Complaint Unlimited Fee Applies

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.July 18, 2017

Larry W. Lee, Esq. SBN 228175 DIVERSITYLAWGROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 Attorneys for Plaintiffand the Class 7 **"'DDITIONALCOUNSEL LISTED ON NEXT PAGE 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA SHAILENDRASINGH, as an individual Case No.: and on behalf ofall others similarly situated, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTFOR DAMAGES FOR: 14 15 vs. Plaintiffs, 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants. INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, 17 INC., a Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 18 (1) VIOLATIONOF CAL. LABORCODE S 226.7 AND 512 FOR FAILURETO PROVIDE MEALPERIODS; (2) VIOLATIONOF CAL. LABORCODE 5 226.7 FOR FAILURETO PROVIDE REST PERIODS; (3) VIOLATIONOF CAL. LABORCODE 5 226(a) FOR FAILURETO PROVIDE ACCURATE AND COMPLETE WAGE STATEMENTS; (4) VIOLATIONOF CAL. LABORCODE g 201.3 FOR FAILURETO PAY WAGES IN A TIMELYMANNER;AND (5) VIOLATIONOF CAL. BUS. dk PROF. CODE 5 17200 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 17CV313202 E-FILED 7/18/2017 1:49:52 PM Clerk of Court Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara 17CV313202 Reviewed By:R. Walker 1 Dennis S. Hyun (State Bar No. 224240) HYUN LEGAL, APC 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 3 Los Angeles, CA 9007 1 (213) 488-6555 4 (213) 488-6554 facsimile Edward W. Choi, State Bar No. 211334 Paul M. Yi, Esq. SBN 207867 LAWOFFICES OF CHOI 86 ASSOCIATES, APLC 7 515 S. Figueroa St. Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90010 8 Telephone: (213) 381-1515 9 Facsimile: (2 1 3) 465-4885 10 William L. Marder, Esq. (SSN 170131) POLARIS LAWGROUP 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 Telephone: (831) 531-4214 ]3 Facsimile: (831) 634-0333 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT PlaintiffSHAILENDRASINGH ("PlaintiA")hereby submits this Class Action Complaint ("Complaint" ) against Defendant INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. ("Defendant" ) and DOES 1 through 50 (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Defendants" ) on behalf ofhimself and the class ofall other similarly situated current and former employees of Defendants for unpaid wages and penalties under the California Labor Code, and for restitution as follows: INTRODUCTION 10 This class action is within the Court's jurisdiction under California Labor Codes, and the applicable Wage Orders of the California Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC")and the California Unfair Competition Law (the "UCL"),Business and Professions Code $ 17200, et 12 seq. 2. This complaint challenges systemic illegal employment practices resulting in 13 14 violations of the California Labor Code and the UCL against individuals who worked for Defendants. 15 3. Plaintiffis informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants, 16 17 18 19 jointly and severally, have acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights ofall employees in receiving proper meal and rest breaks, receiving proper wages earned, receiving timely wages in compliance with Labor Codes, and compliant wage statements. 20 4. Plaintiffis informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants 21 22 23 have engaged in, among other things a system ofwillfulviolations of the California Labor Code and the UCL by creating and maintaining policies, practices and customs that knowingly deny employees the above stated rights and benefits. 24 5. The policies, practices and customs ofdefendants described above and below 25 26 27 have resulted in unjust enrichment of Defendants and an unfair business advantage over businesses that routinely adhere to the strictures of the California Labor Code and the UCL. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 28 6. The Court has jurisdiction over the violations of the California Labor Codes and CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT the UCL. 7. Venue is proper in Santa Clara County because Plaintiffperformed work for Defendant in Santa Clara County. PARTIES On or about March 3, 2015, Plaintiffwas hired by the Defendant to work as a security guard/officer. Plaintiffworked for Defendant until on or about May 19, 2017. During his employment, Plaintiffwas paid on an hourly basis as a non-exempt employee. 9. Plaintiffwas and is the victim of the policies, practices, and customs of 10 12 Defendants complained of in this action in ways that have deprived them of the rights guaranteed by California Labor Codes and the UCL. 10. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendant provides security services throughout the United States, including numerous locations in the 13 State ofCalifornia. 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11. Plaintiffis informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all times herein mentioned Defendant and Does 1 through 50, are and were corporations, business entities, individuals, and partnerships, licensed to do business and actually doing business in the State of California. As such, and based upon all the facts and circumstances incident to Defendants business, Defendants are subject to California Labor Codes and the UCL. 12. Plaintiffdoes not know the true names or capacities, whether individual, partner or corporate, of the Defendant sued herein as Does 1 through 50, inclusive, and for that reason, said Defendants are sued under such fictitious names, and Plaintiffprays for leave to amend this complaint when the true names and capacities are known. Plaintiffis informed and believes and based thereon alleges that each of said fictitious Defendants was responsible in some way for the matters alleged herein and proximately caused Plaintiffand members of the general public and class to be subject to the illegal employment practices, wrongs and injuries complained of herein. 13. At all times herein mentioned, each of said Defendants participated in the doing of the acts hereinafter alleged to have been done by the named Defendants; and furthermore, the Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants and employees of each of the other CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Defendants, as well as the agents ofall Defendants, and at all times herein mentioned, were acting within the course and scope of said agency and employment. 14. Plaintiffis informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all times material hereto, each of the Defendants named herein was the agent, employee, alter ego and/or joint venturer of, or working in concert with each of the other co-Defendants and was acting within the course and scope of such agency, employment, joint venture, or concerted activity. To the extent said acts, conduct, and omissions were perpetrated by certain Defendants, each of the remaining Defendants confirmed and ratified said acts, conduct, and omissions of the acting Defendants. 10 15. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, were members of, 12 13 and engaged in, a joint venture, partnership and common enterprise, and acting within the course and scope of, and in pursuance of, said joint venture, partnership and common enterprise. 16. At all times herein mentioned, the acts and omissions ofvarious Defendants, and 14 each of them, concurred and contributed to the various acts and omissions of each and all of the 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 other Defendants in proximately causing the injuries and damages as herein alleged. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, ratified each and every act or omission complained ofherein. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, aided and abetted the acts and omissions ofeach and all of the other Defendants in proximately causing the damages as herein alleged. CLASS ACTIONALLEGATIONS 17. Definition: The named individual Plaintiffseeks class certification, pursuant to California Code ofCivil Procedure $ 382. Plaintiffproposes the following Class and Subclasses: 23 a. Allindividuals who were employed by Defendants in the State of California at 24 25 any time from July 18, 2013 through the present as non-exempt security officer/guards (the "Class" ); 26 b. Allindividuals who were employed by Defendants in the State of California at 27 28 any time from July 18, 2013 through the present as non-exempt security officer/guards and who worked more than five (5) hours in any work shiA (the "Meal Period Subclass" ); CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT C. All individuals who were employed by Defendants in the State ofCalifornia at any time from July 18, 2013 through the present as non-exempt security officer/guards and who worked three and one-half (3.5) hours or more in any work shift (the "Rest Period Subclass" ); and d. All individuals who were employed by Defendants in the State ofCalifornia as 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 non-exempt security officer/guards at any time from July 18, 2014, through the present and who were paid on a biweekly basis (the "Labor Code ( 201.3 Subclass" ). 18. Numerosity and Ascertainability: The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members would be impractical, ifnot impossible. The identity of the members of the Class is readily ascertainable by review of Defendants records, including payroll records. Plaintiffis informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants: (a) failed to provide meal periods; (b) failed to provide rest periods; (c) failed to provide accurate and complete wage statements; and (d) failed to pay wages in a timely manner. 19. Adequacy of Representation: The named Plaintiffis fullyprepared to take all necessary steps to represent fairly and adequately the interests of the class defined above. Plaintiff's attorneys are ready, willingand able to fullyand adequately represent the class and the individual Plaintiff. Plaintiff's attorneys have prosecuted and settled wage-and-hour class actions in the past and currently have a number of wage-and-hour class actions pending in California state and federal courts. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 20. Defendants uniformly administered a corporate policy, practice of: (a) failed to provide meal periods; (b) failed to provide rest periods; (c) failed to provide accurate and complete wage statements; and (d) failed to pay wages in a timely manner. 21. Plaintiffis informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that this corporate conduct is accomplished with the advance knowledge and designed intent to willfullyand intentionally fail to accurately record proper rates ofpay, hours worked, net wages, and deductions. 27 28 22. Plaintiffis informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants had a consistent and uniform policy, practice and procedure ofwillfullyfailing to comply with Labor CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Codes and the UCL. 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 23. Common Question of Law and Fact: There are predominant common questions of law and fact and a community of interest amongst Plaintiffand the claims of the Class concerning Defendant s policy and practice of: (a) failing to provide meal periods; (b) failing to provide rest periods; (c) failing to provide accurate and complete wage statements; and (d) failing to pay wages in a timely manner. 24. Typicality: The claims of Plaintiffare typical of the claims ofall members of the Class in that Plaintiffsuffered the harm alleged in this Complaint in a similar and typical manner as the Class members. As with all other employees in the State of California, Plaintiffand other class members received hourly pay. Nevertheless, Defendant failed to provide all proper meal and rest breaks, failed to reimburse all work-related expenses, and failed pay the wages fullyand in a timely manner. Defendant also failed to provide Plaintiffand class members with itemized wage statements containing all required information. 25. The California Labor Code and upon which Plaintiffbases these claims are broadly remedial in nature. These laws and labor standards serve an important public interest in establishing minimum working conditions and standards in California. These laws and labor standards protect the average working employee from exploitation by employers who may seek to take advantage of superior economic and bargaining power in setting onerous terms and conditions ofemployment. 26. The nature of this action and the format of laws available to Plaintiffand 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 members of the Class identified herein make the class action format a particularly efficient and appropriate procedure to redress the wrongs alleged herein. Ifeach employee were required to file an individual lawsuit, the corporate Defendants would necessarily gain an unconscionable advantage since it would be able to exploit and overwhelm the limited resources of each individual plaintiffwith their vastly superior financial and legal resources. Requiring each Class member to pursue and individual remedy would also discourage the assertion of lawful claims by employees who would be disinclined to file an action against their former and/or current employer for real and justifiable fear of retaliation and permanent damage to their careers at CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 subsequent employment. 27. The prosecution of separate actions by the individual class members, even if possible, would create a substantial risk of (a) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual Class members against the Defendants and which would establish potentially incompatible standards ofconduct for the Defendants, and/or (b) adjudications with respect to individual Class members which would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interest of the other Class members not parties to the adjudications or which would substantially impair or impede the ability of the Class members to protect their interests. Further, the claims of the individual members of the Class are not sufficiently large to warrant vigorous individual prosecution considering all of the concomitant costs and expenses. 28. Such a pattern, practice and uniform administration of corporate policy regarding illegal employee compensation described herein is unlawful and creates an entitlement to recovery by Plaintiffand the Class identified herein, in a civilaction, meal and rest break premiums, applicable Labor Code penalties, reasonable attorneys'ees, and costs of suit according to the mandate of California Labor Code $ $ 201-203, 226, and Code ofCivil Procedure $ 1021.5. 29. Proof of a common business practice or factual pattern, which the named Plaintiff experienced and is representative of, willestablish the right of each of the members of the PlaintiffClass to recovery on the causes of action alleged herein. 30. The PlaintiffClass is commonly entitled to a specific fund with respect to the compensation illegally and unfairly retained by Defendants. The PlaintiffClass is commonly entitled to restitution of those funds being improperly withheld by Defendants. This action is brought for the benefit of the entire class and willresult in the creation of a common fund. 25 26 27 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 2 FOR VIOLATIONOF LABOR CODE 5 226.7 AND 512 REGARDING MEALPERIODS 3 (AGAINSTALLDEFENDANTS BY PLAINTIFFAND ON BEHALFOF THE CLASS) 31. Plaintiffre-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 30 as 5 though fully set for herein. 32. DEFENDANTS failed in their affirmative obligation to provide all of their 7 employees, including Plaintiffand other members of Class, the opportunity to take meal periods 8 in accordance with the mandates of the California Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage 9 Order. Plaintiffand other members of Class were suffered and permitted to work through legally 10 required meal breaks and were denied the opportunity to take their meal breaks. Furthermore, 11 Plaintiffand other members ofClass were not provided with meal breaks until after the 5'" hour 12 ofwork. As such, DEFENDANTS are responsible for paying premium compensation for missed 13 meal periods pursuant to Labor Code $ 226.7 and 512. 14 33. Plaintiffand other members of Class regularly worked in excess of five (5) hours 15 per day and accordingly had a right to take a 30-minute meal period each day worked in excess 16 of five (5) hours. Furthermore, Plaintiffand other members of Class who worked in excess of 17 ten (10) hours per day had a right to take a second 30-minute meal period each day worked in 18 excess of ten (10) hours. 19 34. As a pattern and practice, DEFENDANTS regularly required employees to work 20 through their meal periods and/or take untimely meal breaks without proper compensation and 21 denied Plaintiffand their employees the right to take proper meal periods as required by law. 22 35, This policy of requiring employees to work through their legally mandated meal 23 periods and not allowing them to take proper meal periods is a violation ofCalifornia law. 24 36. Plaintiffis informed and believes and based thereon alleges that DEFENDANTS 25 willfullyfailed to pay employees who were not provided the opportunity to take meal breaks the 26 premium compensation set out in Labor Code f 226.7 and that Plaintiffand those employees 27 similarly situated as him are owed wages for the meal period violations set forth above. Plaintiff 28 is informed and believes and based thereon alleges DEFENDANTS'illfulfailure to provide CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 Plaintiffand other members of Class the wages due and owing them upon separation from employment results in a continued payment of wages up to thirty (30) days from the time the wages were due. Therefore, Plaintiffand other members ofClass who have separated from employment are entitled to compensation pursuant to Labor Code $ 203. 37. Such a pattern, practice and uniform administration of corporate policy as described herein is unlawful and creates an entitlement to recovery by the Plaintiffand other members of Class identified herein, in a civil action, for the unpaid balance of the unpaid premium compensation pursuant to Labor Code ( 226.7 and 512, including interest thereon, penalties and costs of suit. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATIONOFLABORCODE 5 226.7 REGARDING REST PERIODS 12 (AGAINSTALLDEFENDANTS BY PLAINTIFFAND ON BEHALFOF THK CLASS) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 38. Plaintiffre-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 37 as though fully set for herein. 39. DEFENDANTS failed in their affirmative obligation to provide all of their employees, including Plaintiffand other members ofClass, the opportunity to take rest periods in accordance with the mandates of the California Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage Order. Plaintiffand other members of Class were suffered and permitted to work through legally required rest breaks and were denied the opportunity to take their rest breaks. As such, DEFENDANTS are responsible for paying premium compensation for missed rest periods pursuant to Labor Code $ 226.7. 40. Plaintiffand other members ofClass regularly worked shifts of three and one-half hours (3.5) hours or more per day and accordingly had a right to take a 10-minute rest period each day. Furthermore, Plaintiffand other members ofClass who worked shifts of seven and one-half (7.5) hours or more per day had a right to take a second 10-minute rest period. 41. As a pattern and practice, DEFENDANTS regularly required employees to work through their rest periods without proper compensation and denied Plaintiffand their employees the right to take proper rest periods as required by law. 10 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 42. This policy of requiring employees to work through their legally mandated rest 2 periods and not allowing them to take proper rest periods is a violation of California law. 43 ~ Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that DEFENDANTS 4 willfullyfailed to pay employees who were not provided the opportunity to take rest breaks the 5 premium compensation set out in Labor Code $ 226.7 and that Plaintiffand those employees 6 similarly situated as him are owed wages for the rest period violations set forth above. Plaintiff 7 is informed and believes and based thereon alleges DEFENDANTS'illfulfailure to provide 8 Plaintiffand other members ofClass the wages due and owing them upon separation from 9 employment results in a continued payment of wages up to thirty (30) days from the time the 10 wages were due. Therefore, Plaintiffand other members of Class who have separated from 11 employment are entitled to compensation pursuant to Labor Code $ 203. 12 44. Such a pattern, practice and uniform administration of corporate policy as 13 described herein is unlawful and creates an entitlement to recovery by the Plaintiffand other 14 members of Class identified herein, in a civil action, for the unpaid balance of the unpaid 15 premium compensation pursuant to Labor Code $ 226.7 and IWC Wage Order No. 5 $ 12(B), 16 including interest thereon, penalties and costs of suit. 17 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 18 VIOLATIONOF LABORCODE 5 226(a) FOR FAILURETO PROVIDE ACCURATE 19 AND COMPLETE WAGE STATEMENTS 20 (AGAINSTALLDEFENDANTS BY PLAINTIFFAND ON BEHALF OF THE CLASS) 21 45. Plaintiffre-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 44 as 22 though fully set for herein. 23 46. Defendants failed in their affirmative obligation to keep accurate itemized wage 24 statements. Defendants, as a matter ofpolicy and practice, did not maintain accurate records as 25 required under California Labor Code $ 226(a) by failing as a matter ofpolicy and practice to 26 keep accurate records ofPlaintiffand the Class members'ross wages earned, the appropriate 27 rates ofpay, all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period, the corresponding number 28 ofhours worked at each hourly rate by the employee, and/or net wages earned. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 47. Such a pattern, practice and uniform administration of corporate policy as described herein is unlawful and creates an entitlement to recovery by the Plaintiffand the Class identified herein, in a civil action, for all damages or penalties pursuant to California Labor Code $ 226(a), including interest thereon, attorney's fees, and costs of suit according to the mandate of California Labor Code $ 226(a). FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATIONOF LABOR CODE 5 201.3 FOR FAILURETO PAY WAGES IN A TIMELYMANNER 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 (AGAINSTALLDEFENDANTS BY PLAINTIFFAND ON BEHALFOF THE CLASS) 48. PLAINTIFFre-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 47 as though fully set for herein. 49. DEFENDANTS failed to pay all of their employees, including Plaintiffand other members of Class, on a timely basis in accordance with Labor Code $ 201.3. 50. Pursuant to California Labor Code $ 201.3, all Temporary Services Employees must be paid their wages on a weekly basis. Plaintiffalleges that he and all other security guards/officers are Temporary Services Employees and were paid their wages beyond the timeframes set forth in Labor Code $ 201.3. 51. Such a pattern, practice and uniform administration ofcorporate policy regarding untimely payment of wages as described herein is unlawful and creates an entitlement to recovery by Plaintiffin a civil action, for the unpaid balance of the full amount of damages owed, including interest thereon, penalties, attorney s fees, and costs of suit according to the mandate ofCalifornia Labor Code $ 201.3 and 203. 23 24 25 26 27 12 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATIONOF BUS. 4% PROF. CODE 5 17200 (AGAINSTALLDEFENDANTS BY PLAINTIFFAND ON BEHALF OF THE CLASS) 52. PLAINTIFF re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 51 as though fully set for herein. 53. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have engaged and continue to engage in unfair and unlawful business practices in California by practicing, employing and utilizing the employment practices outlined above, include, to wit, by: (a) failing to provide off-duty rest breaks in violation ofLabor Code $ 226.7; (b) failing to provide off-duty meal breaks in violation of Labor Code $ $ 226.7 and 512; (c) failing to timely pay wages in violation of Labor Code $ 201.3; and (d) engaging in Unfair Business Practices in violation of the UCL, all in violation of the California Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Orders. 54. DEFENDANTS'tilization of such unfair and unlawful business practices constitutes unfair, unlawful competition and provides an unfair advantage over DEFENDANTS'ompetitors. 55. PLAINTIFF seeks as an individual and on behalf of other members of the Class similarly situated, full restitution ofmonies, as necessary and according to proof, to restore any and all monies withheld, acquired and/or converted by the DEFENDANTS by means of the unfair practices complained ofherein. 56. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all times herein mentioned DEFENDANTS have engaged in unlawful, deceptive and unfair business practices, as proscribed by California Business and Professions Code $ 17200, et seq., including those set forth herein above thereby depriving PLAINTIFFand other members of the Class the minimum working condition standards and conditions due to them under the California laws and the applicable IWC Wage Orders as specifically described therein. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffprays for judgment for himself and all others on whose behalf 13 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 this suit is brought against Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows: 4 herein; 2. For an order certifying the proposed classes; For an order appointing Plaintiffas the representative of the classes as described 3. 4. For an order appointing Counsel for Plaintiffas class counsel; Upon the First Cause ofAction, for damages and/or penalties pursuant to statute 7 as set forth in Labor Code g 226.7 and 512, and for costs; 5. Upon the Second Cause ofAction, for damages and/or penalties pursuant to 9 statute as set forth in Labor Code $ $ 226.7, and for costs; 10 6. Upon the Third Cause of Action, for damages and/or penalties pursuant to statute 11 as set forth in Labor Code f$ 226(a), and for costs and attorneys'ees; 12 7. Upon the Fourth Cause ofAction, for damages and/or penalties pursuant to statute 13 as set forth in Labor Code $ $ 201.3, and for costs and attorneys'ees; 14 On all causes of action for attorneys'ees and costs as provided by California 15 Labor Code $201-203, 218.5, 558, and Code of Civil Procedure $ 1021.5; and 16 17 9. For such other and further relief the Court may deem just and proper. 18 DATED: July 17, 2017 19 LAWOFFICES OF CHOI 4, ASSOCIATES 20 21 22 By: Edward W. Choi Attorneys for Plaintiffand the Class 23 24 25 26 27 j4 CLASS ACTION CON PLAINT 1 this suit is brought against Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows: For an order certifying the proposed classes; For an order appointing Plaintiffas the representative of the classes as described 4 herein; 3. 4. For an order appointing Counsel for Plaintiffas class counsel; Upon the First Cause ofAction, for damages and/or penalties pursuant to statute 7 as set forth in Labor Code $ $ 226.7 and 512, and for costs; 5. Upon the Second Cause ofAction, for damages and/or penalties pursuant to 9 statute as set forth in Labor Code f$ 226.7, and for costs; 10 6. Upon the Third Cause ofAction, for damages and/or penalties pursuant to statute 11 as set forth in Labor Code f$ 226(a), and for costs and attorneys'ees; 12 7. Upon the Fourth Cause ofAction, for damages and/or penalties pursuant to statute 13 as set forth in Labor Code $ $ 201.3, and for costs and attorneys'ees; 14 Upon the Fifth Cause ofAction, for restitution of all funds unlawfully acquired by 15 Defendants by means of any acts or practices declared by this Court to be in violation of 16 Business and Professions Code $ 17200 et seq.; 17 9. On all causes ofaction for attorneys'ees and costs as provided by California 18 Labor Code $201-203, 218.5, 558, and Code of CivilProcedure $ 1021.5; and 19 20 9. For such other and further relief the Court may deem just and proper. 21 DATED: July 17, 2017 22 LAWOFFICES OF CHOI 4, ASSOCIATES 23 24 25 Edward W. Choi Attornevs for Plaintiffand the Class 26 27 28 14 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT