Complaint Unlimited Fee AppliesCal. Super. - 6th Dist.July 2, 20181 Larry W. Lee (State Bar No. 228175) DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 2 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 3 Los Angeles, California 90071 (213) 488-6555 4 (213) 488-6554 facsimile 5 WILLIAM L. MARDER, ESQ. (CBN 170131) Polaris Law Group LLP 6 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 7 Hollister, CA 95023 Tel: (831) 531-4214 8 Fax: (831) 634-0333 9 Attorneys for PLAINTIFF 10 (Additional Plaintiffs Counsel on Next Page) 11 12 13 14 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ALIVIA STRICKLIN, as a proxy for the State 15 of California on behalf of all aggrieved employees, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff, vs. SECURITY INDUSTRY SPECIALISTS, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. COMPLAINT FOR: (1) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE§ 2698, ET SEQ. DEMAND OVER $25,000 PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE PAGA 18CV330523 E-FILED 7/2/2018 12:11 PM Clerk of Court Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara 18CV330523 Reviewed By: R. Walker 1 Dennis S. Hyun (State Bar No. 224240) 2 HYUN LEGAL, APC 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 3 Los Angeles, California 90071 (213) 488-6555 4 (213) 488-6554 facsimile 5 Edward W. Choi, Esq. SBN 211334 6 LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 7 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 381-1515 8 Facsimile: (213) 465-4885 9 Email: edward.choi@choiandassociates.com 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13585736v.1 2 PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE PAGA 1 Plaintiff Alivia Stricklin ("Plaintiff'), hereby submits this Complaint against Defendants 2 Security Industry Specialists, Inc. ("SIS" or "Defendant"), and Does 1-50 (hereinafter collectively 3 referred to as "Defendants"), as a proxy for the State of California on behalf of all aggrieved employees 4 of Defendants for penalties for failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements, penalties and/or 5 damages for failure to pay all minimum and overtime wages for hours worked, and failure to reimburse 6 employees for business expenses, as follows: 7 INTRODUCTION 8 1. This action is within the Court's jurisdiction under the Private Attorneys General Act (the 9 "PAGA") California Labor Code § 2698, et seq. 10 2. This Complaint challenges systemic illegal employment practices resulting in violations 11 of the California Labor Code against employees of Defendants. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Defendants jointly and severally have acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights of all employees by failing to keep accurate records, failing to pay overtime and minimum wages for all hours worked, and failing to reimburse business expenses. 4. 5. JURISDICTION AND VENUE The Court has jurisdiction over the violations of the PAGA. Venue is proper in Santa Clara County because Defendant's headquarters are based in this County and Defendant has employees working in this County. PARTIES 6. In or around May 2017, Plaintiff began working for Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt security guard. On or about July 5, 2017, Plaintiffs employment ended. Plaintiff is a victim of the policies, practices, and customs of Defendants complained of in this action in ways that have deprived her of the rights guaranteed by California Labor Code§§ 201-203, 212-213, 226, 510, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 2802 and, thus, is an aggrieved employee under the PAGA. 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Defendant was and is a California corporation doing business in the State of California providing security services. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Defendant maintains its headquarters at 6071 Bristol Parkway, Culver City, CA 90230. 13585736v.l 3 PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE PAGA 1 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that at all times herein 2 mentioned Defendant and DOES 1 through 50 are and were business entities, individuals, and 3 partnerships, licensed to do business and actually doing business in the State of California. 4 9. As such, and based upon all the facts and circumstances incident to Defendants' business 5 in California, Defendants are subject to the PAGA. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 10. Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities, whether individual, partner or corporate, of the Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and for that reason, said Defendants are sued under such fictitious names, and Plaintiff prays for leave to amend this complaint when the true names and capacities are known. 11. 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 Defendants, as well as the agents of all Defendants, and at all times herein mentioned, were acting within the course and scope of said agency and employment. 12. Plaintiff is 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. 13. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, were members of, 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. 14. At all times herein mentioned, the acts and omissions of various Defendants, and each of 24 them, concurred and contributed to the various acts and omissions of each and all of the other 25 Defendants in proximately causing the injuries and damages as herein alleged. At all times herein 26 mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, ratified each and every act or omission complained of herein. 27 At all times herein mentioned, the Defendants, and each of them, aided and abetted the acts and 28 13585736v.l 4 PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE PAGA 1 omissions of each and all of the other Defendants in proximately causing the violations as herein 2 alleged. 3 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 4 VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 2698, ET SEQ. 5 (BY PLAINTIFF AS A PROXY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AGAINST ALL 6 DEFENDANTS) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 15. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 14 though fully set forth herein. 16. Plaintiff brings this cause of action as a proxy for the State of California and in this capacity, seeks penalties on behalf of all Aggrieved Employees for Defendants' violations of Labor Code§§ 201-203, 212-213, 226, 510, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 2802, from January 18, 2017, through the present, arising from Defendant: (a) failing to provide accurate, itemized wage statements in violation of Labor Code § 226; (b) failing to pay overtime for all hours worked, including without limitation, time that Aggrieved Employees spent maintaining and cleaning uniforms in violation of Labor Code§§ 510, 558, 1194, and 1197.1; (c) failing to pay minimum wages for all hours worked, including without limitation, time that Aggrieved Employees spent maintaining and cleaning uniforms in violation of Labor Code§§ 558, 1194, 1197, and 1197.1; (d) failing to reimburse employees for the costs of cleaning and maintaining uniforms in violation of Labor Code § 2802; ( e) failing to pay all wages owed to separated employees by issuing payment of final wages to separated employees in the form of an A TM card, which required employees to incur fees to use, was not fully cashable, and not usable at all financial institutions and, thus, did not actually compensate employees for all wages owed upon their separation in violation of Labor Code§§ 201-203; and (f) issuing ATM cards as payment of wages to Plaintiff and other employees without obtaining their authorization or consent and which were not negotiable and payable in cash, on demand, and without discount at established businesses in the State of California in violation of Labor Code §§ 212 and 213. Specifically, Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees were not provided proper and accurate itemized wage statements identifying all hours worked and payment for all minimum and overtime wages. Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees were also required to spend time off-the-clock maintaining and cleaning their uniforms at home. As a result, Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees were not paid all applicable overtime and minimum wages spent l 3585736v. l 5 PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE PAGA 1 cleaning and maintaining her uniform while she was at home. Defendants also failed to reimburse 2 Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees for all business expenses. More specifically, Defendants failed to 3 reimburse Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees for the costs they incurred as a result of having to clean 4 and maintain their uniforms. Defendant also paid Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees wages via A TM 5 paycard without obtaining their written authorization. Further, the ATM paycards required Plaintiff and 6 Aggrieved Employees to incur fees for using these paycards, were not fully cashable and not usable at 7 all financial institutions. As a result of Defendant's use of an ATM paycard for the payment of wages, 8 Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees whose employment have ended have not been paid all of their final 9 wages in violation of Labor Code§§ 201-203. Moreover, the issuance of wages via paycard violates 10 Labor Code§§ 212-213. 11 17. On or about January 18, 2018, Plaintiff sent written notice to the California Labor & 12 Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") of Defendant's violations of Labor Code§§ 201-203, 226, 13 510, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 2802, pursuant to Labor Code§ 2698, et seq., the Private Attorney 14 General Act (the "PAGA"). 15 18. As of the date of this filing, the LWDA has not provided written notice regarding whether 16 it intends to investigate the Labor Code violations set forth in Plaintiffs written notice; thus, allowing 17 Plaintiff to proceed under the PAGA against Defendant for said violations. Therefore, Plaintiff may seek 18 any and all applicable penalties under PAGA on behalf of the State of California and all aggrieved 19 employees. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 19. As such, pursuant to Labor Code§ 2699(a), Plaintiff seeks recovery of any and all applicable civil penalties for Defendant's violation of Labor Code§§ 201-203, 212-213, 226, 510, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197 .1, and 2802 for the time periods described above, as a proxy for the State of California and on behalf of other Aggrieved Employees. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as an individual and on behalf of all others that this suit is brought against Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows: 1. Upon the First Cause of Action, for penalties pursuant to statute as set forth in California 28 Labor Code§ 2699, and for costs and attorneys' fees; and 13585736v.1 6 PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE PAGA 1 2. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 2 3 DATED: July 2, 2018 4 DIVE;?~ By: ____________ _ 5 Larry W. Lee Attorneys for PLAINTIFF 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13585736v.1 7 PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE PAGA