent to Appear by Telephone HRG 5-17-19: Comment: Notice

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice CMC reset from 4-19-19 to 5-17-19: Comment: CMC reset from 4/19/19 to 5/17/19

    Read MoreRead Less
15 More Docket Entries
  • 06/01/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Statement: Case Management Conference - Case Management Statement: Comment: JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - Proof of Service of Summons Complaint: Comment: Premier Specialty Brands LLC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Complaint: Amended - Complaint First Amended: Comment: First Amended Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Acknowledgement/Receipt - Notice: Comment: Costco Wholesale Corporation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Document: Other - Guidelines for Motions relating to Class Certification: Comment: Guidelines for Motions for Class Certification

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Order: Deeming Case Complex - Order Deeming Case Complex & Staying Discovery: Comment: and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline signed/BCW

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Civil Lawsuit Notice: Comment: Civil Lawsuit Notice (1st CMC set for 6/8/18 at 10am in D1; assigned to Hon. Brian C. Walsh)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Summons: Issued/Filed - Summons Issued Filed:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet: Comment: COMPLEX

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies):

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

E-FILED

2/8/2018 11:06 AM

Shaun Setareh (SBN 204514) Clerk of Court

Superior Court of CA,

shaun@setarehlaw.com

Thomas Segal (SBN 222791) County of Santa Clara thomas@setarehlaw.com 18CV323126

William M. Pao (SBN 219846) Reviewed By: R. Walker

william@setarehlaw.com

SETAREH LAW GROUP

9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, California 90212 Telephone (310) 888-7771 Facsimile (310) 888-0109

Attorneys for Plaintiff SIGRID R. WILLIAMS

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

SIGRID R. WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself, Case No. 18C V323 126

all others similarly situated,

CLASS ACTION

Plaintiff,

COMPLAINT

VS. 1. Failure to Provide Meal Periods (Lab. Code PREMIER SPECIALTY BRANDS LLC, a 8§ 204, 223, 226.7, 512 and 1198); Delaware limited liability company; COSTCO | 2. Failure to Provide Rest Periods (Lab. Code WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a §§ 204, 223, 226.7 and 1198); Washington corporation; and DOES 1 through | 3. Failure to Pay Hourly Wages (Lab. Code §§ 50, inclusive, 223,510,1194,1194.2, 1197, 1997.1 and ‘ 1198); Defendants. 4. Failure to Pay Sick Time (Lab. Code §§ 246 et seq.)

5. Failure to Indemnify (Lab. Code § 2802);

6. Failure to Provide Accurate Written Wage Statements (Lab. Code §§ 226(a));

7. Failure to Timely Pay All Final Wages (Lab. Code §§ 201, 202 and 203);

8. Unfair Competition (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.); COMES NOW, Plaintiff SIGRID R. WILLIAMS (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, complains and alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1, Plaintiff brings this class action against Defendant PREMIER SPECIALTY BRANDS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive (collectively referred to as “Defendants™) for alleged violations of the Labor Code and Business and Professions Code. As set forth below, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have (1) failed to provide her and all other similarly situated individuals with meal periods; (2) failed to provide them with rest periods; 3) failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods; (4) failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods at the regular rate of pay; (%) failed to pay them at least minimum wage for all hours worked: (6) failed to pay them overtime wages at the correct rate: (7) failed to pay them double time wages at the correct rate: (8) failed to pay them overtime and/or double time wages by failing to include all applicable remuneration in calculating the regular rate of pay; 9) failed to provide them with sick time; (10) failed to reimburse them for all necessary business expenses; (11) failed to provide them with accurate written wage statements; and (12) failed to pay them all of their final wages following separation of employment. Based on these alleged Labor Code violations, Plaintiff now brings this class action to recover unpaid wages, restitution and related relief on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated.

/1]

JURISDICTON AND VENUE

2 This Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case because the monetary damages and restitution sought by Plaintiff from Defendants conduct exceeds the minimal jurisdiction of the Superior Court of the State of California.

3. Venue is proper in the County of Santa Clara pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 395(a) and 395.5 in that liability arose this county because at least some of the transactions that are the subject matter of this Complaint occurred therein and/or each defendant is found, maintains offices, transacts business and/or has an agent therein.

4. Venue is proper in Santa Clara County because Defendants’ principal place of business is in Georgia, is incorporated under the laws of Delaware, does business in Santa Clara County, and has not registered a California place of business with the California Secretary of State. As such, venue is proper in any county in California.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff SIGRID R. WILLIAMS is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein, an individual residing in the State of California.

6. Plaintift is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that Defendant PREMIER SPECIALTY BRANDS LLC is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein, a Delaware corporation doing business in the State of California.

7 Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that Defendant COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein, a Washington ; corporation doing business in the State of California.

8. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sue these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of the DOE defendants when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that each of the fictitiously named defendants are responsible in some manner for the occurrences, acts and omissions alleged herein and that Plaintiff’s alleged damages were proximately caused by these

defendants, and each of them. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege both the true names and capacities of the DOE defendants when ascertained.

9. Plaintift is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that, at all relevant times mentioned herein, some or all of the defendants were the representatives, agents, employees, partners, directors, associates, joint venturers, principals or co-participants of some or all of the other defendants, and in doing the things alleged herein, were acting within the course and scope of such relationship and with the full knowledge, consent and ratification by such other defendants.

10. Plaintiff 1s informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that, at all relevant times mentioned herein, some of the defendants pursued a common course of conduct, acted in concert and conspired with one another, and aided and abetted one another to accomplish the occurrences, acts and omissions alleged herein.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

11. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee from approximately April 21, 2015 through December 2017.

12. Detendants paid Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees by commission, regardless of the number of hours worked by each of them.

Misclassification as Exempt Emplovee

13. Plaintiff and the putative class were also misclassified as exempt employees when in fact they were non-exempt. Plaintiff and the putative class regularly worked more than ei ght hours each workday, and more than forty hours each workweek. Plaintiff and the putative class were paid solely by commissions regardless of the number of hours they worked.

14. Plaintiff and the putative class did not perform duties, more than fifty percent (50%) of the time, that would qualify them as exempt employees under the Professional, Executive or Administrative exemptions.

15. Nor were Plaintiff and the putative class properly classified under the OQutside Salesperson exemption as they did not perform more than fifty percent (50%) of the time away from the employer’s place of business. The employer’s place of business is any fixed location, including the salesperson’s home, that the salesperson uses as a place of business. (29 C.F.R. §

541.502) (“Thus, any fixed site, whether home or office, used by a salesperson as a headquarters or for telephonic solicitation of sales is considered one of the employer’s place of business, even though the employer is not in any formal sense the owner or tenant of the property.”)

16. As Plamtiff and all similarly situated employees were regularly assigned to work at various Costco stores for the duration of each road show, each Costco store is considered to be the employer’s place of business and so Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees do not fall under the Outside Salesperson exemption.

17. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the putative class were entitled to all the protections afforded to them as non-exempt employees under California law.

18. Asaresult of being misclassified as an exempt employee, the time spent by Plaintiff and the putative class were not accurately recorded by the timekeeping system utilized by Defendants and therefore resulted in the failure to pay Plaintiff and the putative class for all hours actually worked and overtime compensation.

Off-the-Clock Work

19. Plaintiff and the putative class were not paid all wages earned as Defendants directed, permitted or otherwise encouraged Plaintiff and the putative class to perform work but only paid them solely by commissions, regardless of the actual number of hours worked by each of them.

20. Plaintiff and the putative class regularly reported to work at Costco before each roadshow event in order set up their work areas and to move inventory of each client’s products so they would be on hand to be sold and delivered to customers each day.

21. Plaintiff and the putative class regularly reported to work at Costco before it opened each day during each roadshow event in order to set up their work areas where they would be selling each client’s products and would work until all customers had left the store. At the end of each day, they were required to secure their work areas and inventory of products for the next day. They were also required to prepare and submit a detailed sales report to Defendants at the end of each night.

22. At the end of each roadshow event, Plaintiff and the putative class would also be

involved in tearing down the work areas, move the unsold inventory of products to a secure location and provide a detailed accounting and report to Defendants.

23, Plaintiff and the putative class were also not paid for travel time to and from each roadshow event regardless of the distance and the amount of time spent traveling.

24, Defendants failed to keep accurate records of all hours worked by Plaintiff and the putative class and as alleged above, only paid them a flat daily rate regardless of the number of actual hours worked by each of them.

25. Asaresult of performing off-the-clock work that was directed, permitted or otherwise encouraged by Defendants, Plaintiff and the putative class should have been paid for this time. Instead, Defendants only paid Plaintiff and the putative class a flat daily rate regardless of the number of actual hours worked by each of them.

26. Detendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and the putative class were performing work before and after their scheduled work shifts and failed to pay Plaintiff and the putative class for these hours.

g Plaintiff and the putative class regularly worked more than eight hours each workday and/or more than forty hours each workweek and were not paid any overtime wages. On occasions where Plaintiff and the putative class worked up to eight hours on the seventh consecutive day, they were also not paid any overtime wages.

28. On occasions where Plaintiff and the putative class worked more than twelve hours in a workday and/or more than eight hours on the seventh consecutive workday, they were not paid any double time wages.

29. Detendants were aware of this practice and directed, permitted or otherwise encouraged Plaintiff and the putative class to perform off-the-clock work.

30. Asaresult of Defendants” policies and practices, Plaintiff and the putative class were not paid for all hours worked.

Missed Meal Periods

31, Plaintiff and the putative class members were not provided with meal periods of at

least thirty (30) minutes for each five (5) hour work period due to (1) Defendants’ policy of not

'scheduling each meal period as part of each work shift; (2) chronically understaffing each work shift with not enough workers; (3) imposing so much work on each employee such that it made it unlikely that an employee would be able to take their breaks if they wanted to finish their work on time; and (4) no formal written meal and rest period policy that encouraged employees to take their meal and rest periods.

32. Asaresult of Defendants’ policy, Plaintiff and the putative class were regularly not provided with uninterrupted meal periods of at least thirty (30) minutes for each five (5) hours worked due to complying with Defendants’ productivity requirements that required Plaintiff and the putative class to work through their meal periods in order to complete their assignments on time.

Missed Rest Periods

2 Plaintiff and the putative class members were not provided with rest periods of at least ten (10) minutes for each four (4) hour work period, or major fraction thereof, due to (1) Defendants’ policy of not scheduling each rest period as part of each work shift; (2) chronically understaffing each work shift with not enough workers; (3) imposing so much work on each employee such that it made it unlikely that an employee would be able to take their breaks if they wanted to finish their work on time; and (4) no formal written meal and rest period policy that encouraged employees to take their meal and rest periods.

34. Asaresult of Defendants’ policy, Plaintiff and the putative class were regularly not provided with uninterrupted rest periods of at least ten (10) minutes for each four (4) hours worked due to complying with Defendants’ productivity requirements that required Plaintiff and the putative class to work through their rest periods in order to complete their assignments on time.

Expense Reimbursement

38 Plaintiff and the putative class members were required to utilize their own personal vehicles to travel to each roadshow event. Plaintiff and the putative class members were required to transport an inventory of products to be sold at each roadshow event along with marketing materials to be used at each event.

36. Plaintiff and the putative class members were not reimbursed for mileage for travel

to and from each roadshow event. 37 Defendants failed to reimburse Plaintiff and the putative class for such necessary business expenses incurred by them.

Regular Rate of Pay

38. The regular rate of pay under California law includes all remuneration for employment paid to, on behalf of, the employee. This requirement includes, but is not limited, to, commissions and non-discretionary bonuses.

39. During the applicable limitations period, Defendants violated the rights of Plaintiff and the putative class under the above-referenced Labor Code sections by failing to pay them overtime wages for all overtime hours worked in violation of Labor Code sections 510, 1194 and 1198 as a result of not correctly calculating their regular rate of pay to include all applicable

remuneration, including, but not limited to, non-discretionary bonuses and/or non-discretionary

bonuses. Wage Statements 40. Plaintiff and the putative class were not provided with accurate wage statements as

mandated by law pursuant to Labor Code section 226. 41. Defendants failed to comply with Labor Code section 226(a)(1) as “gross wages earned” were not accurately reflected in that: e all hours worked, including overtime, were not paid and so gross wages earned were not accurate; e any and all meal and/or rest period premium wages were not paid and so gross wages earned were not accurate; o the regular rate of pay was not properly calculated and so the gross wages earned were not accurate. 42. Defendants failed to comply with Labor Code section 226(a)(2) as “total hours worked by the employee™ were not accurately reflected in that: e all hours worked, including overtime, were not paid and so total hours worked by the employee were not accurate.

43. Defendants failed to comply with Labor Code section 226(a)(5) as “net wages earned” were not accurately reflected in that: e all hours worked, including overtime, were not paid and so net wages earned were not accurate; * any and all meal and/or rest period premium wages were not paid and so net wages neared were not accurate; e the regular rate of pay was not properly calculated and so net wages earned were not accurate.

44, Detendants failed to comply with Labor Code section 226(a)(9) as “all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee™ were not accurately reflected in that:

e all hours worked, including overtime, were not paid and so corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee were not accurate: e the regular rate of pay was not properly calculated and so all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period were not accurate.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

45. This action has been brought and may be maintained as a class action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 382 because there is a well-defined community of interest among the persons who comprise the readily ascertainable classes defined below and because Plaintiff is unaware of any difficulties likely to be encountered in managing this case as a class action.

46. Relevant Time Period: The relevant time period is defined as the time period beginning four years prior to the filing of this action until judgment is entered.

Hourly Employee Class: All persons employed as “vendor employees™ by Defendants

and/or any staffing agencies and/or any other third parties in hourly or non-exempt positions

in California during the Relevant Time Period.

Meal Period Sub-Class: All Hourly Employee Class members who worked in a shift in excess of five hours during the Relevant Time Period.

Rest Period Sub-Class: All Hourly Employee Class members who worked a shift of at least three and one-half (3.5) hours during the Relevant Time Period.

Wage Statement Penalties Sub-Class: All Hourly Employee Class members

employed by Defendants during the period beginning one year before the filing of this action and ending when final judgment is entered. Waiting Time Penalties Sub-Class: All Hourly Employee Class members who separated from their employment with Defendants during the period beginning three

years before the filing of this action and ending when final judgment is entered.

Sick Time Sub-Class: All Hourly Employee Class members employed by Defendants for at least ninety days during the Relevant Time Period.

UCL Class: All Hourly Employee Class members employed by Defendants in California during the Relevant Time Period.

Expense Reimbursement Class: All persons employed by Defendants in California who incurred business expenses during the Relevant Time Period.

47. Reservation of Rights: Pursuant to Rule of Court 3.765(b), Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or modify the class definitions with greater specificity, by further division into sub- classes and/or by limitation to particular issues.

48. Numerosity: The class members are so numerous that the individual joinder of each individual class member is impractical. While Plaintiff does not currently know the exact number of class members, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that the actual number exceeds the minimum required for numerosity under California law.

49. Commonality and Predominance: Common questions of law and fact exist as to all class members and predominate over any questions which affect only individual class members. These common questions include, but are not limited to:

A. Whether Defendants maintained a policy or practice of failing to provide employees with their meal periods;

B. Whether Defendants maintained a policy or practice of failing to provide employees with their rest periods;

L Whether Defendants failed to pay premium wages to class members when they have not been provided with required meal and/or rest periods;

D. Whether Defendants failed to pay minimum and/or overtime wages to class members as a result of policies that fail to provide meal periods in accordance with California law;

E. Whether Defendants failed to pay minimum and/or overtime wages to class

members for all time worked:; Whether Defendants used payroll formulas that systematically fail to account for non-discretionary bonuses and/or other applicable remuneration when calculating regular rates of pay for class members;

Whether Defendants failed to pay overtime wages to class members as a result of incorrectly calculating their regular rates of pay;

Whether Defendants failed to pay premium wages to class members based on their respective “regular rates of compensation™ by not including commissions and/or other applicable remuneration in calculating the rates at which those wages are paid;

Whether Defendants failed to provide proportionate accruals of sick time for class members as required by California law;

Whether Defendants failed to reimburse class members for all necessary business expenses incurred during the discharge of their duties;

Whether Defendants failed to provide class members with accurate written wage statements as a result of providing them with written wage statements with inaccurate entries for, among other things, amounts of gross and net wages, and total hours worked;

Whether Defendants applied policies or practices that result in late and/or incomplete final wage payments;

Whether Defendants are liable to class members for waiting time penalties under Labor Code section 203;

Whether class members are entitled to restitution of money or property that

Detendants may have acquired from them through unfair competition;

Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the other class members’ claims.

Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Defendants have a policy or practice of

failing to comply with the Labor Code and Business and Professions Code as alleged in this

Adequacy of Class Representative: Plaintiff is an adequate class representative in that he has no interests that are adverse to, or otherwise conflict with, the interests of absent class members and is dedicated to vigorously prosecuting this action on their behalf. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the other class members.

52. Adequacy of Class Counsel: Plaintiff’s counsel are adequate class counsel in that they have no known conflicts of interest with Plaintiff or absent class members, are experienced in wage and hour class action litigation, and are dedicated to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of Plaintiff and absent class members.

53 Superiority: A class action is vastly superior to other available means for fair and efficient adjudication of the class members’ claims and would be beneficial to the parties and the Court. Class action treatment will allow a number of similarly situated persons to simultaneously and efficiently prosecute their common claims in a single forum without the unnecessary duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual actions would entail. In addition, the monetary amounts due to many individual class members are likely to be relatively small and would thus make I difficult, if not impossible, for individual class members to both seek and obtain relief. Moreover, a class action will serve an important public interest by permitting class members to effectively pursue the recovery of monies owed to them. Further, a class action will prevent the potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments inherent in individual litigation.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIODS

(Lab. Code §§ 004, 223, 226.7, 512 and 1198)

(Plaintiff and Meal Period Sub-Class)

54. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully alleged herein.

55. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the Meal Period Sub-Class members have been non-exempt employees of Defendant entitled to the full meal period protections of both the Labor Code and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order.

56. Labor Code section 512 and Section 11 of the applicable Industrial Welfare employees with uninterrupted, duty-free meal periods of at least thirty minutes for each work period of five hours, and to provide them with two uninterrupted, duty-free meal periods of at least thirty minutes for each work period of ten hours.

57. Labor Code section 226.7 and Section 11 of the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order (“Wage Order™) both prohibit employers from requiring employees to work during required meal periods and require employers to pay non-exempt employees an hour of

premium wages on each workday that the employee is not provided with the required meal period.

58. Compensation for missed meal periods constitutes wages within the meaning of Labor Code section 200. 59. Labor Code section 1198 makes it unlawful to employ a person under conditions that

violate the applicable Wage Order.

60. Section 11 of the applicable Wage Order states:

“No employer shall employ any person for a work period of more than five (5) hours without a meal period of not less than 30 minutes, except that when a work period of not more than six (6) hours will complete the day’s work the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of the employer and employee. Unless the employee is relieved of all duty during a 30 minute meal period, the meal period shall be considered an ‘on duty’ meal period and counted as time worked. An ‘on duty’ meal period shall be permitted only when the nature of the work prevents an employee from being relieved of all duty and when by written agreement between the parties an on-the-job paid meal period is agreed to. The written agreement shall state that the employee may, in writing, revoke the agreement at any time.”

61. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was not subject to a valid on-duty meal period agreement. Plaintiff is informed and believes that, at all relevant times, Meal Period Sub-Class members were not subject to valid on-duty meal period agreements with Defendants.

62. Plaintiff alleges that, at all relevant times during the applicable limitations period, Detendants maintained a policy or practice of not providing Plaintiff and members of the Meal Period Sub-Class with uninterrupted, duty-free meal periods for at least thirty (30) minutes for each five (5) hour work period, as required by Labor Code section 512 ad the applicable Wage Order.

63. Plaintiff alleges that, at all relevant times during the applicable limitations period, Class members when they worked five (5) hours without clocking out for any meal period.

64. Plaintiff alleges that, at all relevant times during the applicable limitations period, Defendants maintained a policy or practice of not providing Plaintiff and members of the Meal Period Sub-Class with a second meal period when they worked shifts of ten or more hours and failed to pay them premium wages as required by Labor Code 512 and the applicable Wage Order.

65. Moreover, Defendants written policies do not provide that employees must take their first meal period before the end of the fifth hour of work, that they are entitled to a second meal period if they work a shift of over ten hours, or that the second meal period must commence before the end of the tenth hour of work, unless waived.

66. At all relevant times, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Meal Period Sub- Class members additional premium wages, and/or were not paid premium wages at the employees’ regular rates of pay when required meal periods were not provided.

67. Pursuant to Labor Code section 204, 218.6 and 226.7, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Meal Period Sub-Class members, seek to recover unpaid premium wages, interest thereon, and costs of suit.

68. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1194, Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, the substantial benefit doctrine, and/or the common fund doctrine, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Meal Period Sub-Class members, seek to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST PERIODS

(Lab. Code §§ 204, 223, 226.7 and 1198) (Plaintiff and Rest Period Sub-Class)

69. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully alleged herein.

70. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the Rest Period Sub-Class members have been non-exempt employees of Defendants entitled to the full rest period protections of both the Labor Code and the applicable Wage Order. employers to permit and authorize employees to take required rest periods at a rate of no less than ten minutes of net rest time for each four hour work period, or major fraction thereof, that must be in the middle of each work period insofar as practicable.

T2, Labor Code section 226.7 and Section 12 of the applicable Wage Order both prohibit employers from requiring employees to work during required rest periods and require employers to pay non-exempt employees an hour of premium wages at the employees’ regular rates of pay, on each workday that the employee is not provided with the required rest period(s).

73. Compensation for missed rest periods constitutes wages within the meaning of Labor Code section 200.

74. Labor Code section 1198 makes it unlawful to employ a person under conditions that violate the Wage Order.

79 Plaintiff alleges that, at all relevant times during the applicable limitations period, Defendants maintained a policy or practice of not providing members of the Rest Period Sub-Class with net rest period of at least ten minutes for each four hour work period, or major fraction thereof, as required by the applicable Wage Order.

76. At all relevant times, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Rest Period Sub- Class members additional premium wages when required rest periods were not provided.

T Specifically, Defendants written policies do not provide that employees may take a rest period for each four hours worked, or major fraction thereof, and that rest periods should be taken in the middle of each work period insofar as practicable.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PAY HOURLY AND OVERTIME WAGES

(Lab. Code §§ 223, 510, 1194, 1197 and 1198) (Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class)

80. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully alleged herein.

81. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class members are or have been non-exempt employees of Defendants entitled to the full protections of the Labor Code and the applicable Wage Order.

82. Section 2 of the applicable Wage Order defines “hours worked™ as “the time during which an employee is subject to the control of the employer, and includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so.”

83. Section 4 of the applicable Wage Order requires an employer to pay non-exempt employees at least the minimum wage set forth therein for all hours worked, which consist of all hours that an employer has actual or constructive knowledge that employees are working.

84. Labor Code section 1194 invalidates any agreement between an employer and an employee to work for less than the minimum or overtime wage required under the applicable Wage Order.

85. Labor Code section 1194.2 entitles non-exempt employees to recover liquidated damages in amounts equal to the amounts of unpaid minimum wages and interest thereon in addition to the underlying unpaid minimum wages and interest thereon.

86. Labor Code section 1197 makes it unlawful for an employer to pay an employee less than the minimum wage required under the applicable Wage Order for all hours worked during a payroll period.

87. Labor Code section 1197.1 provides that it is unlawful for any employer or any other person acting either individually or as an officer, agent or employee of another person, to pay an employee, or cause an employee to be paid, less than the applicable minimum wage. under conditions that violate the applicable Wage Order.

89. Labor Code section 204 requires employers to pay non-exempt employees their earned wages for the normal work period at least twice during each calendar month on days the employer designates in advance and to pay non-exempt employees their earned wages for labor performed in excess of the normal work period by no later than the next regular payday.

90. Labor Code section 223 makes it unlawful for employers to pay their employees lower wages than required by contract or statute while purporting to pay them legal wages.

91. Labor Code section 510 and Section 3 of the applicable Wage Order require employees to pay non-exempt employees overtime wages of no less than one and one-half times their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of eight hours in one workday, all hours worked in excess of forty hours in one workweek, and/or for the first eight hours worked on the seventh consecutive day of one workweek.

92. Labor Code section 510 and Section 3 of the applicable Wage Order also require employers to pay non-exempt employees overtime wages of no less than two times their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of twelve hours in one workday and for all hours worked in excess of eight hours on a seventh consecutive workday during the workweek.

93. Plaintiff is informed and believes that, at all relevant times, Defendants have applied centrally devised policies and practices to her and Hourly Employee Class members with respect to working conditions and compensation arrangements.

94, At all relevant times, Defendants failed to pay hourly wages to Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class members for all time worked, including but not limited to, overtime hours at statutory and/or agreed rates.

95. During the relevant time period, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class members all earned wages every pay period at the correct rates, including overtime rates, because Defendants directed, permitted or otherwise encouraged Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class members to perform off-the-clock work.

96. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class full amount of wages earned during each pay period during the applicable limitations period, including overtime wages.

97. Pursuant to Labor Code sections 204, 218.6, 223, 510, 1194 and 1194.2, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and Hourly Employee Class members, seek to recover unpaid straight time and overtime wages, interest thereon and costs of suit.

98. The regular rate of pay under California law includes all remuneration for employment paid to, on behalf of, the employee. This requirement includes but is not limited to, commissions, non-discretionary bonuses, shift differential pay, etc.

99. During the applicable limitations period, Defendants violated the rights of Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class members under the above-referenced Labor Code sections by failing to pay them overtime wages for all overtime hours worked in violation of Labor Code sections 510, 1194 and 1198 by not correctly calculating their regular rate of pay to include all applicable remuneration, including but not limited to, commissions, non-discretionary bonuses, shift differential pay, etc.

100. California law uses the terms “compensation™ and “pay” interchangeably and requires that all applicable remuneration, including but not limited to, commissions, non- discretionary bonuses, shift differential pay, etc., be included when calculating an employee’s regular rate of pay.

101. At all relevant times, Defendants paid Plaintiff premium wages based on a rate of compensation that did not reflect, among other things, commissions, non-discretionary bonuses, shift differential pay, etc., as required by Labor Code section 226.7(b) and Sectionsapplicable Wage Order on the occasions when Defendants paid her premium wages in lieu of meal and/or rest periods.

102. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that, at all relevant times during the applicable limitations period, Defendants maintained a policy or practice of paying Hourly Employee Class members premium wages based on rates of compensation that have not reflected commissions, non-discretionary bonuses, shift differential pay, etc. as required by Labor

Code section 226.7(b) and Sectionsapplicable Wage Order on the occasions when Defendants paid them premium wages in lieu of meal and/or rest periods.

103. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1194, Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, the substantial benefit doctrine, and/or the common fund doctrine, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and Hourly Employee Class members, seek to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PROVIDE SICK PAY

(Lab. Code §§ 245, et seq.) (By Plaintiff and Sick Pay Sub-Class)

104. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully alleged herein.

105. Labor Code section 246(a)(1) states in pertinent part:

“An employee who, on or after July 1, 2015, works in California for the same employer for

30 or more days within a year from the commencement of employment is entitled to paid

sick days as specified in this section.”

106. Labor Code section 246(b)(1) states in pertientn part:

“An employee shall accrue paid sick days at the rate of not less than one hour per every 30

hours worked, beginning at the commencement of employment or the operate date of this

article, Whichever is later, subject to the use and accrual limitations set forth in this section.

107. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all relevant times, Defendants have maintained a policy and practice of not paying Sick Pay Sub-Class members | paid sick days as required by Labor Code § 245, et seq. during their employment when they were out due to covered reasons.

108. By reason of the above, Plaintiff and the members of the Sick Pay Sub-Class are entitled to restitution for all unpaid amounts due and owing to within four years (4) of the date of the filing of the Complaint until the date of entry of judgment.

109. Pursuant to Labor Code § 1194, Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, the substantial benefit doctrine, and/or the common fund doctrine, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and Sick Pay

Sub-Class members, seeks to recover reasonable attorneys” fees.

/1/

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO INDEMNIFY

(Lab. Code § 2802) (Plaintiff and Expense Reimbursement Class)

110. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully alleged herein.

111. Labor Code section 2802(a) states:

“An employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties,obedience to the directions of the employer, even though unlawful, unless the employee, at the time of obeying the directions, believed them to be unlawful.”

112. At all relevant times during the applicable limitations period, Plaintiff and the Expense Reimbursement Class members incurred necessary business related expenses and costs, including but not limited to, gas, mileage, and cellphone.

113. Plaintiff is informed and believes that, during the applicable limitations period, Defendants maintained a policy or practice of not reimbursing Plaintiff and Expense Reimbursement Class members for all necessary business expenses.

114. Accordingly, Plaintiff and Expense Reimbursement Class members are entitled to restitution for all unpaid amounts due and owing to within four years of the date of the filing of the Complaint and until the date of entry of judgment.

115. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself, and Expense Reimbursement Class members, seek interest thereon and costs pursuant to Labor Code section 218.6, and reasonable attorneys’ fees

| pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE WRITTEN WAGE STATEMENTS

(Lab. Code § 226) (Plaintiff and Wage Statement Penalties Sub-Class) 116. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully alleged

herein. 117. Labor Code section 226(a) states:

“An employer, semimonthly or at the time of each payment of wages, shall furnish to his or her employee, either as a detachable part of the check, draft, or voucher paying the employee’s wages, or separately if wages are paid by personal check or cash, an accurate itemized statement in writing showing (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee, except as provided in subdivision (j), (3) the number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece rate if the employee is paid on a piece-rate basis, (4) all deductions, provided that all deductions made on written orders of the employee may be aggregated and shown as one item, (5) net wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the name of the employee and only the last four digits of his or her social security number or an employee identification number other than a social security number, (8) the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer and, if the employer is a farm labor contractor, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1682, the name and address of the legal entity that secured the services of the employer, and (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee and, beginning July 1, 2013, if the employer is a temporary services employer as defined in Section 201.3, the rate of pay and the total hours worked for each temporary services assignment. The deductions made from payment of wages shall be recorded in ink or other indelible form, properly dated, showing the month, day, and year, and a copy of the statement and the record of the deductions shall be kept on file by the employer for at least three years at the place of employment or at a central location within the State of California. For purposes of this subdivision, ‘copy’ includes a duplicate of the itemized statement provided to an employee or a computer-generated record that accurately shows all of the information required by this subdivision.”

118. The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”) has sought to harmonize the “detachable part of the check™ provision and the “accurate itemized statement in writing” provision of Labor Code section 226(a) by allowing for electronic wage statements so long as each employee retains the right to elect to receive a written paper stub or record and that those who are provided with electronic wage statements retain the ability to easily access the information and convert the electronic statements into hard copies at no expense to the employee. (DLSE Opinion Letter July 6, 2006).

119. Plaintiff is informed and believes that, at all relevant times during the applicable limitations period, Defendants have failed to provide Wage Statement Penalties Sub-Class members with written wage statements as described above.

120. Plamtiff is informed and believes that Defendants’ failure to provide her and Wage Statement Penalties Sub-Class members with accurate written wage statements were intentional in that Defendants have the ability to provide them with accurate wage statements but have comply with Labor Code section 226(a).

121. Plaintiff and Wage Statement Penalties Sub-Class members have suffered injuries, in that Defendants have violated their legal rights to receive accurate wage statements and have misled them about their actual rates of pay and wages earned. In addition, inaccurate information on their wage statements have prevented immediate challenges to Defendants’ unlawful pay practices, has required discovery and mathematical computations to determine the amount of wages owed, has caused difficulty and expense in attempting to reconstruct time and pay records, and/or has led to the submission of inaccurate information about wages and deductions to federal and state government agencies.

122, Pursuant to Labor Code section 226(e), Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and Wage Statement Penalties Sub-Class members, seek the greater of actual damages or $50.00 for the initial pay period in which a violation of Labor Code section 226(a) occurred, and $100.00 for each subsequent pay period in which a violation of Labor Code section 226(a) occurred, not to exceed an aggregate penalty of $4000.00 per class member, as well as awards of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY ALL FINAL WAGES

(Lab. Code §§ 201-203) (Plaintiff and Waiting Time Penalties Sub-Class)

123. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully alleged herein.

124. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Waiting Time Penalties Sub-Class members have been entitled, upon the end of their employment with Defendants, to timely payment of all wages earned and unpaid before termination or resignation.

125. Atall relevant times, pursuant to Labor Code section 201, employees who have been discharged have been entitled to payment of all final wages immediately upon termination.

126. At all relevant times, pursuant to Labor Code section 202, employees who have

resigned after giving at least seventy-two (72) hours notice of resignation have been entitled to payment of all final wages at the time of resignation.

127. At all relevant times, pursuant to Labor Code section 202, employees who have resigned after giving less than seventy-two (72) hours notice of resignation have been entitled to payment of all final wages within seventy-two (72) hours of giving notice of resignation.

128. During the applicable limitations period, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff all of her final wages in accordance with the Labor Code by failing to timelyfinal wages.

129. Plaintiff is informed and believes that, at all relevant time during the applicable limitations period, Defendants have failed to timely pay Waiting Time Penalties Sub-Class members all of their final wages in accordance with the Labor Code.

130. Plaintiff is informed and believes that, at all relevant times during the applicable limitations period, Defendants have maintained a policy or practice of paying Waiting Time | Penalties Sub-Class members their final wages without regard to the requirements of Labor Code

sections 201 or 202 by failing to timely pay them all final wages.

131. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Defendants’ failure to timely pay all final wages to her and Waiting Time Penalties Sub-Class members have been willful in that Defendants have the ability to pay final wages in accordance with Labor Code sections 201 and/or 202 but have intentionally adopted policies or practices that are incompatible with those requirements.

132. Pursuant to Labor Code sections 203 and 218.6, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and Waiting Time Penalties Sub-Class members, seek waiting time penalties from the dates that their final wages have first become due until paid, up to a maximum of thirty days, and interest thereon.

133. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, the substantial benefit doctrine and/or the common fund doctrine, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and Waiting Time Penalties Sub- Class members, seek awards of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

/11 /1] /1/ /1]

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION UNFAIR COMPETITION

(Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.) (Plaintiff and UCL Class)

134. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully alleged herein.

135. Business and Professions Code section 17200 defines “unfair competition™ to include any unlawful business practice.

136. Business and Professions Code section 17203-17204 allow a person who has lost money or property as a result of unfair competition to bring a class action in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 382 to recover money or property that may have been acquired from similarly situated persons by means of unfair competition.

137. California law requires employers to pay hourly, non-exempt employees for all hours they are permitted or suffered to work, including hours that the employer knows or reasonable should know that employees have worked.

138. Plaintiff and the UCL Class members re-alleges and incorporates the FIRST, SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH and FIFTH causes of action herein.

139. Plaintift lost money or property as a result of the aforementioned unfair competition.

140. Defendants have or may have acquired money by means of unfair competition.

141. Plaintift is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that by committing the Labor Code violations described in this Complaint, Defendants violated Labor Code sections 2135, 216, 225, 226.6, 354, 408, 553, 1175, 1199 and 2802, which make it a misdemeanor to commit the Labor Code violations alleged herein.

142. Defendants have committed criminal conduct through their policies and practices of, inter alia, failing to comport with their affirmative obligations as an employer to provide non- exempt employees with uninterrupted, duty-free meal periods of at least thirty minutes for each work period of five or more hours, failing to provide non-exempt employees with a paid rest period

of ten minutes for every four hour work period or major fraction thereof, by failing to pay non- exempt employees for all hours worked, and by failing to reimburse them for all expenses.

143. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and UCL Class members have been non-exempt employees and entitled to the full protections of both the Labor Code and the applicable Wage Order.

144. Defendants” unlawful conduct as alleged in this Complaint amounts to and constitutes unfair competition within the meaning of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. Business and Professions Code sections 17200 ef seq. protects against unfair competition and allows a person who has suffered an injury-in-fact and has lost money or property as a result of an unfair, unlawful or fraudulent business practice to seek restitution on her own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated persons in a class action proceeding.

145. Asaresult of Defendants’ violations of the Labor Code during the applicable limitations period, Plaintiff has suffered an injury-in-fact and has lost money or property in the form of earned wages. Specifically, Plaintiff has lost money or property as a result of Defendants’ conduct.

146. Plaintiff 1s informed and believes that other similarly situated persons have been subject to the same unlawful policies or practices of Defendants.

147. Due to the unfair and unlawful business practices in violation of the Labor Code, Defendants have gained a competitive advantage over other comparable companies doing business in the State of California that comply with their legal obligations.

148. California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) permits civil recovery and injunctive for “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice,” including if a practice or act violates or is considered unlawful under any other state or federal law.

149. Accordingly, pursuant to Bus. & Prof. Code sections 17200 and 17203, Plaintiff request the issuance of temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Defendants, and each of them, and their agents and employees, from further violations of the Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders; and upon a final hearing seek an order permanently enjoining Defendants, and each of them, and their respective agents and

employees, from further violations of the Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

150. Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17203, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and UCL Class members, seek declaratory relief and restitution of all monies rightfully belonging to them that Defendants did not pay them or otherwise retained by means of its unlawful and unfair business practices.

151. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, the substantial benefit doctrine and/or the common fund doctrine, Plaintiff and UCL Class members are entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees in connection with their unfair competition claims.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself, all other similarly situated, hereby demands a jury trial on all

1ssues so triable.

DATED: February 7, 2018 SETAREH LAW GROUP

SHAUN SETAREH