taco bell court complaint
DESCRIPTION
2007TRANSCRIPT
-1- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Mark Yablonovich (SBN 186670) Marc Primo (SBN 216796) Joseph Cho (SBN 198844) Gregory Yu (SBN 230520) Initiative Legal Group LLP 1800 Century Park East, 2nd Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-5637 Facsimile: (310) 861-9051 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO DIVISION
SANDRIKA MEDLOCK and LISA HARDIMAN, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. TACO BELL CORP., a California corporation; TACO BELL OF AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation; TACO BELL FOUNDATION, INC., a California corporation; NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TACO BELL ASSOCIATION, INC., a California corporation; TACO BELL, a business entity form unknown; YUM!, a business entity form unknown; YUM! BRANDS, INC., a business entity form unknown; YUM! BRANDS, a business entity form unknown; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case Number: COMPLAINT FOR CLASS ACTION (1) Violation of California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198 (Unpaid Overtime); (2) Violation of California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202 (Wages not Paid Upon Termination); (3) Violation of California Labor Code §§ 226.7(a) and 512(a) (Denial of Meal Breaks); (4) Violation of California Labor Code § 226.7(a) (Denial of Rest Breaks); (5) Violation of California Labor Code § 226(a) (Improper Wage Statements);
Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 1 of 21
-2-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
20
23
24
25
28
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
26
27
Defendants. (6) Violation of California Labor Code §§ 2800 and 2802 (Unpaid Business-Related Expenses); and (7) Violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all other members of the public
similarly situated, allege as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331-1332. The Court has supplemental
jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Plaintiffs allege,
on information and belief, that the aggregate amount in controversy for this class
action exceeds five million dollars ($5,000,000.00) exclusive of interest and costs,
that the class is greater than one-hundred (100) members, and that any one plaintiff
is a citizen of a state different from that of any defendant. See Class Action Fairness
Act (“CAFA”), Pub. L. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005).
2. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) and (b)
because Defendants maintain offices, have agents and are licensed to and do transact
business in this district.
THE PARTIES
3. Plaintiffs SANDRIKA MEDLOCK and LISA HARDIMAN
(hereinafter “Medlock” and “Hardiman” respectively, collectively “Plaintiffs”) are
residents of Fresno County in the State of California.
4. Defendant TACO BELL CORP. was and is, upon information and
Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 2 of 21
-3-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
belief, a California corporation, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, an employer
whose employees are engaged throughout this county, the State of California, or the
various states of the United States of America.
4
8
12
17
21
25
5
6
7
5. Defendant TACO BELL OF AMERICA, INC. was and is, upon
information and belief, a Delaware corporation doing business, and at all times
hereinafter mentioned, an employer whose employees are engaged throughout this
county, the State of California, or the various states of the United States of America.
9
10
11
6. Defendant TACO BELL FOUNDATION, INC. was and is, upon
information and belief, a California corporation, and at all times hereinafter
mentioned, an employer whose employees are engaged throughout this county, the
State of California, or the various states of the United States of America.
13
14
15
16
7. Defendant NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TACO BELL
ASSOCIATION, INC. was and is, upon information and belief, a California
corporation, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, an employer whose employees
are engaged throughout this county, the State of California, or the various states of
the United States of America.
18
19
20
8. Defendant TACO BELL was and is, upon information and belief, a
business entity form unknown, doing business, and at all times hereinafter
mentioned, an employer whose employees are engaged throughout this county, the
State of California, or the various states of the United States of America.
22
23
24
9. Defendant YUM! was and is, upon information and belief, a business
entity form unknown, doing business, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, an
employer whose employees are engaged throughout this county, the State of
California, or the various states of the United States of America.
26
27
28
10. Defendant YUM! BRANDS, INC. was and is, upon information and
belief, a business entity form unknown, doing business, and at all times hereinafter
mentioned, an employer whose employees are engaged throughout this county, the
State of California, or the various states of the United States of America.
Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 3 of 21
-4-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
5
9
18
27
2
3
4
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that DOES 1-10
are the partners, agents, owners, shareholders, managers or employees of TACO
BELL CORP., TACO BELL OF AMERICA, INC., TACO BELL FOUNDATION,
INC., NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TACO BELL ASSOCIATION, INC., TACO
BELL, YUM!, YUM! BRANDS, INC., and/or YUM! BRANDS, and were acting
on behalf of TACO BELL CORP., TACO BELL OF AMERICA, INC., TACO
BELL FOUNDATION, INC., NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TACO BELL
ASSOCIATION, INC., TACO BELL, YUM!, YUM! BRANDS, INC., and/or
YUM! BRANDS.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
14. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each and all
of the acts and omissions alleged herein was performed by, or is attributable to,
TACO BELL CORP., TACO BELL OF AMERICA, INC., TACO BELL
FOUNDATION, INC., NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TACO BELL
ASSOCIATION, INC., TACO BELL, YUM!, YUM! BRANDS, INC. and/or
YUM! BRANDS and DOES 1-10 (collectively “Defendants”), each acting as the
agent for the other, with legal authority to act on the other’s behalf. The acts of any
and all Defendants were in accordance with, and represent the official policy of,
Defendants.
28
1
11. Defendant YUM! BRANDS was and is, upon information and belief, a
business entity form unknown, doing business, and at all times hereinafter
mentioned, an employer whose employees are engaged throughout this county, the
State of California, or the various states of the United States of America.
12. Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names or capacities of the Defendants
sued herein under the fictitious names DOES 1-10, but pray for leave to amend and
serve such fictitiously named Defendants once their names and capacities become
known.
5. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, ratified
each and every act or omission complained of herein. At all times herein
Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 4 of 21
-5-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, aided and abetted the acts and omissions
of each and all the other Defendants in proximately causing the damages herein
alleged.
4
7
8
11
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
6
1
9
10
12
18
6. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each of said
Defendants is in some manner intentionally, negligently, or otherwise responsible
for the acts, omissions, occurrences, and transactions alleged herein.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
17. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf, as well as on behalf of
each and all other persons similarly situated, and thus, seek class certification under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3).
18. All claims alleged herein arise under California law for which Plaintiffs
seek relief authorized by California law.
19. The proposed class consists of and is defined as:
All non-exempt or hourly paid employees who have been employed by
Defendants in the State of California within four years prior to the
filing of this complaint until resolution of this lawsuit.
20. There is a well defined community of interest in the litigation and the
class is easily ascertainable:
a. Numerosity: The members of the class (and each subclass, if
any) are so numerous that joinder of all members would be unfeasible and
impractical. The membership of the entire class is unknown to Plaintiffs at this
time, however, the class is estimated to be greater than one-hundred (100)
individuals and the identity of such membership is readily ascertainable by
inspection of Defendants’ employment records.
b. Typicality: Plaintiffs are qualified to, and will, fairly and
adequately protect the interests of each class member with whom they have a well
defined community of interest, and Plaintiffs’ claims (or defenses, if any) are typical
of all class members’ as demonstrated herein.
Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 5 of 21
-6-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
27
28
25
26
c. Adequacy: Plaintiffs are qualified to, and will, fairly and
adequately, protect the interests of each class member with whom they have a well-
defined community of interest and typicality of claims, as alleged herein. Plaintiffs
acknowledge that they have an obligation to make known to the Court any
relationship, conflicts, or differences with any class member. Plaintiffs’ attorneys
and the proposed class counsel are versed in the rules governing class action
discovery, certification, and settlement. Plaintiffs have incurred, and throughout the
duration of this action will continue to incur costs and attorneys’ fees that have
been, are, and will be necessarily expended for the prosecution of this action for the
substantial benefit of each class member.
d. Superiority: The nature of this action makes the use of class
action adjudication superior to other methods. Class action will achieve economies
of time, effort and expense as compared with separate lawsuits, and will avoid
inconsistent outcomes because the same issues can be adjudicated in the same
manner and at the same time for the entire class.
e. Public Policy Considerations: Employers of the State violate
employment and labor laws every day. Current employees are often afraid to assert
their rights out of fear of direct or indirect retaliation. Former employees are fearful
of bringing actions because they believe their former employers may damage their
future endeavors through negative references and/or other means. Class actions
provide the class members who are not named in the complaint with a type of
anonymity that allows for the vindication of their rights at the same time as their
privacy is protected.
21. There are common questions of law and fact as to the class (and each
subclass, if any) that predominate over questions affecting only individual members,
including but not limited to:
a. Whether Defendants required Plaintiffs and the other class
members to work over eight (8) hours per day, over twelve (12) hours per day, or
Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 6 of 21
-7-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
over forty (40) hours per week and failed to pay legally required overtime
compensation to Plaintiffs and the other class members;
b. Whether Defendants’ failure to pay wages, without abatement or
reduction, in accordance with the California Labor Code, was willful;
c. Whether Defendants deprived Plaintiffs and the other class
members of meal periods or required Plaintiffs and the class members to work
during meal periods without compensation;
d. Whether Defendants deprived Plaintiffs and the other class
members of rest periods or required Plaintiffs and the class members to work during
rest periods without compensation;
e. Whether Defendants complied with wage reporting as required
by the California Labor Code; including but not limited to § 226;
f. Whether Defendants failed to promptly pay all wages due to
Plaintiffs and the other class members upon their discharge or resignation;
g. Whether Defendants made unlawful deductions from the wages
of Plaintiffs and other class members;
h. Whether Defendants failed to indemnify Plaintiffs and other
class members for necessary and required business expenditures and losses incurred
by them in the scope of their employment;
i. Whether the Defendants failed to reimburse for employee
expenses;
j. Whether Defendants’ conduct was willful or reckless;
k. Whether Defendants engaged in unfair business practices in
violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.; and
l. The appropriate amount of damages, restitution, or monetary
penalties resulting from Defendants’ violations of California law.
\\
\\
Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 7 of 21
-8-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
4
7
10
12
17
21
24
27
3
5
6
8
9
11
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
22
23
25
26
28
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
22. At all times set forth, Defendants employed Plaintiffs and other persons
as non-exempt or hourly paid employees.
23. Defendants employed Plaintiff Medlock as a Shift Manager, which is a
non-exempt or hourly paid position, from on or about October 25, 2005 to on or
about July 9, 2007, at Fresno, California business locations.
24. Defendants employed Plaintiff Hardiman as a Crew Member, which is
a non-exempt or hourly paid position, from on or about August 10, 2005 to on or
about May 30, 2007, at Fresno, California business locations.
25. Defendants continue to employ non-exempt or hourly paid employees
within California.
26. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at all times
herein mentioned, Defendants were advised by skilled lawyers and other
professionals, employees, and advisors knowledgeable about California and federal
labor and wage law and employment and personnel practices, and about the
requirements of California and federal law.
27. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that Defendants
knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and other members of the class were
entitled to receive certain wages for overtime compensation and that they were not
receiving certain wages for overtime compensation.
28. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that Defendants
knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and other class members were entitled to
receive complete and accurate wage statements in accordance with California law.
29. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that Defendants
knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and other class members were entitled to
receive all the wages owed to them upon discharge.
30. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that Defendants
knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and other class members were entitled to
Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 8 of 21
-9-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
receive all meal breaks or payment of one hour of pay at Plaintiffs’ and class
members’ regular rate of pay when a meal break was missed.
3
7
13
20
23
24
25
26
27
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
32. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that Defendants
knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and the other class members were
entitled to receive full reimbursement for all business-related expenses and costs
they incurred during the course and scope of their employment, and that they did not
receive full reimbursement of applicable business-related expenses and costs they
incurred.
14
15
16
17
18
19
33. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that at all times
herein mentioned, Defendants knew or should have known that they had a duty to
compensate Plaintiffs and other class members, and that Defendants had the
financial ability to pay such compensation, but willfully, knowingly, and
intentionally failed to do so, and falsely represented to Plaintiffs and other class
members that they were properly denied wages, all in order to increase Defendants’
profits.
21
22
34. California Labor Code
28
31. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that Defendants
knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and other class members were entitled to
receive all rest breaks or payment of one hour of pay at Plaintiffs’ and class
members’ regular rate of pay when a rest break was missed.
§ 218 states that nothing in Article 1 of the
Labor Code shall limit the right of any wage claimant to “sue directly...for any
wages or penalty due him [or her] under this article.”
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198
(Against all Defendants)
35. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege as if fully stated herein
the material allegations set out in paragraphs 1 through 34.
Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 9 of 21
-10-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
6
12
16
22
25
27
2
3
4
5
36. California Labor Code
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
26
28
§ 1198 and the applicable Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Order provides that it is unlawful to employ persons without
compensating them at a rate of pay either time-and-one-half or two-times that
person’s regular rate of pay, depending on the number of hours worked by the
person on a daily or weekly basis.
37. Specifically, the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
Order provides that Defendants are and were required to pay Plaintiffs and the other
class members employed by Defendants, and working more than eight (8) hours in a
day or more than forty (40) hours in a workweek, at the rate of time-and-one-half for
all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a day or more than forty (40) hours
in a workweek.
38. The applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order further
provides that Defendants are and were required to pay Plaintiffs and the other class
members employed by Defendants, and working more than twelve (12) hours in a
day, overtime compensation at a rate of two times their regular rate of pay.
39. California Labor Code § 510 codifies the right to overtime
compensation at one-and-one-half times the regular hourly rate for hours worked in
excess of eight (8) hours in a day or forty (40) hours in a week or for the first eight
(8) hours worked on the seventh day of work, and to overtime compensation at
twice the regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of twelve (12) hours in a
day or in excess of eight (8) hours in a day on the seventh day of work.
40. During the relevant time period, Plaintiffs and the other class members
consistently worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a day, in excess of twelve (12)
hours in a day, or in excess of forty (40) hours in a week.
41. During the relevant time period, Defendants willfully failed to pay all
overtime wages owed to Plaintiffs and the other class members.
42. During the relevant time period, Plaintiffs and the other class members
regularly received incentives in the form of bonuses which were not incorporated in
Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 10 of 21
-11-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiffs’ and the other class members’ overtime.
2
5
8
9
10
11
12
14
21
25
3
4
4
6
7
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
26
27
28
3. Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs and the other class members the
unpaid balance of overtime compensation, as required by California laws, violates
the provisions of California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198, and is therefore unlawful.
44. Pursuant to California Labor Code § 1194, Plaintiffs and other class
members are entitled to recover their unpaid overtime compensation, as well as
interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202
(Against all Defendants)
45. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege as if fully stated herein
the material allegations set out in paragraphs 1 through 44.
46. At all times herein set forth, California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202
provide that if an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at
the time of discharge are due and payable immediately, and that if an employee
voluntarily leaves his or her employment, his or her wages shall become due and
payable not later than seventy-two (72) hours thereafter, unless the employee has
given seventy-two (72) hours previous notice of his or her intention to quit, in which
case the employee is entitled to his or her wages at the time of quitting.
47. During the relevant time period, Defendants willfully failed to pay
Plaintiffs and the other class members who are no longer employed by Defendants
their wages, earned and unpaid, either at the time of discharge, or within seventy-
two (72) hours of their leaving Defendants’ employ.
48. Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs and those class members who are
no longer employed by Defendants their wages earned and unpaid at the time of
discharge, or within seventy-two (72) hours of their leaving Defendants’ employ, is
in violation of California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202.
Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 11 of 21
-12-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
6
10
11
12
13
14
16
19
22
28
2
3
4
5
49. California Labor Code
7
8
9
15
17
18
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
§ 203 provides that if an employer willfully
fails to pay wages owed, in accordance with §§ 201 and 202, then the wages of the
employee shall continue as a penalty from the due date, and at the same rate until
paid or until an action is commenced; but the wages shall not continue for more than
thirty (30) days.
50. Plaintiffs and the other class members are entitled to recover from
Defendants the statutory penalty for each day they were not paid, at their regular
hourly rate of pay, up to a thirty (30) day maximum pursuant to California Labor
Code § 203.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of California Labor Code §§ 226.7(a) and 512(a)
(Against all Defendants)
51. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege as if fully stated herein
the material allegations set out in paragraphs 1 through 50.
52. At all times herein set forth, the California Industrial Welfare
Commission Order and California Labor Code §§ 226.7(a) and 512(a) were
applicable to Plaintiffs’ and the other class members’ employment by Defendants.
53. At all times herein set forth, California Labor Code § 226.7(a) provides
that no employer shall require an employee to work during any meal period
mandated by an applicable order of the California Industrial Welfare Commission.
54. At all times herein set forth, California Labor Code § 512(a) provides
that an employer may not require, cause or permit an employee to work for a period
of more than five (5) hours per day without providing the employee with a meal
period of not less than thirty (30) minutes, except that if the total work period per
day of the employee is not more than six (6) hours, the meal period may be waived
by mutual consent of both the employer and the employee.
55. At all times herein set forth, California Labor Code § 512(a) further
Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 12 of 21
-13-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
provides that an employer may not require, cause or permit an employee to work for
a period of more than ten (10) hours per day without providing the employee with a
second meal period of not less than thirty (30) minutes, except that if the total hours
worked is no more than twelve (12) hours, the second meal period may be waived
by mutual consent of the employer and the employee only if the first meal period
was not waived.
7
12
16
21
25
8
9
10
11
56. During the relevant time period, Plaintiffs and the other members of the
class who were scheduled to work for a period of time no longer than six (6) hours,
and who did not waive their legally-mandated meal periods by mutual consent, were
required to work for periods longer than five (5) hours without a meal period of not
less than thirty (30) minutes.
13
14
15
57. During the relevant time period, Plaintiffs and the other class members
who were scheduled to work for a period of time in excess of six (6) hours were
required to work for periods longer than five (5) hours without a meal period of not
less than thirty (30) minutes.
17
18
19
20
58. During the relevant time period, Plaintiffs and other members of the
class who were scheduled to work in excess of ten (10) hours but not longer than
twelve (12) hours, and who did not waive their legally-mandated meal periods by
mutual consent were required to work in excess of ten (10) hours without receiving
a second meal period of not less than thirty (30) minutes.
22
23
24
59. During the relevant time period, Plaintiffs and the other class members
who were scheduled to work for a period of time in excess of twelve (12) hours
were required to work for periods longer than ten (10) hours without a meal period
of not less than thirty (30) minutes.
26
27
28
60. During the relevant time period, Defendants willfully required
Plaintiffs and other members of the class to work during meal periods and failed to
compensate Plaintiffs and members of the class for work performed during meal
periods.
Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 13 of 21
-14-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
3
7
8
9
10
11
13
16
19
22
25
2
61
4
5
6
12
14
15
17
18
20
21
23
24
26
27
28
. Defendants’ conduct violates applicable Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders, and California Labor Code §§ 226.7(a) and 512(a).
62. Pursuant to California Labor Code § 226.7(b), Plaintiffs and other
members of the class are entitled to recover from Defendants one additional hour of
pay at the employees’ regular hourly rate of compensation for each work day that
the meal period was not provided.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of California Labor Code § 226.7(a)
(Against all Defendants)
63. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege as if fully stated herein
the material allegations set out in paragraphs 1 through 62.
64. At all times herein set forth, the California Industrial Welfare
Commission Order and California Labor Code § 226.7(a) was applicable to
Plaintiffs’ and other class members’ employment by Defendants.
65. At all times herein set forth, California Labor Code § 226.7(a) provides
that no employer shall require an employee to work during any rest period mandated
by an applicable order of the California Industrial Welfare Commission.
66. During the relevant time period, Defendants required Plaintiffs and
other members of the class to work in excess of four (4) hours without providing a
ten (10) minute rest period.
67. During the relevant time period, Defendants required Plaintiffs and
other members of the class to work an additional four (4) hours without providing a
second ten (10) minute rest period.
68. During the relevant time period, Defendants willfully required
Plaintiffs and other members of the class to work during rest periods and failed to
compensate Plaintiffs and members of the class for work performed during rest
periods.
Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 14 of 21
-15-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
3
7
8
9
10
11
13
17
20
24
28
2
69
4
5
6
12
14
15
16
18
19
21
22
23
25
26
27
. Defendants’ conduct violates applicable Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders, and California Labor Code § 226.7(a).
70. Pursuant to California Labor Code § 226.7(b), Plaintiffs and other
members of the class are entitled to recover from Defendants one additional hour of
pay at the employee’s regular hourly rate of compensation for each work day that
the rest period was not provided.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of California Labor Code § 226(a)
(Against all Defendants)
71. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege as if fully stated herein
the material allegations set out in paragraphs 1 through 70.
72. Defendants have intentionally and willfully failed to provide employees
with complete and accurate wage statements that include, among other things,
Plaintiffs’ and other class members’ proper social security number and total hours
worked.
73. As a result of Defendants’ violation of California Labor Code § 226(a),
Plaintiffs and the other class members have suffered injury and damage to their
statutorily-protected rights.
74. Specifically, Plaintiffs and the other class members have been injured
by Defendants’ intentional violation of California Labor Code § 226(a) because they
were denied both their legal right to receive, and their protected interest in receiving,
accurate, itemized wage statements under § 226(a).
75. Plaintiffs and the other class members are entitled to recover from
Defendants the greater of their actual damages caused by Defendants’ failure to
comply with California Labor Code § 226(a), or an aggregate penalty not exceeding
four thousand dollars.
76. Plaintiffs and the other class members are also entitled to an award of
Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 15 of 21
-16-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Labor Code
2
5
6
7
8
9
11
13
22
25
3
4
10
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
26
27
28
§ 226(e).
77. Plaintiffs and the other class members are also entitled to injunctive
relief to ensure compliance with this section, pursuant to California Labor Code §
226(g).
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of California Labor Code §§ 2800 and 2802
(Against all Defendants)
78. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege as if fully stated herein
the material allegations set out in paragraphs 1 through 77.
79. At all times herein set forth California Labor Code §§ 2800 and 2802
provide that an employer must reimburse employees for all necessary expenditures.
80. Plaintiffs and other class members incurred necessary business-related
expenses and costs that were not fully reimbursed by Defendants, including and
without limitation, required shoes, required clothing and related fees and deposits
that resulted from their employment with Defendants. Specifically, Defendants had,
and continue to have, a policy and practice of requiring employees, including
Plaintiffs and class members, to pay for purchase and maintenance of shoes and
other required clothing out of their own funds. Defendants had, and continue to
have, a policy of not reimbursing employees, including Plaintiffs and class
members, for said business-related expenses and costs.
81. Defendants have intentionally and willfully failed to fully reimburse
Plaintiffs and other class members for necessary business-related expenses and
costs.
82. Plaintiffs and other class members are entitled to recover from
Defendants their business-related expenses incurred during the course and scope of
their employment, plus interest and an award of costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees
pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 2800 and 2802.
Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 16 of 21
-17-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
6
10
13
28
5
7
8
9
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.
(Against all Defendants)
83. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege as if fully stated herein
the material allegations set out in paragraphs 1 through 82.
84. Defendants’ conduct, as alleged herein, has been, and continues to be,
unfair, unlawful, and harmful to Plaintiffs, the other class members, and to the
general public. Plaintiffs seek to enforce important rights affecting the public
interest within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5.
85. Defendants’ activities as alleged herein are violations of California law,
and constitute unlawful business acts and practices in violation of California
Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.
86. A violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et
seq. may be predicated on the violation of any state or federal law. In the instant
case, Defendants’ policy and practice of requiring their non-exempt or hourly paid
employees, including Plaintiffs and class members, to work in excess of forty (40)
hours per week without paying them proper overtime compensation violates the Fair
Labor Standards Act, codified at 29 U.S.C. § 207. Additionally, Defendants’ policy
and practice of requiring non-exempt or hourly paid employees, including Plaintiffs
and class members, to work overtime without paying them proper compensation
violates California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198. Defendants’ policy and practice of
requiring non-exempt or hourly employees, including Plaintiffs and class members,
to work through their meal and rest breaks without paying them proper
compensation violates California Labor Code §§ 226.7(a) and 512(a). Moreover,
Defendants’ policy and practice of not reimbursing non-exempt or hourly
employees, including Plaintiffs and class members, for business related expenses
and costs violates California Labor Code §§ 2800 and 2802.
87. Plaintiffs and the putative class members have been personally
Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 17 of 21
-18-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
aggrieved by Defendants’ unlawful business acts and practices as alleged herein,
including but not necessarily limited to by the loss of money or property.
3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
5
6
7
8
9
88. Pursuant to California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.,
Plaintiffs and the putative class members are entitled to restitution of the wages
withheld and retained by Defendants during a period that commences four years
prior to the filing of this complaint; a permanent injunction requiring Defendants to
pay all outstanding wages due to Plaintiffs and class members; an award of
attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and other
applicable laws; and an award of costs.
REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs request a trial by jury.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiffs, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, prays for relief and
judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows:
Class Certification
1. That this action be certified as a class action;
2. That Plaintiffs be appointed as the representative of the Class; and
3. That counsel for Plaintiffs be appointed as Class counsel.
As to the First Cause of Action
1. For general unpaid wages at overtime wage rates and such general and
2. special damages as may be appropriate;
3. For pre-judgment interest on any unpaid overtime compensation from
the date such amounts were due;
4. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and for costs of suit incurred herein
pursuant to California Labor Code § 1194(a); and
5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and
appropriate.
\\
Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 18 of 21
-19-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
As to the Second Cause of Action
1. For all actual, consequential and incidental losses and damages,
according to proof;
2. For statutory penalties pursuant to California Labor Code § 203 for
Plaintiffs and all other class members who have left Defendants’ employ;
3. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and for costs of suit incurred herein; and
4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and
appropriate.
As to the Third Cause of Action
1. For all actual, consequential, and incidental losses and damages,
according to proof;
2. For wages pursuant to California Labor Code § 226.7(b);
3. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit incurred herein; and
4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
As to the Fourth Cause of Action
1. For all actual, consequential, and incidental losses and damages,
according to proof;
2. For wages pursuant to California Labor Code § 226.7(b);
3. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit incurred herein; and
4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
As to the Fifth Cause of Action
1. For all actual, consequential and incidental losses and damages,
according to proof;
2. For statutory penalties pursuant to California Labor Code § 226(e);
3. For injunctive relief to ensure compliance with this section, pursuant to
California Labor Code § 226(g);
4. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit incurred herein pursuant
to California Labor Code § 226(e); and
Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 19 of 21
-20-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and
appropriate.
As to the Sixth Cause of Action
1. For unpaid wages and such general and special damages as may be
appropriate;
2. For pre-judgment interest on any unpaid wages from the date such
amounts were due;
3. For all actual, consequential and incidental losses and damages,
according to proof;
4. For statutory penalties pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 2800 and
2802;
5. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit incurred herein; and
6. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and
appropriate.
As to the Seventh Cause of Action
1. For restitution of unpaid wages to Plaintiffs and all class members and
prejudgment interest from the day such amounts were due and payable;
2. For the appointment of a receiver to receive, manage and distribute any
and all funds disgorged from Defendants and determined to have been
wrongfully acquired by Defendants as a result of violations of California
Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.;
3. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit incurred herein that
Plaintiffs and other class members are entitled to recover under California
Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5;
4. For injunctive relief to ensure compliance with this section, pursuant to
California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.; and
\\
\\
Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 20 of 21
-21-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and
appropriate.
Dated: September 7, 2007 Respectfully submitted, Initiative Legal Group LLP By: /s/ Joseph Cho____________ Mark Yablonovich Marc Primo Joseph Cho
Gregory Yu Shawn Westrick
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 21 of 21