This case was last updated from San Mateo County Superior Courts on 07/19/2018 at 23:11:59 (UTC).

PETER BERG VS STA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA,ETAL

Case Summary

On 07/23/2012 PETER BERG filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against STA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA,ETAL. This case was filed in San Mateo County Superior Courts, Southern Branch Hall Of Justice And Records located in San Mateo, California. The Judges overseeing this case are Cretan, Clifford V, Novak, Lisa A, Novak, Lisa A. and Cretan, Clifford V.. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *****5552

  • Filing Date:

    07/23/2012

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    San Mateo County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Southern Branch Hall Of Justice And Records

  • County, State:

    San Mateo, California

Judge Details

Judges

Cretan, Clifford V

Novak, Lisa A

Novak, Lisa A.

Cretan, Clifford V.

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

PETER BERG

BERG, PETER

Defendants

STA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DEVELOPMENTAL

CONTRA COSTA DAY ACTIVITES CENTER INC.,

STA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

CONTRA COSTA DAY ACTIVITES CENTER INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

DARABI, PARVIZ

Defendant Attorney

RAGGHIANTI FREITASLLP

 

Court Documents

Request for Dismissal of - WITH prejudice in its entirety.

DISMISSAL Comment REQDEA: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FILED AND ENTERED.

Case Management Statement.

STATEMENT (4) Comment CMS: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY PETER BERG.

Case Management Statement.

STATEMENT (3) Comment CMS: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY STA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DEVELOPMENTAL CONTRA COSTA DAY ACTIVITES CENTER INC.,.

Conversion Hearing.

CMC NOTICE Judicial Officer Cretan Clifford V Comment CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Notice.

NOTICE Comment N: NOTICE OF DEPOSIT OF JURY FEES FILED BY PETER BERG.

Case Management Statement.

STATEMENT (2) Comment CMS: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY PETER BERG.

Case Management Statement.

STATEMENT Comment CMS: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY STA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DEVELOPMENTAL CONTRA COSTA DAY ACTIVITES CENTER INC.,.

Answer / Response / Denial - Unlimited.

ANSWER Comment ANS: (S) ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF BERG FILED BY STA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DEVELOPMENTAL CONTRA COSTA DAY ACTIVITES CENTER INC.,, REPRESENTED BY RAGGHIANTI FREITAS LLP

Proof of Service of Complaint/Petition.

PROOF OF SERVICE Comment PSS: PROOF OF SERVICE (SUB-SERVICE) OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT OF BERG AS TO STA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DEVELOPMENTAL BY SUB-SERVING SUSAN SAVAGE, AGENT. MAILING DATE OF 07/27/12.

Proof of Service of Complaint/Petition.

PROOF OF SERVICE (2) Comment PSS: PROOF OF SERVICE (SUB-SERVICE) OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT OF BERG AS TO CONTRA COSTA DAY ACTIVITES CENTER INC., BY SUB-SERVING PATRICIA TERRANOVA, AGENT. MAILING DATE OF 07/27/12.

Summons Issued / Filed.

SUMMONS Comment S30IF: 30 DAY SUMMONS ISSUED AND FILED.

Civil Case Cover Sheet.

COVERSHEET Comment CCS: CIVIL CASE COVERSHEET RECEIVED

Complaint.

COMPLAINT Comment COM: (S) COMPLAINT FILED

1 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/21/2013
  • Disposition: Judgment; Judgment Type; Dismissal - Other Dismissal; Party; Name: CONTRA COSTA DAY ACTIVITES CENTER INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; Comment: 0001 COMPLAINT; Party; Name: STA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; Comment: 0001 COMPLAINT; Party; Name: BERG, PETER; Comment: 0001 COMPLAINT.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2013
  • Conversion Minute. Additional Info: Comment NOH: NOTICE OF HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2013
  • Conversion Hearing. Additional Info: Comment OSC RE: DISMISSAL HEARING AS TO DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2013
  • Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal. Additional Info: Hearing Time 9:00 AM Cancel Reason Vacated Comment Dept: 7 OSC RE: DISMISSAL HEARING AS TO DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2013
  • View Court Documents
  • Request for Dismissal of - WITH prejudice in its entirety. Additional Info: DISMISSAL Comment REQDEA: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FILED AND ENTERED.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2013
  • Conversion Minute. Additional Info: Comment COM1: - 8 -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2013
  • Conversion Minute. Additional Info: Comment MICMS: ENTERED BY C LYSSAND ON 01/29/13.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2013
  • Conversion Minute. Additional Info: Comment HCMO: OSC RE: DISMISSAL HEARING AS TO DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION SET FOR 03/26/13 AT 09:00 IN DEPARTMENT 7

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2013
  • Conversion Minute. Additional Info: Comment FFT: THE OSC RE DISMISSAL CALENDAR.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2013
  • Conversion Minute. Additional Info: Comment FFT: THE COURT IS INFORMED THE PARTIES HAVE REACHED A TENTATIVE SETTLEMENT. THIS MATTER IS PLACED ON

    Read MoreRead Less
28 More Docket Entries
  • 07/23/2012
  • New Filed Case.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/23/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • Summons Issued / Filed. Additional Info: SUMMONS Comment S30IF: 30 DAY SUMMONS ISSUED AND FILED.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/23/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet. Additional Info: COVERSHEET Comment CCS: CIVIL CASE COVERSHEET RECEIVED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/23/2012
  • Conversion Minute. Additional Info: Comment *FEE: 120724-0262-CK 194/ 435.00 PAYMT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/23/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • Complaint. Additional Info: COMPLAINT Comment COM: (S) COMPLAINT FILED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2012
  • Financial info for BERG, PETER : Case Payment Receipt # 201211270669 BERG, PETER $150.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2012
  • Financial info for BERG, PETER : Transaction Assessment $150.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2012
  • Financial info for BERG, PETER : Case Payment Receipt # 201207240262 BERG, PETER $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2012
  • Financial info for BERG, PETER : Transaction Assessment $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2012
  • Financial: BERG, PETER; Total Financial Assessment $585.00; Total Payments and Credits $585.00

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

PARVIZ DARABI, SBN 209021

WILLIAM BLASSER, SBN 232291 BAN MATEO COUNTY

LAW OFFICES OF PARVIZ DARABI "

500 Airport Blvd., Suite 150 JUL 23 2012 Burlingame, CA 94010 Clerk of thi/Su rt Telephone: (650) 343-5357 By - Facsimile: (650) 343-5391 PUTY CL Attorney for Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

PETER BERG, an individual, g Case No. : C‘V é l 5 5 5 8

. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:

Plaintiff,

1: STATUTORY VIOLATIONS: Labor Code §§226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194 IWC Order 5, Sections 3, 11 and 12, DLSE 44.2,44.2.1, 45.2,45.2.1,45.2.2,45.3,45.3.2, 45.3.3;

2: STATUTORY VIOLATIONS: Labor Code

STA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA ; DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES INC., a

California Corporation; CONTRA COSTA ;

DAY ACTIVITES CENTER INC., a 83201&202; . . . . 3: Business & Professions Code Section California Corporation and DOES 1-30, 17200:

inclusive,

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS JURY TRIAL

Defendants.

@WWRGWMM@% as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. The Jurisdiction over this case is in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of SAN MATEO, because many of the acts alleged herein, which gave rise to this action occurred in the County of SAN MATEOQ, State of California.

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff, PETER BERG (hereinafter “Plaintiff”’) was employed by Defendants to perform services for a wage in the County of SAN MATEQ, State of California.

3. Defendant, STA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES INC,, (hereinafter “DEVELOPMENTAL-SERVICES”) is and at all relevant times herein was a

Complaint For Damages -1-

Complaint For Damages -1- California Corporation licensed to do business in the County of SAN MATEO, state of California and employed Plaintiff during the relevant time period.

California Corporation licensed to do business in the County of SAN MATEO, state of California and employed Plaintiff during the relevant time period.

4. Defendant, CONTRA COSTA DAY ACTIVITES CENTER INC., (hereinafter “ACTIVITES-CENTER?) is and at all relevant times herein was a California Corporation licensed to do business in the County of SAN MATEO, state of California and employed

Plaintiff during the relevant time period.

5. DEVELOPMENTAL-SERVICES and ACTIVITES-CENTER are hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants.” 6. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, of

Defendants named herein as DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sue these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the Defendants designated herein as a DOE is legally responsible in some manner for the acts and omissions herein alleged, and legally and proximately caused injury and damage to Plaintiff as hereinafter alleged.

7. Except as herein otherwise specifically alleged, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all relevant times mentioned herein, each of the Defendants DOES 1 through 30, were owners, operators, managers, subsidiaries of, or owned entities of Defendants, and each of them, or persons otherwise responsible for paying the wages and / or penalties alleged herein.

8. Whenever in this complaint reference is made to any act or omission of Defendants, such act or omission shall be deemed the act or omission of each Defendant, acting individually,

jointly and severally.

Whenever in this complaint reference is made to any act or omission of a corporate Defendant, such allegation shall be deemed to mean that that corporate Defendant, its officers, directors, agents, employees and representatives did or authorized such act or omission while actively engaged in the management, direction and control of the affairs of that corporate Defendant, and while acting within the course and scope of their agency and employment.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

10. On or about January 2004, Plaintiff’s employment began with Defendants and continued

until on or about September 1, 2010.

Complaint For Damages -2-

Complaint For Damages -2- 11. At all times relevant hereto, and during the entire period of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants, Plaintiff worked over eight hours per day, with no overtime pay and was not compensated for all hours worked.

11. At all times relevant hereto, and during the entire period of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants, Plaintiff worked over eight hours per day, with no overtime pay and was not compensated for all hours worked.

12. At all times relevant hereto, and during the entire period of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was employed as a full time non-exempt employee, subject to the laws of the State of California, for the payment of wages for “all hours worked”, overtime wages and premium for uncompensated meal and rest breaks, as set-forth in the California Labor Code, and was covered under one or more statutes, regulations and Wage Orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC), and Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE).

13. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that, California Labor Code § 510, supersedes the Fair Labor Standard Act requirements for overtime pay for hours

| worked by any employee in California in excess of eight hours in one workday and in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek. California Labor Code § 510, denotes that any work in excess of eight hours in one workday and in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than one and one-half (1-1/2) times the regular rate of pay for an employee and any work in excess of 12 hours in one day shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay for an employee.

14. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that, pursuant to California Labor Code § 1194, Plaintiff is owed not only the unpaid balance of the overtime compensation otherwise due to Plaintiff for Plaintiff’s entire period of employment, but also interest thereon at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum (pursuant to California Labor Code § 218.6 and Labor Code 1194) and continuing from that period until the time of trial and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit.

15. At all times relevant hereto, and during the entire period of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants, Defendants knowingly and intentionally failed to provide Plaintiff with an itemized wage statement in compliance with California Labor Code §226. Such failures in Defendants’ itemized wage statements included, among other things, not including overtime hours in each pay period, not reporting accurate gross wages earned, not reporting all hours worked and failure to report premium wages for meal and rest breaks.

16. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that pursuant to California Labor

Complaint For Damages -3-

Complaint For Damages -3- Code §§ 226, 226.3 and 226.4, Defendants, are and should be subject to punishments and penalties for their violations in failing to provide Plaintiff, a non-exempt employee, with an itemized statement showing the number of hours worked, commencing with Plaintiff’s first day of employment and continuing thereafter until Plaintiff’s last date of employment.

Code §§ 226, 226.3 and 226.4, Defendants, are and should be subject to punishments and penalties for their violations in failing to provide Plaintiff, a non-exempt employee, with an itemized statement showing the number of hours worked, commencing with Plaintiff’s first day of employment and continuing thereafter until Plaintiff’s last date of employment.

17. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that pursuant to California Labor Code § 225.5, Defendants, are and should be subject to punishments and penalties for their violations in failing to pay Plaintiff, a non-exempt employee, at the required rate of pay for all hours worked, commencing with Plaintiff’s first day of employment and continuing thereafter until Plaintiff’s last date of employment.

18. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that, pursuant to California Labor Code § 226.7, Labor Code§ 512 and the Wage Order promulgated by Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 5, Section 11, and Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) 45.2, 45.2.1, 45.2.2, one, uninterrupted, meal period is required for all employees whose total daily work time is at least five and one-half (5 '2) hours, and a second meal period is required for all employees whose daily work time is at least ten (10) hours.

19. At all times relevant hereto, and during the entire period of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants, Plaintiff has not been allowed all Plaintiff’s meal breaks.

20. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that at all times relevant hereto, Defendants, failed to provide Plaintiff all of her uninterrupted meal breaks as required by Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 5, Section 11 and Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) 45.2, 45.2.1, 45.2.2. Defendants have violated the Industrial Welfare Commission’s Wage Order No. 5, Section 11 and Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) 45.2,45.2.1, 45.2.2, by failirig to provide Plaintiff meal breaks as required. Plaintiff is owed compensation, restitution or other relief, for payment of wages for each day a lawful meal period was not provided, and a penalty of one (1) additional hour of pay at the Plaintiff’s regular rate of compensation for each and every work day that a meal period was not provided during Plaintiff’s employment.

21. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that, pursuant to California Labor Code § 226.7, Labor Code§ 512 and the Wage Order promulgated by Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 5 Sections 12, and Division of Labor Standards Enforcement

(DLSE) 45.3, 45.3.2, 45.3.3, 10 minutes of rest periods for every four hours worked are

Complaint For Damages -4-

Complaint For Damages -4- required for all employees whose total daily work time is at least three and half (3 '2) hours.

required for all employees whose total daily work time is at least three and half (3 '2) hours.

22. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that at all times relevant hereto, the Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with sufficient rest breaks as required by Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 5, Section 12 and Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) 45.3, 45.3.2, 45.3.3. Defendants have violated the Industrial Welfare Commission’s Wage Order No. 5, Section 12 and Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) 45.3, 45.3.2, 45.3.3, by failing to provide Plaintiff rest breaks as required. Plaintiff is owed compensation, restitution or other relief, for payment of penalty of one (1) additional hour of pay at the Plaintiff’s regular rate of compensation for each and every work day that a rest period was not provided during Plaintiff’s employment.

23. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Defendant’s unlawful and fraudulent conducts of knowingly and intentionally failing to pay Plaintiff the monies earned by Plaintiff, including: wages for “all hours worked”, overtime wages and premium for uncompensated meal and rest breaks, in violation of California Labor Codes, and the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), set forth hereinabove, constitute an unfair business practice under Business and Professions Code § 17200.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Statutory Violations)

(Violations of: Labor Code §226; Labor Code §226.7; Labor Code §510; Labor Code §512; Labor Code §1194; Industrial Welfare Commissioners, Order 5, Sections 3, 11 and 12; Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) 44.2, 44.2.1, 45.2,45.2.1,45.2.2, 45.3, 45.3.2, 45.3.3;) (Against Defendants, and all applicable DOES 1-30)

24. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by this reference the allegations in each and every paragraph above, as though fully set forth herein.

25. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Defendants, through their authorized agents, has acted as hereinbefore alleged in such a manner and caused the happening of the events as hereinbefore alleged so as to constitute violations of the following provisions of California Statutory law: Labor Code §226; Labor Code §226.7; Labor Code §510; Labor Code §512; Labor Code §1194; Industrial Welfare Commissioners, Order 5, Sections 3, 11 and 12; Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) 44.2,44.2.1,45.2,45.2.1,45.2.2, 45.3, 45.3.2, 45.3.3 as set forth in detail

hereinabove.

Complaint For Damages -5-

Complaint For Damages -5- O 00 ~J O W»n H» W N -

O 00 ~J O W»n H» W N -

~J O\ W»n H W N =s, W N O

At all times relevant hereto, and during the entire period of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants, Defendants continuously, knowingly and intentionally, failed to pay Plaintiff the monies earned by Plaintiff, including: wages for “all hours worked”, overtime wages and premium for uncompensated meal and rest breaks.

As a result of the violation of the afore described statutory provisions of California law, Plaintiff has been damaged as herein before alleged in an amount to be shown according to proof in accordance with Labor Code §§ 218.6; 226.3; 226.4; 226.7; 510; 512; 558; 1194, and Industrial Welfare Commission, Order 5, Sections 3, 11 and 12; Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) 44.2, 44.2.1,45.2,45.2.1,45.2.2,45.3,45.3.2, 45.3.3. Additionally, Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees, interest and costs, pursuant to Labor Code §218.5 and 1194(a).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Statutory Violations) (Violations of: California, Labor Code § 201; Labor Code §202) (Against Defendants, and all applicable DOES 1-30) Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by this reference the allegations in each and every paragraph above, as though fully set forth herein. Effective on or about September 1, 2010, Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants ceased.

At that time Plaintiff was owed wages for “all hours worked”, overtime wages and premium

for uncompensated meal and rest breaks.

. At the date of the cessation of employment, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff any of the

amounts due, as set forth hereinabove. Defendants’ failure to pay the full amount due to Plaintiff on the date of Plaintiff’s cessation from employment violates the provisions of Labor Code § 201, and Labor Code §202.

There is now due and owing to Plaintiff wages for “all hours worked”, overtime wages and premium for uncompensated meal and rest breaks, plus interest.

Defendants have failed and refused and continue to fail and refuse to pay the amount due as set forth hereinabove to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Defendants’ failure to pay the wages, as alleged hereinabove, was willful in that Defendants were aware of the obligation

to pay wages and, for reasons currently unknown to Plaintiff, failed to pay the wages due,

Complaint For Damages -6-

Complaint For Damages -6- and unfair acts and has a claim under Section 17200 for restitution and return of monies due

and unfair acts and has a claim under Section 17200 for restitution and return of monies due

to him, including unpaid wages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as follows:

For a money judgment representing compensatory damages including but not limited to lost wages, and all other sums of money, together with interest on said amounts, according to proof;

For the statutory penalties and civil penalties provided by law, including but not limited to those stated in California Labor Code Sections: §§ 203; 218.5; 218.6; 225.5; 226.3; 226.4; 226.7; 510; 512; 558; 1194 and Industrial Welfare Commission, Order No. 5, Sections 3, 11 and 12; Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) 44.2, 44.2.1,45.2,45.2.1,45.2.2, 45.3, 45.3.2, 45.3.3.

For interest on any unpaid wages and/ or overtime compensation due from the

day such amounts were due;

For a money judgment representing restitution damages together with interest

on said amounts, according to proof;

For costs of suit, including attorneys' fees;

For any other relief that is just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands trial of this matter by jury.

Dated: ) # “C , 2012

LAW OFFICGE OF PARVIZ DARABI

' Parviz Darabi, Esq, Attorney for Plamitiff

Complaint For Damages -8-