KARA SHELDON VS MICHAEL LOCK,ETAL

Complaint Information

O 00 N N W AW

=ooqox&)-p-{gwuo\ooo\lo\m-huwwg

MICHAEL A. FARBSTEIN (SB#107030) .

MAGGIE W. TRINH (SB#279604) .

FARBSTEIN & BLACKMAN FIL]%D

A Professional Corporation 8AN MATEO COUNTY 411 Borel Avenue, Suite 425

San Mateo, California 94402-3518 SEP 13 2012 Telephone: (650) 554-6200

Facsimile: §650 554-6240

Attorneys for Plaintiff

KARA SHELDON | SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO |

Civ516673 KARA SHELDON, CASE NO. Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR WAGES AND

DAMAGES

VS. MICHAEL LOCK, TERRY LOCK, and LOCK CHIROPRACTIC, INC,, and DOES 1 through 15, inclusive, Defendants. BY FAX Plaintiff KARA SHELDON (sometimes referred to herein as “PLAINTIFF”) files this complaint against MICHAEL LOCK, TERRY LOCK, LOCK CHIROPRACTIC,

INC. and Does 1-15, inclusive, (collectively referred to as “Defendants™), based upon the

following allegations:

BACKGROUND

1. PLAINTIFF Kara Sheldon is natural person and is currently a resident of San " Francisco County in California. 2. During most of the relevant times herein, PLAINTIFF was a resident of San Mateo County and the majority of the events which form the substance of this complaint

occurred in San Mateo County.

I 8 B RV I DBEEIZLGED 3B O 0 3 & U & W N M=

PLAINTIFF was employed by Defendantg from approximately August 2010 to approximately December 5, 2011, primarily in the home of Defendants MICHAEL LOCK and TERRY LOCK in Hillsborough, California in San Mateo County.

Prior to her employment by Defendants, PLAINTIFF was a resident of the state of Hawaii.

Defendant MICHAEL LOCK, is an adult and a resident of Hillsborough, California at all times relevant to this Complaint.

Defendant TERRY LOCK is an adult and a resident of Hillsborough, California at

.all times relevant to this Complaint.

Defendant LOCK CHIROPRACTIC, INC. is a corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that LOCK CHIROPRACTIC is owned and operated wholly or in part by Defendants MICHAEL LOCK and TERRY LOCK.

PLAINTIFF is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges. that there exists and has existed a unity of ownership and interest between the corporate and individual defendants such that any individuality and separateness between them have ceased, and that each such Defendant is the alter ego of the other. The defendants commingled funds and other assets, using LOCK CHIROPRACTIC as a mere shell or conduit for the affairs of the individual defendants. Adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of the corporate defendant as an entity distinct from the individual defendants would permit an abuse of the limited corporate immunities and privileges and would sanction fraud and promote injustice and bad faith.

The true names and capacities of Defendants sued in the Complaint under the fictitious name of DOES 1 through 15, inclusive, are unknown to PLAINTIFF who therefore sues defendants by such fictitious names. PLAINTIFF will amend this

complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. PLAINTIFF

O 00 3 O D & W N -

NN N N NN =it

is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of said fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged herein, and that PLAINTIFF’s injuries as herein alleged were proximately caused by such | unlawful conduct.

10. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all relevant times, each Defendant acted as an agent or representative of each of the other Defendants and acted within the course and scope of said agency or representation with respect to the causes of action in this Complaint. Defendants, and each of them, are the employers herein complained of, and supervising over PLAINTIFF, and therefore Defendants, and each of them, are liable for the statutory violations conducted by their agents, employees and superiors, under the theory of respondeat superior.

11. PLAINTIFF brings this action pursuant to and under the provisions of the California Labor Code, orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, and other common and statutory laws.

12. The amount in controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional threshold of this Court.

13. PLAINTIFF has complied with, or is excused from, any and all necessary

administrative exhaustion requirements, if any.

GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

14. In or about February 2009, PLAINTIFF met Defendant TERRY LOCK. At the time, she was working at Yogurt Mama in Hawaii, which is owned by Defendant

TERRY LOCK

15. InJuly 2010, Defendant TERRY LOCK asked PLAINTIFF to move to California, and be a “live-in nanny” for her and her husband Defendant MICHAEL LOCK’s two children in San Francisco, California. Defendants represented that her pay would be $600 per month, and that she would also be able to attend school, with

defendants providing with $300 towards school once a semester. She was also told

O 00 9 O W BAOWON -

NN o N N D)e

On Monday, December 5, 2011, DEFENDANTS abruptly informed PLAINTIFF she must leave immediately. She was not allowed to bring her belongings with her or given time to pack them; Defendant MICHAEL LOCK told her he would bring her things when she found a place to live. PLAINTIFF was not given a work performance reason for her termination. Rather, it appeared that Defendant TERRY LOCK had made the decision to terminate her employment for arbitrary and capricious reasons.

Defendant MICHAEL LOCK then took PLAINTIFF to the train station and abandoned her there.

Defendants MICHAEL LOCK and TERRY LOCK have made no attempt to pay PLAINTIFF the wages that are due to her under the wage and hour laws of the State of California, despite a demand made upon them.

Defendants would pay the PLAINTIFF either by personal check or by check from LOCK CHIROPRACTIC. Defendants MICHAEL LOCK AND TERRY LOCK are the owners of Defendant LOCK CHIROPRACTIC, INC., which issued PLAINTIFF’s W-2 for the year of 2011.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

PLAINTIFF re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs as if they were set forth in full. Throughout the period of PLAINTIFF’s employment with the defendants, she was paid less than the minimum wage required by law. As a direct and proximate cause of DEFENDANTS’ failure to pay PLAINTIFF the legal minimum wage for all periods of time she worked, PLAINTIFF has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1197.2, the conduct herein alleged entitles

PLAINTIFF to both restitution and liquidated damages equal to the amount of

O 00 N O U & W N

unpaid wages DEFENDANTS owe PLAINTIFF, in addition to reasonable

attorney’s fees and costs of suit.

Wherefore, PLAINTIFF prays for damages as hereinafter set forth.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME COMPENSATION)

PLAINTIFF re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs as if they were set forth in full. On at least one occasion during the statutory period, DEFENDANTS engaged,

| suffered, or permitted PLAINTIFF to work in excess of eight (8) hours in a day.

On at least one occasion during the statutory period, DEFENDANTS engaged, suffered, or permitted PLAINTIFF to work in excess of forty (40) hours in a week. DEFENDANTS have, to date, failed to pay PLAINTIFF for hours worked in excess of eight hours a day, including wages and overtime premiums as réquired for every hour of overtime that DEFENDANTS engaged, suffered, or permitted PLAINTIFF to work. ‘ |

As a result of the aforementioned violations, PLAINTIFF suffered harm and is entitled to recover the unpaid overtime compensation, including interest thereon, costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys’ fees, all in an amount to be determined at trial.

For the aforementioned violations, pursuant to Labor Code Section 558, PLAINTIFF is also entitled to recover penalties in the amount of fifty dollars ($50) for the first pay period in which she was deprived of overtime compensation, and one hundred dollars ($100) for each subsequent pay period in which she was

deprived of overtime compensation.

Wherefore, PLAINTIFF prays for damages as hereinafter set forth.

O 0 3 & U & W N =

& h b W N = ©O& W N = O

. PLAINTIFF is therefore entitled to an amount of damages to be proven at trial.

Wherefore, PLAINTIFF prays for damages as hereinafter set forth.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION)

PLAINTIFF re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs as if they were set forth in full. Defendants made representations to PLAINTIFF about the kind and character of the work, as well as the compensation for work. Such representations were not true. Defendants made the representation that PLAINTIFF would be a “nanny” to the two children of Defendants MICHAEL LOCK and TERRY LOCK, as well as representations about the time off she would be allowed, the amount of compensation, and the conditions upon which she would live. Upon arrival at the home of Defendants MICHAEL LOCK and TERRY LOCK, PLAINTIFF found out that her tasks were mostly housekeeping tasks, and that her hours were long, and without sufficient time off. She was also not paid as represented. These representation were false; PLAINTIFF was instead put to work as a housekeeper cleaning the house, preparing meals, and only minimally acting as a “nanny” for the children. She was not paid for all of the long hours that she worked, and worked longer hours than she was initialiy told upon her arrival in California. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, knew that the representation was false when they made it or made the representation recklessly and without regard for its truth. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, intended that PLAINTIFF rely on the misrepresentation, and PLAINTIFF reasonably did so by moving to California to take the job, leaving behind her family and friends in Hawaii. PLAINTIFF was harmed by these misrepresentations, which were a substantial factor in causing the economic and non-economic harm to PLAINTIFF. Moreover,

the defendants’ conduct was fraudulent, oppressive and/or malicious, entitling the

® 3 &8Y¥YESE QI REORRER

PLAINTIFF to punitive damages. PLAINTIFF is therefore entitled to damages in

an amount to be proven at trial.

Wherefore, PLAINTIFF prays for damages as hereinafter set forth.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION)

PLAINTIFF re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs as if they were set forth in full. Defendants made representations to PLAINTIFF about the kind and character of the work, as well as the compensation for work. Such representations were not true. Defendants made the representation that PLAINTIFF would be a “nanny” to the two children of Defendants MICHAEL LOCK and TERRY LOCK, as well as representations about the time off she would be allowed, the amount of compensation, and the conditions upon which she would live. Upon arrival at the home of Defendants MICHAEL LOCK and TERRY LOCK, PLAINTIFF found out that her tasks were mostly housekeeping tasks, and that her hours were long, and without sufficient time off. She was also not paid as represented. DEFENDANTS made these representations without any reasonable grounds for believing the representation was true when it was made. PLAINTIFF reasonably relied on DEFENDANTS’ misrepresentation by moving to California to take the job, leaving behind her family and friends in Hawaii. PLAINTIFF was harmed by these misrepresentations, which were a substantial factor in causing the economic and non-economic harm to PLAINTIFF. Moreover, the defendants’ conduct was fraudulent, oppressive and/or malicious, entitling the PLAINTIFF to punitive damages. PLAINTIFF is therefore entitled to damages in

an amount to be proven at trial.

Wherefore, PLAINTIFF prays for damages as hereinafter set forth.