Removal to Federal Court

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.April 1, 2020

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS 8: BOCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAw SAN FRANCISCO 200V365914 Santa Clara - Civil MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Eric Meckley, Bar N0. 168 1 81 Maureen N. Beckley, Bar No. 3 1 6754 One Market Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 Tel: +1 .415.442. 1000 Fax: +1.415.442. 1001 eric.meckley@m0rganlewis.com Attorneys for Defendant ARAMARK FOOD AND SUPPORT SERVICES GROUP, INC. Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 6/2/2020 6:57 PM Reviewed By: M Reynoso Case #20CV365914 Envelope: 4405625 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA LILLIANA HERNANDEZ, an individua1,, Plaintiff, vs. ARAMARK FOOD AND SUPPORT SERVICES GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant. Case N0. 20CV365914 NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND PLAINTIFF OF REMOVAL OF ACTION M Reym DB2/ 39041096.1 NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND PLAINTIFF OF REMOVAL OF ACTION )SO 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS 8: BOCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAw SAN FRANCISCO TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, AND TO PLAINTIFF AND HER COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on June 1, 2020, Defendant Aramark Food and Support Services Group, Inc. (“Defendant” 0r “Aramark Food”) filed a Notice ofRemoval, a true and correct conformed copy 0fwhich is attached hereto as “Exhibit A,” with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, removing this case from the Superior Court 0f the State 0f California, for the County 0f Santa Clara. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE THAT pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. section 1446(d), the filing of the Notice of Removal in the United States District Court, together With the instant filing of a copy of the same with this Court, effects the removal of this action and that the above- captioned Court may conduct no further proceedings unless and until the case is remanded. Dated: June 2, 2020 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP By /s/ Eric Meckley Eric Meckley Maureen N. Beckley Attorneys for Defendant ARAMARK FOOD AND SUPPORT SERVICES GROUP, INC. -2- DBZ/ 390410961 NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND PLAINTIFF OF REMOVAL OF ACTION EXHIBIT A 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 1 of 38 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Eric Meckley, Bar No. 168 1 81 Maureen N. Beckley, Bar No. 3 1 6754 One Market Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94 1 05-1 596 Tel: +1 .415.442. 1000 Fax: +1.415.442. 1001 eric.meckley@m0rganlewis.com maureen.beckley@morganlewis.com Attorneys for Defendant ARAMARK FOOD AND SUPPORT SERVICES GROUP, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION LILLIANA HERNANDEZ, an individual, Plaintiff, vs. ARAMARK FOOD AND SUPPORT SERVICES GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant. DB2/ 390313962 Case N0. 5:20-cv-3633 DEFENDANT ARAMARK FOOD AND SUPPORT SERVICES GROUP, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL [28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a), 1441, 1446] NOTICE OF REMOVAL 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 2 of 38 T0 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT 0F CALIFORNIA, AND TO PLAINTIFF LILLIANA HERNANDEZ AND HER ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a), 1441, and 1446, Defendant Aramark Food and Support Services Group, Inc. (“Aramark Food” and “Defendant”) hereby removes the above-entitled action from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara to the United States District Court for the Northern District 0f California. This Court has original subj ect matter jurisdiction over the claims of Plaintiff Lilliana Hernandez (“Plaintiff’ 0r “Hernandez”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties. I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT 1. On April 1, 2020, Plaintiff commenced this action in the Superior Court 0f the State of California, County of Santa Clara, entitled Lilliana Hernandez, an individual, vs. Aramark Food and Support Services Group, Ina, a Delaware corporation, andDOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case Number 20CV365914 (“Complaint”). A true and correct copy of the Complaint, Civil Cover Sheet, and Summons are attached as Exhibit A. 2. Plaintiff s Complaint alleges causes 0f action for: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay wages and overtime under Labor Code § 5 10; (3) rest break liability under Labor Code § 226.7; (4) meal period liability under Labor Code § 226.7; (5) Violation 0f Labor Code § 221; (6) Violation 0f Labor Code § 203; (7) reimbursement of necessary expenditures under Labor Code § 2802; and (8) Violation 0f Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. II. THE REMOVAL IS TIMELY 3. On April 30, 2020, Plaintiff served the Summons, Civil Case Cover Sheet, and Complaint, upon the registered agent for Defendant by process server. 4. This Notice ofRemoval is therefore timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1453 and Fed. R. CiV Proc. 6(a)(1) (removal is timely if filed Within thirty (30) days of service of the Summons, Civil Case Cover Sheet, and Complaint upon the defendant). See also 2 NOTICE OF REMOVAL DB2/ 390313962 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 3 of 38 Kyle v. Campbell Soup C0., 28 F.3d 928, 929 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 185 (1994). 5. The Complaint, Civil Cover Sheet, and Summons (all attached hereto as Exhibit A) constitute all process, pleadings, and orders that have been filed in this action. 6. This action is a civil action over which this Court has original diversity jurisdiction pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), and this matter may be removed t0 this Court under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a) and (b) in that (i) the amount in controversy With respect to Plaintiff’s claims exceeds $75,000, exclusive 0f interest and costs, (ii) the action involves citizens of different States, and (iii) no properly joined defendant is a citizen of California. III. THE COURT HAS ORIGINAL SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION BECAUSE THERE IS COMPLETE DIVERSITY AND THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY EXCEEDS $75,000. A. Complete Diversitv 0f Citizenship Exists. 7. Complete diversity exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) between Plaintiff and Aramark Food because Plaintiff and Aramark Food are citizens 0f different states. 1. Plaintiff Is a Citizen 0f California. 8. “An individual is a citizen of the state in Which he is domiciled . . . .” Boon v. Allstate Ins. C0., 229 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 1019 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (citing Kanter v. Warner-Lambert C0., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001)). For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, citizenship is determined by the individual’s domicile at the time that the lawsuit is filed. Armstrong v. Church ofScientology Int’l, 243 F.3d 546, 546 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1986)). Evidence 0f continuing residence creates a presumption of domicile. Washington v. Havensa LLC, 652 F.3d 340, 345 (3rd Cir. 201 1). 9. In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that “Plaintiff resides in Santa Cruz and during the time period relevant to this Complaint was employed by [Defendant] as a non-exempt hourly employee within the State of California.” Exh. A, Complaint 11 4. Thus, the Complaint itself establishes that Plaintiff is a resident of the State of California. 10. According to Aramark Food, Plaintiff” s given address when she worked at Aramark Food was in California. Declaration of Lavester Rankin (“Rankin Decl.”), 11 3. Plaintiff s payroll data reflects a permanent residence in the State 0f California. Id. There are no 3 NOTICE OF REMOVAL DB2/ 390313962 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 4 of 38 documents in Plaintiff’s available records that suggest that she is or has ever been a citizen of Pennsylvania or Delaware. Id. at 11 5. 2. Defendant Aramark Food and Support Services Group, Inc. Is a Citizen 0f Pennsylvania and Delaware. 11. For diversity purposes, a corporation is a citizen 0f “the State by which it has been incorporated and of the State Where it has its principal place 0f business.” 28 U.S.C. §1332(c)(1). The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a corporation’s principal place 0f business is “the place Where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities,” 116., the “nerve center” ofthe business. Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 130 S.Ct. 1181, 1192 (2010). The Court further described the principal place of business as the “place where the corporation maintains its headquarters.” Id. 12. Aramark Food and Support Services Group, Inc. is incorporated in the State of Delaware and maintains its headquarters and principal place 0f business and executive officers in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Declaration ofAmy Golembo (“Golembo Decl.”), 11 3. 13. As a result, Defendant Aramark Food is not now and was not at the time of the filing of the Complaint in this action, a citizen of California. Id. Aramark Food is now and, at the time this action commenced, a citizen ofDelaware and Pennsylvania. 3. Doe Defendants Are Irrelevant for Purposes 0f Removal. 14. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1), the citizenship of a defendant sued under a fictitious name shall be disregarded. See also Newcombe v. AdolfCoors C0., 157 F.3d 686, 690- 91 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding disregarding the citizenship 0f defendants sued under fictitious names for removal); Soliman v. Philip Morris, Ina, 311 F.3d 966, 971 (9th Cir. 2002). Thus, the inclusion 0f “Doe” defendants in Plaintiff’s Complaint has no effect on Defendant’s ability to remove. 15. Therefore, complete diversity exists as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) as “none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which [this] action is brought.” 4 NOTICE OF REMOVAL DB2/ 390313962 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 5 of 38 B. The $75,000 Amount-In-Controversv Requirement Is Satisfied. 16. T0 establish diversity jurisdiction the amount in controversy must exceed the sum or value 0f $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §1332(a). 17. A removing defendant’s notice of removal must contain only “a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating C0., LLC v. Owens, 135 S.Ct. 547, 551 (2014). The “defendant’s notice 0f removal need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart, 135 S.Ct. at 554. “[D]efendants d0 not need to prove to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy requirement has been met. Rather, defendants may simply allege or assert that the jurisdictional threshold has been met.” Id., quoting H.R.Rep. N0. 112-10, p. 16 (201 1). Indeed, “[a] removing party need not show that the plaintiff will prevail or collect more than $75,000 if he does. The burden, rather, is to show What the plaintiff hopes to get out of the litigation; if this exceeds the jurisdictional amount, then the case proceeds in federal court unless a rule of law will keep the award under the threshold.” Simmons v. PCR Technology, 209 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1031 (N.D. Cal. 2002). 18. Where, as here, Plaintiff has not plead in the Complaint the amount 0f damages that she seeks, the Court must 100k beyond the Complaint t0 determine whether the lawsuit meets the jurisdictional requirement. Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Assoc, 479 F.3d 994, 998 & n. 4 (9th Cir. 2007); Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. C0., 443 F.3d 676, 689 (9th Cir. 2006). In such cases, the defendant seeking removal must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it has met the amount in controversy requirement. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2); Lowdermilk, 479 F.3d at 998; Abrego Abrego, 443 F.3d at 683. That is, the defendant must provide evidence that it is more likely than not that the amount in controversy meets the federal jurisdictional amount. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. C0., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996). This burden “is not ‘daunting,’ as courts recognize that under this standard, a removing defendant is not obligated to J” ‘research, state, and prove the plaintiff s claims for damages. Korn v. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp, 536 F. Supp. 2d 1199, 1204-12055 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (citing Rippee v. Boston Market Corp, 408 F. Supp. 2d 982, 986 (S.D. Cal. 2005)). 5 NOTICE OF REMOVAL DB2/ 390313962 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 6 of 38 19. While Aramark Food here denies Plaintiff s factual allegations and further denies that Plaintiff has suffered any damages or is entitled t0 any relief whatsoever, Plaintiff s allegations have put into controversy an amount that is “more likely than not” in excess 0f $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 1. Plaintiff’s “Off-the-Clock” Overtime Claim Places Approximately $23,588.25 in Controversy. 20. Plaintiff alleges Aramark Food failed to pay her for overtime wages earned off- the-clock. Exh. A, Complaint 1N 13, 44-53. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that she was generally scheduled t0 work five days per week from 6:30 am to 2:30 pm (7.5 hours With a 30-minute lunch break) and typically worked an additional one hour and 45 minutes off-the-clock 0n each shift. Exh. A, Complaint, 1H] 12-16. Thus, Plaintiff alleges she was typically not paid minimum wages for 3O minutes for each shift and was not paid overtime wages for 1.25 hours of each shift. Id. 21. According to Aramark Food’s records, Plaintiff earned $18.17 per hour at the time of her separation from employment in March 2019. Plaintiff worked for approximately 154 work weeks during the time period from four years prior to the filing 0f the Complaint (i.e., April 1, 2016) through her separation 0n approximately March 20, 2019. Rankin Decl., W 3, 4. In 2016, Plaintiff s average hourly rate was approximately $14.63; in 2017, her average hourly rate was approximately $16.09 per hour; and in 2018, her average hourly rate was approximately $17.48. Id. , 11 4. Under Plaintiff” s theory 0f liability, the amount in controversy for Plaintiff’ s off-the- clock overtime claim is approximately $5,349.09 for 2016 ($14.63 hourly rate x 1.5 X 1.25 hours X 5 work days per week x 39 work weeks = $5,349.09); $7,843.88 for 2017 ($16.09 hourly rate x 1.5 x 1.25 hours x 5 work days per week x 52 work weeks = $7,843.88); $8,521.50 for 2018 ($17.48 hourly rate x 1.5 x 1.25 hours X 5 work days per week X 52 work weeks = $8,521.50); and $1,873.78 for 2019 ($18.17 hourly rate x 1.5 X 1.25 hours X 5 work days per week X 11 work weeks = $1,873.78). Plaintiff s total off-the-clock overtime claim is approximately $23,588.25. 2. Plaintiff’s Minimum Wage and Liquidated Damages Claims Place Approximately $6828.75 in Controversy. 22. Plaintiff alleges Aramark Food failed to pay Plaintiff the minimum wage for all hours worked in Violation 0f Labor Code § 1194(a). Exh. A, Complaint, 1H] 19, 30-43. 6 NOTICE OF REMOVAL DB2/ 390313962 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 7 of 38 Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that she was not paid for approximately 1.75 hours of off-the-clock work each shift, equal to 30 minutes 0f unpaid minimum wages and 1.25 hours 0f unpaid overtime wages based 0n her regular 7.5 hour long shift (6:30 am to 2:30 pm, with a 3O minute unpaid lunch period). Exh. A, Complaint, 1H] 12-16. There is a four-year statute 0f limitations on this claim. See Code CiV. Proc. § 338(a); Cortez v. PurolatorAir Filtration Products, 23 Ca1.4th 163, 177-1 80 (2000). Plaintiffwas employed by Aramark Food during the statutory period, from April 1, 2017 t0 March 20, 2019, which is equal to approximately 102 workweeks. Rankin Decl., 1] 3. 23. From April 1, 2016 t0 December 3 1, 2016, the California minimum wage was $10.00 per hour. History of California Minimum Wage, State 0f California Department of Industrial Relations, available at https://www.dir.ca.gov/iwc/MinimumWageHistorv.htm. From January 1, 2017 to December 3 1, 2017, the minimum wage was $10.50 per hour. Id. On January 1, 2018 the minimum wage increased to $1 1.00 per hour. Id. 24. According to Plaintiff” s theory 0f liability, Plaintiff would be entitled to approximately $975.00 for off-the-clock minimum wages in 2016 ($10.00 hourly rate x .50 off- the-clock hours x 5 work days X 39 work weeks = $975.00); $1,365.00 for off-the-clock minimum wages in 2017 ($10.50 hourly rate X .50 off-the-clock hours X 5 work days X 52 work weeks = $1,365.00); and $1,732.50 for off-the-clock minimum wages in 2018-2019 ($1 1 .00 hourly rate X .50 off-the-clock hours x 5 work days X 63 work weeks = $1,732.50). Therefore, the amount in controversy for Plaintiff s minimum wages claim is approximately $4,072.5. 25. In addition, Plaintiff seeks liquidated damages in an amount equal t0 the unpaid minimum wages, pursuant t0 Labor Code section 1194.2 (see Complaint, 1H] 38, 40, 42). For the three years prior to the filing 0f her Complaint, Plaintiff would be entitled to approximately $1,023.75 for off-the-clock minimum wages in 2017 ($10.50 hourly rate x .50 off-the-clock hours X 5 work days X 39 work weeks = $1023.75) and $1,732.50 for off-the-clock minimum wages in 2018-2019 ($1 1 .00 hourly rate X .50 off-the-clock hours X 5 work days X 63 work weeks = $1,732.50). As a result, the amount in controversy for Plaintiff’s liquidated damages claim is approximately $2,756.25. 7 NOTICE OF REMOVAL DB2/ 390313962 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 8 of 38 3. Plaintiff’s Meal Period and Rest Break Claims Place Approximately $25,160.80 in Controversy. 26. Plaintiff alleges Aramark Food failed to provide her with uninterrupted duty-free meal periods and rest breaks. See Exh. A, Complaint, 1W 3, 20-24, 54-65. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that she “was required to perform work as ordered by [Defendant] for more than five (5) hours during a shift, but was often required to do so Without receiving a lawful and timely uninterrupted meal break, and was sometimes required to take shortened meal breaks, or skip meal breaks entirely.” Exh. A, Complaint, fl 21. Plaintiff alleges she was also “regularly required by [Defendant] to work through or during her rest breaks.” 1d,, 11 22. 27. Assuming Aramark Food did not provide such lawful meal periods and rest breaks to Plaintiff, as is alleged in the Complaint, then Plaintiff could recover a premium payment equal to one hour 0fpay for each meal period and rest break that was not provided. See Labor Code § 226.7; Brinker v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004, 1039 (2012). 28. As set forth above, during Plaintiff” s employment with Aramark Food, in 2016, Plaintiff’ s average hourly rate was approximately $14.63; in 2017, her average hourly rate was approximately $16.09 per hour; and in 2018, her average hourly rate was approximately $17.48, and her 2019 average hourly rate was $18. 1 7 per hour. Rankin Decl., 11 4. Plaintiffwas employed for 154 workweeks within the relevant statute of limitations period. Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Ina, 40 Cal. 4th 1094 (2007). 29. Assuming Aramark Food failed t0 provide Plaintiff with five (5) meal periods per week as she alleges in the Complaint, Plaintiff could recover $12,580.40 in premium payments for her meal period claim. Under Plaintiff s theory 0f liability, the amount in controversy for Plaintiff s meal period liability claim is approximately $2,852.85 for 2016 ($ 14.63 hourly rate x 5 work days per week X 39 work weeks = $2,852.85); $4,183.40 for 2017 ($16.09 hourly rate X 5 work days per week X 52 work weeks = $4, 1 83.40); $4,544.80 for 2018 ($17.48 hourly rate x 5 work days per week x 52 work weeks = $4,544.80 ); and $999.35 for 2019 ($18.17 hourly rate x 5 work days per week X 11 work weeks = $999.35). 30. Assuming Aramark Food failed t0 provide Plaintiff with five rest periods per week 8 NOTICE OF REMOVAL DB2/ 390313962 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 9 of 38 as she alleges in her Complaint, Plaintiff could recover $12,580.40 for her rest period claim. The total potential meal and rest period premiums thus equal approximately $25,160.80. 4. Plaintiff’s Expense Reimbursement Claim Places $525.00 in Controversy. 3 1. Plaintiff alleges that Aramark Food failed to reimburse Plaintiff for necessary business expenses in Violation of Labor Code §2802. See Exh. A, Complaint 1H] 26, 27, 76-80. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Aramark Food “failed t0 reimburse Plaintiff for expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of her job duties for [Defendant], including, but not limited t0, the cost 0f Plaintiff s cellular telephone service used throughout the course of Plaintiff” s employment with [Defendant].” Exh. A, Complaint fl 26. 32. Section 2802 of the Labor Code mandates that employers pay all reasonable and necessary business expenses 0f their employees. Claims under Section 2802 are subject t0 a four- year statute 0f limitations. Cal. Code CiV. Proc. 338(a); Cortez, 23 Ca1.4th at 177-180. 33. Plaintiff does not specify the monthly cost of her cell phone bill in her Complaint. Using a conservative estimate of the cost 0f Plaintiff” s monthly cell phone bill in the amount 0f $601, and assuming 25% 0f her total cell phone usage was attributable t0 the performance of her duties With Aramark Food (Exh. A, Complaint 11 27), Plaintiff’s expense reimbursement claim would place $525.00 in controversy ($60 monthly bill x 25% usage x 35 months worked = $525.00). 5. Plaintiff’s Claim for Failure t0 Timely Pay Wages at Termination Places $4,360.80 in Controversy. 34. Plaintiff alleges that Aramark Food failed to pay her all wages owed within the time allowed under Labor Code § 203. See Exh. A, Complaint 1H] 25, 70-75. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Aramark Food had “a consistent policy of failing t0 pay all wages owed t0 Plaintiff at the time 0f her termination.” 1d,, 11 25. Plaintiff’s hourly rate 0fpay at the time 0f her termination was $18. 17 per hour. Rankin Decl., 1] 4. 1 This amount was based on Consumer Reports “Best Low-Cost Cell-Phone Plans” as 0f April 8, 2020, using AT&T’s one phone line with unlimited talk and text and 3GB 0f data plan for $60 per month, available at: https://Www.consumerreports.org/cell-phone-service-providers/best-low- cost-cell-phone-plans/. 9 NOTICE 0F REMOVAL DB2/ 390313962 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 10 of 38 35. As a result, this claim places $4,360.80 in controversy (i.e., 8 hours per work day X hourly rate of $18.17 per hour x 30 days). See, e.g., Mejia v. DHL Express (USA), Ina, No. CV 15-890-GHK JCX, 2015 WL 2452755, at *6 (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2015) (“Since it is reasonable to assume a 100% Violation rate for the rest break claim, then it is reasonable to further assume that 100% of the former employees would have had those unpaid rest break wages unlawfillly Withheld after their employment ended and still not paid up to the maximum 30-day period under the statute.”) 6. Plaintiff’s Claim for Attorneys’ Fees Places At Least $111,000 in Controversy. 36. Plaintiff seeks to recover attorneys’ fees. Exh. A, Complaint, 1N 35, 42, 45, 53, 80, Prayer for Relief. Courts have held that an award of attorneys’ fees, if such fees are authorized under applicable law, may be considered for purposes 0f calculating the amount in controversy. See Brady v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Ina, 243 F. Supp. 2d 1004, 1010-11 MD. Cal. 2002) (“Where the law entitles the prevailing plaintiff to recover reasonable attorney fees, a reasonable estimate offees likely t0 be incurred to resolution is part 0f the benefit permissibly sought by the plaintiff and thus contributes t0 the amount in controversy”) (emphasis added); Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1155-56 (9th Cir. 1998) (“We hold that Where an underlying statute authorizes an award 0f attorneys” fees, either with mandatory 0r discretionary language, such fees may be included in the amount in controversy”); Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp, 506 F.3d 696, 698 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding that attorneys’ fees are included in the calculation of the amount in controversy under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)); Hurd v. American Income Life Insurance, 2013 WL 5575073 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2013) (allowing attorney’s fees as part of amount in controversy Where authorized by statute or contract); Melendez v. HMS Host Family Restaurants, Inc., 2011 WL 3760058, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 201 1) (same). 37. When calculating attorneys’ fees for purposes of removal, the amount is not limited to the fees incurred as of the time of removal, but must include those future attorneys’ fees that would reasonably accrue through the time the action is resolved. Fritsch v. Swift Transp. C0. ofArizona, LLC, 899 F.3d 785, 794 (9th Cir. 2018). In the present case, recovery 0f 10 NOTICE OF REMOVAL DB2/ 390313962 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 11 of 38 attorneys’ fees is authorized by statute for an employee Who prevails 0n a claim for alleged Violation of Labor Code sections 226, 510, or 1197, and under Business & Professions Code section 17200, et seq., all of Which are statutory Violations that Plaintiff has alleged in her Complaint. 38. The reasonable estimate 0f attorneys’ fees likely to be incurred through resolution of a case may be based upon fee awards in similar cases, plaintiff’ s counsel’s hourly rate, and the number 0f hours counsel would likely spend 0n the case. See Brady, 243 F. Supp. 2d at 101 1; see also Lyon v. W. W. Grainger Ina, 2010 WL 1753194, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2010) (“Defendant’s use of similar cases t0 estimate the cost 0f attorney’s fees is sufficient to establish that its estimate is more likely than not correct”). With respect t0 fee awards in similar cases, courts have recognized that “attorneys handling wage-and-hour cases typically spend far more than 100 hours on the case.” Lippold v. Godiva Chocolatier, Ina, 2010 WL 1526441, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2010). Individual wage and hour cases (as opposed t0 putative class 0r representative action) often involve more than one hundred hours of work. See, e.g., Park v. Joong-Ang Daily News California, Ina, N0. BC508362, 2016 WL 363 171, at *3 (Cal. Supp. Jan. 7, 2016) (awarding attorneys’ fees for 456.30 hours billed between two attorneys in single plaintiffwage and hour case); Cagle v. C&S Wholesale Grocers, Ina, N0. 2:13-cv-02134-MCE- KJN, 2014 WL 65 1923, at *11 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2014) (finding defendants made a good faith estimate of expected attorneys’ fees based on a reasonable expectation 0f 100 billed hours); Egelhoflv. Pacific Lightwave, N0. CV 12-04745-RGK (DTBX), 2013 WL 12125913, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2013) (finding 62 hours were reasonably allocated t0 plaintiffs single, individual wage and hour claim under Cal. Lab. Code § 202); Cappuccio v. Pepperdine University, Case. No. 13-cv-3125-DSF-AJWX (C.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2014), Dkt. No. 81-1 atfl 7, 9 (plaintiffs’ counsel stated that they spent 506.9 hours litigating a single plaintiff case for Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act); Puerto, et al. v. Wild Oats Markets, Ina, BC359723, (L.A. Sup. Ct. Mar. 24, 201 1), (in plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, at 10: 1 8-20, counsel for plaintiffs stated that they spent 1,250.74 hours litigating a two-plaintiff overtime case). 39. Here, a reasonable estimate 0f the number of hours Plaintiff’s counsel likely Will 1 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL DB2/ 390313962 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 12 of 38 spend litigating Plaintiff s individual wage and hour claims, based on Plaintiff’s allegations and a comparison of similar individual wage and hour cases, is approximately 200 hours. The parties Will need t0 participate in a Rule 16 and 26(f) conference, prepare and file a joint case management conference statement, and appear at a case management conference before the Court. Aramark Food will propound written discovery to plaintiff and take the deposition of Plaintiff. Aramark Food expects that Plaintiff’s counsel Will propound written discovery and depose one or more Rule 30(b)(6) Witnesses 0fAramark Food. Aramark Food anticipates filing a motion for summary judgment. Aramark Food anticipates that the Parties may have disputes regarding discovery that Will involve the Parties briefing and arguing one or more discovery motions. Given the anticipated law and motion practice and the need for at least one case management conference appearance, Aramark Food anticipates there will be at least four court appearances -- separate and apart fiom any pretrial and trial practice before the Court necessary to “resolve” the case. Plaintiff has requested a jury trial, which would extend the time necessary for any trial 0f Plaintiff” s claims. Therefore, approximately 200 hours 0f attorney time represents a conservative, and in any event reasonable, estimate 0f the number of attorney hours that can reasonably be anticipated through the resolution 0f this case at a trial 0n the merits. 40. Plaintiff s counsel’s hourly rates are available through reference to publicly available fee requests in other cases. Mr. Yeremian’s hourly rate is $685 and Mr. Rothman’s is $425. See Declaration 0f David Yeremian in Support of Plaintiff’ s Unopposed Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs and Class Representative Enhancement at Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (Dkt. 50-1), Rodriguez v. BCForward Razor LLC, et al., Case No. 5: 18-cv- 03219-EJD, 11 23 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2019); Declaration 0f David Yeremian in Support of Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Approval ofAward of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs and Class Representative Enhancements at Final Approval 0f Class Action Settlement (Dkt. 40-2), Rowser v. Trunk Club, Ina, Case No. 17-cv-05064-DSF-RAO, 1] 77 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2018). Using an average of the two hourly rates described above (i.e., $555 per hour), 200 hours 0f attorney time equates With $111,000 in attorneys’ fees. 41. Notwithstanding the above, Plaintiffs wage and hour claims alone place 12 NOTICE OF REMOVAL DB2/ 390313962 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 13 of 38 $60,463.60 in controversy. Plaintiff s counsel would have to collectively expend only 26.2 hours to equal the $14,537.40 in fees necessary to exceed the requisite $75,000 threshold. Plaintiff’s counsel Will easily exceed that amount between now and trial, and has likely expended those hours at present as a result client meetings/interviews and preparation and filing of the Complaint. 42. Accordingly, Plaintiff” s claims therefore more likely than not place at least $ 1 7 1 ,463 .60 in controversy: Cause 0f Action Amount in Controversy Unpaid overtime $23,588.25 Unpaid minimum wages and liquidated $6,828.75 damages Premiums for alleged failure to provide $12,580.40 meal breaks Premiums for alleged failure t0 provide $12,580.40 rest breaks Unpaid necessary business expense $525.00 reimbursement Penalties for alleged failure to pay all $4,360.80 wages upon termination Plaintiff” s attorneys’ fees $ 111,000.00 Total $171,463.60 43. Although Aramark Food expressly and emphatically denies Plaintiff s factual allegations and prayer for relief and denies that Plaintiff is entitled t0 any relief whatsoever, based solely on the allegations contained in the Complaint, the amount in controversy more likely than not exceeds the jurisdictional threshold set forth in U.S.C. § 1332(a). IV. THE OTHER PREREQUISITES FOR REMOVAL HAVE BEEN SATISFIED. 44. As set forth above, this Notice of Removal is being timely filed Within thirty days of service 0f the Summons, Civil Case Cover Sheet and Complaint upon Aramark Food. 13 NOTICE OF REMOVAL DB2/ 390313962 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 14 of 38 45. Aramark Food will promptly serve Plaintiff With this Notice of Removal and Will promptly file a copy of this Notice of Removal with the clerk of the state court in which the action is pending, as required under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). 46. Aramark Food has sought no similar relief. 47. The prerequisites for removal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a), 1441 and 1446 have been met. 48. Because this Court has original jurisdiction under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § §1332(a), removal 0f this action is proper pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. § 1441. 49. If any question arises as to the propriety of the removal of this action, Aramark Food requests the opportunity t0 present additional briefing and evidence (if applicable/necessary) and oral argument in support 0f its position that this case is removable. WHEREFORE, Aramark Food, desiring t0 remove this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District 0f California, prays that the filing 0f this Notice of Removal shall effect the removal 0f the suit t0 this Court. Dated: June 1, 2020 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP By /s/ Eric Meckley Eric Meckley Maureen N. Beckley Attorneys for Defendant ARAMARK FOOD AND SUPPORT SERVICES GROUP, INC. 14 NOTICE OF REMOVAL DB2/ 390313962 EXHIBIT A Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 15 of 38 Ul-PUJN VON 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. David Yeremian (SBN 226337) David@veremianlaw.com Jason Rothman (SBN 304961) Jason@veremianlaw.com 535 N. Brand B1Vd., Suite 705 Glendale, California 91203 Telephone: (8 1 8) 230-83 80 Facsimile: (8 1 8) 230-0308 Attorneys for Plaintiff Lilliana Hernandez E-FILED 4/1/2020 12:33 PM Clerk of Court Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara ZOCV365914 Reviewed By: M Reynoso SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNLA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA LILLIANA HERNANDEZ, an individual, Plaintiff, VS. ARAMARK FOOD AND SUPPORT SERVICES GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. 99W" P 9° Case No.220CV365914 COMPLAINT FOR: 1. Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; 2. Failure t0 Pay Wages and Overtime Under Labor Code § 510; Rest-Break Liability Under Labor Code § 226.7; Meal Period Liability Under Labor Code § 226.7; Violation 0f Labor Code § 221; Violation of Labor Code § 203; Reimbursement 0fNecessary Expenditures Under Labor Code § 2802; and Violation of Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 16 of 38 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Lilliana Hernandez (hereinafter “Plaintiff’) complains and alleges as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants ARAMARK FOOD AND SUPPORT SERVICES GROUP, INC, a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 50 (all defendants being collectively referred to herein as “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, and each 0f them, violated various provisions of the Labor Code, relevant orders 0f the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC), and California Business & Professions Code, and seeks redress for these Violations. 2. Plaintiff is, and all times mentioned herein was, a resident 0f the County 0f Santa Cruz, State of California. During the time period relevant t0 this Complaint, Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt hourly employee Within the State of California. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a barista, caterer, and cook. 3. Defendants required Plaintiff to perform work while remaining under Defendants control before and after clocking out for her daily work shift, t0 her detriment. Defendants also failed t0 provide Plaintiff With lawful rest and meal periods, as Plaintiff was not provided with the opportunity to take timely, uninterrupted, and duty-free meal periods and rest breaks required under the Labor Code. THE PARTIES A. The Plaintiff 4. Plaintiff Lilliana Hernandez resides in Santa Cruz and during the time period relevant to this Complaint was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt hourly employee within the State 0f California. B. The Defendants 5. Defendant ARAMARK FOOD AND SUPPORT SERVICES GROUP, INC., (“ARAMARK”), is a Delaware corporation and lists its principal offices in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Upon information and belief, ARAMARK has been listed as the employer 0n the wage statements and other employment related documents issued to Plaintiff during the relevant time period. -2- COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 17 of 38 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6. The true names and capacities, Whether individual, corporate, associate, or whatever else, of the Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 50, inclusive, are currently unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names underM Civil Procedure § 474. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants designated herein as Does 1 through 50, inclusive, and each 0f them, are legally responsible in some manner for the unlawful acts referred t0 herein. Plaintiff Will seek leave 0f court t0 amend this Complaint to reflect the true names and capacities 0f the Defendants designated herein as Does 1 through 50 When their identities become known. 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each Defendant acted in all respects pertinent t0 this action as the agent 0f the other Defendants, that Defendants carried out a joint scheme, business plan, or policy in all respects pertinent hereto, and that the acts 0f each Defendant are legally attributable t0 the other Defendants. Furthermore, Defendants acted in all respects as the employers 0r joint employers 0f Employees. Defendants, and each 0f them, exercised control over the wages, hours or working conditions of Employees, issued policies governing their employment, 0r suffered 0r permitted Employees t0 work, 0r engaged, thereby creating a common law employment relationship, with Employees. Therefore, Defendants, and each of them, employed or jointly employed Employees. 8. Whenever and Wherever reference is made in this Complaint to any act by a defendant or defendants, such allegations and references shall also be deemed to mean the acts and failures t0 act 0f each defendant acting individually, jointly, and severally. 9. Whenever and Wherever reference is made to individuals who are not named as a Defendant in this Complaint but were agents, servants, employees and/or supervisors 0f Defendants, such individuals at all relevant times acted 0n behalf 0f Defendants Within the scope of their employment. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 10. This Court has jurisdiction over this Action pursuant t0 California Code 0f Civil Procedure § 410. 10 and California Business & Professions Code § 17203. Venue as t0 Defendants is also proper in this judicial district pursuant t0 California Code 0f Civil Procedure § 395 et seq. -3- COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 18 of 38 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Upon information and belief, the obligations and liabilities giving rise t0 this lawsuit occurred at least in part in Santa Clara County and Defendants maintain and operate businesses in and around Santa Clara County, and employed Plaintiff at their Santa Clara location. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 11. Plaintiff started working for Defendants 0n 0r about April 0f 2015, as a non-exempt hourly employee. Throughout Plaintiff s employment with Defendants she worked as a barista, a cook, and in the catering department. Her duties included, but were not limited to, preparing and cooking select food items and delivering orders. 12. Plaintiff worked for Defendants, 0n average, five (5) days a week. Plaintiff” s daily hours averaged from 6:30 am. till 2:30 pm. Yet Plaintiff would typically work off the clock prior t0 the start 0f her shift and after clocking out for the end of her shift. 13. Furthermore, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at the proper overtime and double rates for all hours worked. Defendants’ company policies and practices pressured 0r required Plaintiff t0 perform work over eight (8) or nine (9) hours a day without being paid overtime, and Defendants knew 0r should have known that Plaintiff was performing that work. T0 the extent that Defendants paid overtime, it was well after eight (8) hours into a work shift, as Defendants’ corresponding time records and paystubs will show. Therefore, Plaintiff was not properly paid all wages earned and for all hours worked more than eight (8) hours in any given day and/or more than forty (40) hours in any given week. 14. More specifically, regarding the pre-shift work Plaintiff was compelled t0 engage in, Plaintiff often had t0 arrive t0 Defendants facilities before her scheduled shift time in order t0 keep up With the demands 0f the job. However Defendants had an electronic time keeping system that would only allow Plaintiff t0 electronically punch in and out if she did so Within pre-approved her scheduled shift. If, for example, Plaintiff started to work ten (10) minutes before her scheduled shift started then she would need t0 fill out a manual time sheet for those ten (10) minutes Which would later need t0 be approved by Defendants management. On those instances when Plaintiff did prepare a manual time sheet her manager would then threaten t0 write her up claiming that the “budget did not allow her t0 work overtime hours” and if she continued to turn in -4- COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 19 of 38 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 manual time sheets for overtime then “they would give her a written warning.” However, without working these pre-shift hours Plaintiff would not be able t0 meet the deadlines imposed on her. Plaintiff thus stopped turning in these manual time sheets for fear for losing her job. On average, Plaintiff worked forty-five (45) minutes of pre-shift off-the-clock work per day. 15. Regarding post-shift off the clock work, before Plaintiffs shift ended she was required t0 have prepare select food items for the catering trucks Which would arrive anywhere between 4:30 pm. t0 6:30 p.m., a requirement Which was very difficult if not near impossible to complete Within her scheduled shift hours. Furthermore, as nobody was there t0 relieve Plaintiff When her shift ended, she had t0 be physically present When the catering trucks arrived. Plaintiff once again stopped reporting her post-shift hours worked due t0 the fear 0f losing her job, as further discussed above. Plaintiff alleges that on average she worked one (1) hour or more of off- the-clock post-shift work per day. 16. Plaintiff contends Defendants policy is not neutral and results, over time t0 Plaintiff” s detriment by under compensating her. Thus, Plaintiff worked longer hours than recorded by Defendants. This off-the-clock work also resulted in overtime hours accruing earlier than When Defendants started paying them in a work shift, including with Plaintiff working pre- shift and post-shift hours off the clock and Without compensation, all while under the control and authority of Defendants. 17. Defendants’ willful actions resulted in the systematic underpayment 0f wages t0 Plaintiff. 18. As a result of the above described unlawful timekeeping practices by Defendants, Plaintiff was not properly paid by Defendants for all wages earned and owed t0 her. T0 the extent applicable, Defendants also failed t0 pay Plaintiff at an overtime rate 0f 1.5 times the regular rate for the first eight hours of the seventh consecutive work day in a week and overtime payments at the rate 0f two (2) times the regular rate for hours worked over eight (8) 0n the seventh consecutive work day, as required under the Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Orders. 19. Defendants therefore failed to correctly pay minimum wages to Plaintiff in accordance with California law, and thereby systematically underpaid minimum compensation for -5- COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 20 of 38 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 her time worked, which Defendants failed t0 document as also required under applicable California law, federal law, and Violation of the Labor Code § 1197, IWC Wage Order MW-2014, and paragraphs 2(K), 2(S), and 4(A)-4(C) of the applicable IWC Wage Orders. 20. Additionally, Defendants failed to provide all the legally required unpaid, off-duty meal periods and all the legally required paid, off-duty rest periods t0 the Plaintiff as required by the applicable Wage Order and Labor Code. 21. Defendants did not have a policy 0r practice which provided or recorded all the legally required unpaid, off-duty meal periods. Plaintiff was required to perform work as ordered by Defendants for more than five (5) hours during a shift, but was often required to d0 so Without receiving a lawful and timely uninterrupted meal break, and was sometimes required to take shortened meal breaks, 0r skip meal breaks entirely, in order to keep up with the demands and pressures from Defendants. This is because Defendants placed the current job needs over Plaintiffs lawful meal breaks, forcing Plaintiff t0 take on duty meal periods in order t0 keep up with the demands of the job. For example, Plaintiff would have certain objectives (such as platting certain food items 0r refilling the sandwich bar) that she would need t0 complete before she could go on her lunch break. This translated into Plaintiff often being unable t0 take her uninterrupted off-duty meal periods due t0 the pressure and demands 0f work. 22. Meal period Violations thus occurred in one or more of the following manners: a. Plaintiff was not provided full thirty-minute duty free meal periods for work days in excess of five (5) hours and were not compensated one (1) hour’s wages in lieu thereof, all in Violation of, among others, Labor Code §§ 226.7, 5 12, and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order(s); b. Plaintiff was not provided second full thirty-minute duty free meal periods for work days in excess 0f ten (10) hours; c. Plaintiff was required t0 work through at least part 0f her daily meal peri0d(s); d. Meal periods were provided after five hours of continuous work during a _ 6 _ COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 21 of 38 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 shift; and e. Plaintiff was restricted in her ability to take a full thirty-minute meal period; 23. Plaintiff was regularly required by Defendants t0 work through 0r during her rest breaks and was not provided with one hour’s wages in lieu thereof. 24. Rest period Violations therefore arose in one or more of the following manners: a. Plaintiff was required t0 work Without being provided a minimum ten minute rest period for every four (4) hours or major fraction thereof worked and was not compensated one (1) hour ofpay at her regular rate 0f compensation for each workday that a rest period was not provided; and b. Plaintiff, due to the busy work environment, was restricted in her ability t0 take timely off-duty rest breaks. 25. Defendants have also had a consistent policy of failing t0 pay all wages owed t0 Plaintiff at the time of her termination, as required by California wage-and-hour laws. 26. Defendants have also failed t0 reimburse Plaintiff for expenses necessarily incurred in the performance 0f her job duties for Defendants, including, but not limited t0, the cost 0f Plaintiff” s cellular telephone service used throughout the course 0f Plaintiff” s employment with Defendants. 27. Regarding Plaintiff’s non-reimbursed personal cell phone usage, Defendants would regularly call Plaintiff on her personal cellular phone t0 g0 over her daily duties, changes with shipments and/or orders, and scheduled pickup and delivery times, to name a few. Plaintiff alleges that 25% of her cellular phone usage was due to Defendants. 28. In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff brings this action pursuant t0, inter alia, La_bm Co_de §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 218.5, 218.6, 221, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1174, 1174.5, 1182, 1185, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1198, 1199, 2802, and California Code of Regulations, Title 8, section 11000 et seq., 29. Furthermore, pursuant t0 Business and Professions Code §§ 17200-17208, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, restitution, and disgorgement 0f all benefits Defendants have enjoyed from their Violations 0f Labor Code and the other unfair, unlawful, 0r fraudulent practices alleged in -7- COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 22 of 38 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 this Complaint. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES (Against All Defendants) 30. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in full herein. 3 1. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffminimum wages for all hours worked. 32. Defendants, and each of them, have also intentionally and improperly changed, adjusted and/or modified Plaintiff’s hours, and imposed difficult to attain job and shift scheduling requirements 0n Plaintiff, due t0 making it impossible for Plaintiff to finish any given shift in an eight (8) hour period 0f time, which resulted in off the clock work and underpayment 0f all wages owed t0 Plaintiff over a period 0f time, While benefiting Defendants. During the time period that is the subj ect 0f this complaint, Defendants thus regularly failed to pay minimum wages to Plaintiff. 33. In California, employees must be paid at least the then applicable state minimum wage for all hours worked. (IWC Wage Order MW-2014). Additionally, pursuant to California Labor Code § 204, other applicable laws and regulations, and public policy, an employer must timely pay its employees for all hours worked. Defendants failed to do so. 34. California Labor Code § 1197, entitled “Pay 0f Less Than Minimum Wage” states: “The minimum wage for employees fixed by the commission is the minimum wage t0 be paid to employees, and the payment 0f a less wage than the minimum so fixed is unlawful.” 35. The applicable minimum wages fixed by the commission for work during the relevant period is found in the Wage Orders. The minimum wage provisions 0f California La_bor Co_de are enforceable by private civil action pursuant to Labor Code § 1194(a) which states: “Notwithstanding any agreement t0 work for a lesser wage, any employee receiving less than the legal minimum wage 0r the legal overtime compensation applicable t0 the employee is entitled t0 recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount of this minimum wage or overtime compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs 0f suit. -8- COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 23 of 38 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 36. As described in California Labor Code §§ 1185 and 1194.2, any action for wages incorporates the applicable Wage Order 0f the California Industrial Welfare Commission. Also, California Labor Code §§ 1194, 1197, 1197.1 and those Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders entitle non-exempt employees to an amount equal t0 0r greater than the minimum wage for all hours worked. A11 hours must be paid at the statutory 0r agreed rate and no part of this rate may be used as a credit against a minimum wage obligation. 37. In committing these Violations of the California Labor Code, Defendants inaccurately recorded 0r calculated the correct time worked and consequently underpaid the actual time worked by Plaintiff. Defendants acted in an illegal attempt t0 avoid the payment 0f all earned wages, and other benefits in Violation of the California Labor Code, the Industrial Welfare Commission requirements and other applicable laws and regulations. As a result 0f these Violations, Defendants also failed t0 timely pay all wages earned in accordance With California Labor Code § 1194. 38. California Labor Code § 1194.2 also provides for the following remedies: “In any action under Section 1194 . . . t0 recover wages because 0f the payment 0f a wage less than the minimum wages fixed by an order of the commission, an employee shall be entitled t0 recover liquidated damages in an amount equal t0 the wages unlawfully unpaid and interest thereon.” 39. In addition t0 restitution for all unpaid wages, pursuant to California Labor Code § 1197.1, Plaintiff is entitled t0 recover a penalty 0f $100.00 for the initial failure to timely pay her minimum wages, and $250.00 for each subsequent failure to pay her duly owed minimum wages. 40. Pursuant to California Labor Code § 1194.2, Plaintiff is further entitled t0 recover liquidated damages in an amount equal t0 wages unlawfully unpaid and interest thereon. 41. Defendants have the ability to pay minimum wages for all time worked and have willfully refused t0 pay such wages with the intent to secure for Defendants a discount upon this indebtedness With the intent t0 annoy, harass, oppress, hinder, delay, 0r defraud Employees. 42. Wherefore, Plaintiff is entitled t0 recover the unpaid minimum wages (including double minimum wages), liquidated damages in an amount equal t0 the minimum wages unlawfully unpaid, interest thereon and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs 0f suit pursuant t0 -9- COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 24 of 38 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 California Labor Code § 1194(a). Plaintiff further request recovery 0f all unpaid wages, according to proof, interest, statutory costs, as well as the assessment of any statutory penalties against 43. Defendants’ failure t0 timely pay all wages owed also violated Labor Code § 204 and resulted in Violations of Labor Code § 226 because they resulted in the issuance 0f inaccurate wage statements. Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein was willful, intentional and not in good faith. Further, Plaintiff is entitled to seek and recover statutory costs. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PAY WAGES AND OVERTIME UNDER LABOR CODE § 510 (Against All Defendants) 44. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in full herein. 45. California Labor Code § 1194 provides that “any employee receiving less than the legal minimum wage 0r the legal overtime compensation applicable t0 the employee is entitled t0 recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount of this minimum wage 0r overtime compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs 0f suit.” The action may be maintained directly against the employer in an employee’s name without first filing a claim With the Department of Labor Standards and Enforcement. 46. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages for all hours worked. 47. By their conduct, as set forth herein and above, Defendants violated California Labor Code § 510 (and the relevant orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission) by failing to pay Plaintiff: (a) time and one-half her regular hourly rates for hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a workday or in excess of forty (40) hours in any workweek or for the first eight (8) hours worked 0n the seventh day 0fwork in any one workweek; 0r (b) twice her regular rate ofpay for hours worked in excess 0f twelve (12) hours in any one (1) day or for hours worked in excess 0f eight (8) hours 0n any seventh day 0fwork in a workweek. Defendants had a consistent policy 0f not paying Plaintiff wages for all hours worked, including by requiring off the clock work. 48. Defendants had a consistent policy 0f not paying Plaintiff wages for all hours worked. Defendants, and each 0f them, have intentionally and improperly changed, adjusted -10- COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 25 of 38 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and/or modified Plaintiff’s hours, 0r otherwise caused Plaintiff t0 work off the clock t0 avoid paying Plaintiff all earned and owed straight time and overtime wages and other benefits, in Violation 0f the California Labor Code, the California Code 0f Regulations and the IWC Wage Orders and guidelines set forth by the Division 0f Labor Standards and Enforcement. Therefore, Plaintiff was not properly compensated, nor was she paid overtime rates for hours worked in excess 0f eight hours in a given day, and/or forty hours in a given week. Based on information and belief, Defendants did not make available to Plaintiff a reasonable protocol for correcting time records When Plaintiff worked overtime hours or t0 fix incorrect time entries. 49. Defendants’ failure t0 pay Plaintiff the unpaid balance 0f regular wages owed and overtime compensation, as required by California law, violates the provisions 0f Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198, and is therefore unlawful. 50. Additionally, Labor Code § 558(a) provides “any employer 0r other person acting 0n behalf 0f an employer who violates, or causes t0 be violated, a section 0f this chapter 0r any provisions regulating hours and days ofwork in any order of the IWC shall be subj ect t0 a civil penalty as follows: (1) For any Violation, fifty dollars ($50) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in addition to an amount sufficient t0 recover underpaid wages. (2) For each subsequent Violation, one hundred dollars ($100) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for Which the employee was underpaid in addition t0 an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages. (3) Wages recovered pursuant to this section shall be paid t0 the affected employee.” Labor Code § 558(0) states, “the civil penalties provided for in this section are in addition t0 any other civil 0r criminal penalty provided by law.” Defendants have violated provisions 0f the Labor Code regulating hours and days ofwork as well as the IWC Wage Orders. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks the remedies set forth in Labor Code § 558. 5 1. Defendants’ failure t0 pay compensation in a timely fashion also constituted a Violation 0f California Labor Code § 204, which requires that all wages shall be paid semimonthly. Defendants have failed t0 pay all wages and overtime compensation earned by Plaintiff. Each such failure to make a timely payment 0f compensation to Plaintiff constitutes a separate Violation 0f California Labor Code § 204. -11- COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 26 of 38 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 52. Plaintiff has been damaged by these Violations 0f California Labor Code §§ 204 and 510 (and the relevant orders 0f the Industrial Welfare Commission). 53. Consequently, pursuant to California Labor Code, including Labor Code §§ 204, 510, and 1194 (and the relevant orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission), Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for the full amount of all her unpaid wages and overtime compensation, with interest, plus her reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as the assessment of any statutory penalties against Defendants, and each 0f them, and any additional sums as provided by the La_bm Co_de and/or other statutes. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION REST BREAK LIABILITY UNDER LABOR CODE § 226.7 (Against All Defendants) 54. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in full herein. 55. Labor Code §§ 226.7 and paragraph 12 of the applicable IWC Wage Orders provide that employers must authorize and permit all employees t0 take rest periods at the rate 0f ten (10) minutes net rest time per four (4) work hours, 0r major fraction thereof. 56. Plaintiff consistently worked consecutive eight (8) hour shifts and was generally required to work shifts of greater than eight (8) hours total, thus requiring Defendants to authorize and permit her to take rest periods. Pursuant to the Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage Order, Plaintiff is entitled to paid rest breaks of not less than ten (10) minutes for each consecutive four (4) hour or longer shift. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff With timely rest breaks of not less than ten (10) minutes for each consecutive four (4) hours 0f work. Furthermore, upon information and belief, 0n the occasions When Plaintiff worked more than ten (10) hours in a given shift, she did so without receiving a third uninterrupted ten (10) minute rest break as required by law. 57. Labor Code §§ 226.7 and paragraph 12 0f the applicable IWC Wage Orders provide that if an employer fails t0 provide an employee rest period in accordance with this section, the employer shall pay the employee one (1) hour 0fpay at the employee’s regular rate 0f -12- COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 27 of 38 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 compensation for each workday that the rest period was not provided. 58. Defendants, and each of them, have therefore intentionally and improperly denied rest periods t0 Plaintiff in Violation 0f Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 5 12 and paragraph 12 of the applicable IWC Wage Orders. 59. Defendants failed to authorize and permit Plaintiff to take rest periods, as required by the Labor Code. Moreover, Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff With an additional hour of pay at Plaintiff effective hourly rate for each day that Defendants failed to provide her with adequate rest breaks, as required under Labor Code § 226.7. 60. Therefore, pursuant t0 Labor Code § 226.7 and paragraph 12 0f the applicable IWC Wage Orders, Plaintiff is entitled t0 damages in an amount equal to one (1) hour ofwages at this effective hourly rates 0f pay for each day worked Without the required rest breaks, a sum to be proven at trial, as well as the assessment 0f any statutory penalties against Defendants, and each 0f them, in a sum as provided by the Labor Code and/or other statutes. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION MEAL PERIOD LIABILITY UNDER LABOR CODE § 226.7 (Against All Defendants) 61. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all proceeding paragraphs, as though set forth in full herein. 62. Plaintiff regularly worked shifts greater than five (5) hours and in some instances, greater than ten (10) hours. Pursuant t0 Labor Code § 5 12 an employer may not employ someone for a shift 0fmore than five (5) hours Without providing him 0r her with a meal period 0f not less than thirty (3 0) minutes 0r for a shift 0fmore than ten (1 0) hours without providing him 0r her With a second meal period 0f not less than thirty (30) minutes. 63. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with meal periods as required under the Labor Code. Plaintiff received short meal periods as addressed above, was often required t0 work during her meal periods 0r was provided With them after working beyond the fifth hour 0f her shift. Furthermore, upon information and belief, on the occasions when Plaintiff worked more than 10 hours in a given shift, she did so Without receiving a second uninterrupted thirty (3 0) -13- COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 28 of 38 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 minute meal period as required by law. 64. Moreover, Defendants failed t0 compensate Plaintiff for each meal period not provided 0r inadequately provided, as required under Labor Code § 226.7 and paragraph 11 of the applicable IWC Wage Orders, Which provide that, if an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period in accordance With this section, the employer shall pay the employee one (1) hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate 0f compensation for each workday that the meal period is not provided. Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff for each meal period not provided or inadequately provided, as required under Labor Code § 226.7. 65. Therefore, pursuant to Labor Code § 226.7, Plaintiff is entitled to damages in an amount equal to one (1) hour of wages at her effective hourly rates of pay for each meal period not provided 0r deficiently provided, a sum to be proven at trial, as well as the assessment 0f any statutory penalties against the Defendants, and each 0f them, in a sum as provided by the La_b0r Co_de and other statutes. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 221 (Against All Defendants) 66. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in full herein. 67. Labor Code § 221 provides, “It shall be unlawful for any employer t0 collect 0r receive from an employee any part 0f wages theretofore paid by said employer t0 said employee.” Additionally, pursuant to California Labor Code § 204, other applicable laws and regulations, and public policy, an employer must timely pay its employees for all hours worked. Defendants failed t0 do so. 68. Defendants unlawfully received and/or collected wages from Plaintiff by implementing a policy of automatically deducting vested wages for meal periods that were not provided t0 Plaintiff, as well as by understating the hours worked by Plaintiff as alleged above. 69. As a direct and proximate cause 0f the unauthorized deductions, Plaintiff has been damaged, in an amount t0 be determined at trial. -14- COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 29 of 38 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 203 (Against All Defendants) 70. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in full herein. 71. Plaintiff is no longer employed by Defendants as she was fired. 72. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff all wages due and certain at the time of termination 0r within seventy-two (72) hours of resignation. 73. The wages withheld from Plaintiff by Defendants remained due and owing for more than thirty (3 O) days from the date 0f separation 0f employment. 74. Defendants failed t0 pay Plaintiff Without abatement, all wages as defined by applicable California law. Among other things, Plaintiffwas not paid all regular and overtime wages, including a failure by Defendants t0 pay for all hours worked 0r requiring off the clock work to the detriment of Plaintiff. Defendants’ failure t0 pay said wages within the required time was willful within the meaning 0f Labor Code § 203. 75. Defendants’ failure t0 pay wages, as alleged above, was willful in that Defendants knew wages t0 be due but failed to pay them; this Violation entitles these Employees to penalties under Labor Code § 203, which provides that an employee’s wages shall continue until paid for up to thirty (3 0) days from the date they were SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO REIMBURSE NECESSARY BUSINESS EXPENSES, LABOR CODE § 2802 (Against All Defendants) 76. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in full herein. 77. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon allege that throughout the period applicable, Defendants required Plaintiff to pay for necessary work related expenses she incurred, such as her personal cell phones that was the primary method 0f communication. /// -15- COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 30 of 38 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 78. Plaintiff was not reimbursed for those lawful and necessary work related expenses 0r losses incurred in direct discharge of her job duties during employment With Defendants and at the direction 0f the Defendants pursuant t0 Labor Code § 2802(a) and the applicable IWC Wage Orders, paragraph 9. More specifically, Plaintiff was required to use her personal cellular phone to communicate With Defendants. Defendants’ knowing and willful failure t0 reimburse lawful necessary work related expenses and losses t0 Plaintiff resulted in damages because, among other things, Defendants did not inform employees of their right to be reimbursed for those work related expenses, nor did Defendants agree to pay for any portion 0f said expenses. As Defendants failed t0 inform and misled Plaintiff With regard t0 her rights, Plaintiff was led t0 believe that incurring those lawful and necessary expenses was an expected and essential function 0f her employment with Defendants and that failure to incur those expenses would have adverse consequences on her employment. 79. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled t0 reimbursement for any and all necessary work related expenses, as provided for in Labor Code § 2802(b), incurred during the direct discharge 0f her duties while employed by Defendants, as well as accrued interest 0n those expenses that were not reimbursed from the date Plaintiff incurred those expenses. 80. Further, Plaintiff is entitled t0 costs and attorney’s fees pursuant t0 Labor Code § 2802(0) EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 ETSEQ. (Against All Defendants) 81. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in full herein. 82. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself, brings this claim pursuant to Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. The conduct 0f Defendants as alleged in this Complaint has been and continues t0 be unfair, unlawful, and harmful t0 Plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks to enforce important rights affecting the public interest within the meaning 0f Code 0f Civil Procedure § 1021 .5. /// -16- COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 31 of 38 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 83. Plaintiff is a “person” within the meaning 0f Business & Professions Code § 17204, has suffered injury, and therefore has standing to bring this cause of action for injunctive relief, restitution, and other appropriate equitable relief. 84. Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. prohibits unlawful and unfair business practices. By the conduct alleged herein, Defendants’ practices were deceptive and fraudulent in that Defendants’ policy and practice failed t0 compensate Plaintiff for all hours worked, due to systematic business practices as alleged herein that cannot be justified, pursuant t0 the applicable California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission requirements in Violation 0f California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq., and for which this Court should issue injunctive and equitable relief, pursuant t0 California Business & Professions Code § 17203, including restitution of wages wrongfully withheld. 85. Wage-and-hour laws express fundamental public policies. Paying employees their wages, etc., are fundamental public policies 0f California. Labor Code § 90.5(a) articulates the public policies of this State vigorously to enforce minimum labor standards, to ensure that employees are not required 0r permitted t0 work under substandard and unlawful conditions, and to protect law-abiding employers and their employees from competitors who lower costs t0 themselves by failing t0 comply With minimum labor standards. 86. Defendants have violated statutes and public policies. Through the conduct alleged in this Complaint, Defendants have acted contrary t0 these public policies, have violated specific provisions 0f the Labor Code, and have engaged in other unlawful and unfair business practices in Violation of Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.; which conduct has deprived Plaintiff of the rights, benefits, and privileges guaranteed t0 all employees under the law. 87. Defendants’ conduct, as alleged hereinabove, constitutes unfair competition in Violation 0f the Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. 88. Defendants, by engaging in the conduct herein alleged, by failing t0 pay wages, etc., either knew 0r in the exercise 0f reasonable care should have known that their conduct was unlawful; therefore their conduct violates the Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. /// -17- COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 32 of 38 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 89. By the conduct alleged herein, Defendants have engaged and continue t0 engage in a business practice which violates California and federal law, including but not limited t0, the applicable Industrial Wage Order(s), the California Code 0f Regulations, and the California La_b0r Co_de including Sections 204, 226.7, 227.3, 512, 1194, 1197, 1198, and 2802 for Which this Court should issue declaratory and other equitable relief pursuant t0 California Business & Professions C0_de § 17203 as may be necessary t0 prevent and remedy the conduct held t0 constitute unfair competition, including restitution of wages wrongfully withheld. 90. As a proximate result of the above-mentioned acts of Defendants, Plaintiff has been damaged, in a sum t0 be proven at trial. 91. Unless restrained by this Court Defendants Will continue to engage in such unlawful conduct as alleged above. Pursuant t0 the Business & Professions Code, this Court should make such orders 0r judgments, including the appointment of a receiver, as may be necessary t0 prevent the use by Defendants or their agents 0r employees 0f any unlawful 0r deceptive practice prohibited by the Business & Professions Code, including but not limited t0 the disgorgement 0f such profits as may be necessary t0 restore Plaintiff the money that Defendants have unlawfully failed to pay. RELIEF REQUESTED WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief: 1. For all general and special damages, according t0 proof; 2. For compensatory damages in the amount of the unpaid minimum wages for work performed by Plaintiff and unpaid overtime compensation. 3. For liquidated damages in the amount equal to the unpaid minimum wage and interest thereon for the period 0f time that is the subj ect 0f this Complaint; 4. For compensatory damages in the amount 0f all unpaid wages, including overtime and double-time pay, as may be proven; 5. For compensatory damages in the amount 0f the hourly wage made by Plaintiff for each day requisite rest breaks were not provided or were deficiently provided where n0 premium pay was paid therefor; -18- COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 33 of 38 Ul-PUJN VON 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6. For restitution and/or damages for all amounts unlawfully withheld from the wages in Violation of Labor Code § 221, as may be proven; 7. For restitution for unfair competition pursuant t0 Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq., including disgorgement or profits, as may be proven 8. For an award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; 9. For an award providing for the payment 0f the costs 0f this suit; 10. For interest on the sum 0f damages awarded; 11. For an award 0f attorneys’ fees; 12. For costs 0f suit incurred; and 13. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem proper and just. DATED: April 1, 2020 DAVID YEREM A115; ASSOCIATES, INC. Jason Rothman ‘Attomeys for Plaintiff Lilliana Hernandez -19- COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 34 of 38 Ul-PUJN VON 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby demands trial of her claims by jury to the extent authorized by law. DATED: April 1, 2020 DAVID YE r M. AN-jé? ASSOCMTES, INC. By , I “3‘ Pavid Yeremian Jason Rothman Attorneys for Plaintiff Lilliana Hernandez -20- COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 35 of 38 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY /Name, Stale Bar number and address). Jason Rothmsn (304961) David Ycremian fk Associates Inc. 535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705 Glendale, CA 9)203 TELEPHDNE Noc (8 I 8) 230-8380 FAX NO: (8 1 8) 230-0308 ATToRNEY FQR/Namer I'jaintiff, Lilliana Hernandez suPERIQR coURT QF CALIFQRNIA, coUNTY oF Santa Clara sTREETADDREss. 191 N First Street MAILING ADDRESN cnYANDzlpcoDE: San JOSe, CA 951 13 BRANOH NAME Downtown Su erior Court CASE NAME Hernandez v. Aramark Food and Su ort Services Grou, Inc. FOR COURT USE ONL Y CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Z] Unlimited C3 Limited (Amount (Amount demanded demanded is exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) Complex Case Designation C7 Counter C] Joinder Filed with first appearance by defendant (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) CASE NUMBER. JUDGE'EPT: Items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2). 1. Check one box below for the case type Auto Tort C] Auto (22) C] Uninsured motorist (46) Other PIIPD/WD (Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort Asbestos(04) Product liability (24) Medical malpractice (45) C3 Other PI/PD/WD (23) Non-PI/PDNVD (Other) Tort Business toNunfair business practice Civil lights (08) Defamation (13) Fraud(16) Intellectual property (19) Professional negligence (25) Other non-Pl/PD/WD tort (35) Em Ioyment Wrongful termination (36) Other employment (15) that best describes this case ContfaCt Breach of contract/warranty (06) Rule 3.740 collections (09) Other collections (09) Insurance coverage (18) Other contract (37) C3 E3 C3 Real Property Eminent domain/Inverse condemnation (14) Wrongful eviction (33) (07) Other real properly (26) wful Detainer Commercial (31 ) Residential (32) Drugs (38) ial Review Unl Judi0 Asset forfeiture (05) Petition re: arbitration award (1 1) Writ of mandate (02) Other 'udicial review 39 C3 C3 C3 Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403) M Antitrust/Trade regulation (03) Construction defect (10) M Mass tort(40) W Securities litigation (28) C] Environmental/Toxic tort (30) Insurance coverage dsims snsing from the above listed provisionally complex case types (41) Enforcement of Judgment C] Enforcement of judgment (20) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint C] RICO (27) M Other complaint (not specNBd above) (42) Miscellaneous Civil Petition M Partnership and corporate governance (21)~ Other petition (not specified shove) (43) 2. This case is is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management: a. C3 Large number of separately represented parties d. Large number of witnesses b. Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e. M Coordination with related scions pending in one or more courts issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court c. H Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. C7 Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision 3. Remedies sought (check a// that apply): BQ3 monetary b ~v'onmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. ~ punitive 4. Number of causes of action (specif)/): Eight (8) 5. This case H is MV is not a class action suit. 6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You mB/ruse;m CM-015.) Date: April 1, 2020 Jason Rothman ITYPE OR PRINT NAME (SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY FOR PARTY) NOTICE ~ Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result in sanctions. ~ File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. ~ If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all other parties to the action or proceeding. ~ Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only. Pa etof2 Form Adopted for Mandato\y Use JuCioal Council of California CMST0 [Rev. July t, 2007I CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Cal Rules of Court, miss 2 30, 3 220, 34IOS.403, 3 740Cal Standards of Judimal Administration. std. 3.10 wwwcoumna.ca dov Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 4/1/2020 12:33 PM Reviewed By: M Reynoso Case #20CV365914 Envelope: 4220398 20CV365914 Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 36 of 38 CM-010 Auto Tort Auto (22)-Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wfrongful Death Uninsured Motorist (46) (if the case involves an uninsured motorist claim subject /0 arbitration, check this item insfged of Auto) Other PI/PD/WD (Personal Injury/ Property Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort Asbestos (04) Asbestos Property Damage Asbestos Personal Injury/ Wrongful Death Product Liability (not ashestos or toxic/environmenta/) (24) Medical Malpractice (45) Medical Malpractice- Physicians & Surgeons Other Professional Health Care Malpractice Other Pl/PD/WD (23) Premises Liability (e.g., slip snd fall) intentional Bodily Injury/PDNVD (e.g., assault, vandalism) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Other Pl/PD/I/IID Non-PI/PD/WD (Other) Tort Business Tort/Unfair Business Practice (07) Civil Rights (e.g., discrimination, false arrest) (nof civil hargssmen/) (08) Defamation (e.g., stander, libel) (13) Fraud (16) Intellectual Property (1 9) Professional Negligence (25) Legal Malpractice Other Professional Malpracttce (noi medical or legal) Other Non-Pt/PDNllD Tort (35) Employment Wrongful Termination (36) Other Employment (15) INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET To Plaintiffs and Others Filing Fiat Papers. If you are filing a first paper (for example, a complaint) in a civil case, you must complete and file, along with your first paper, the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on page 1. This information will be used to compile statistics about the types and numbers of cases filed. You must complete items 1 through 6 on the sheet. In item 1, you must check one box for the case type that best describes the case. If the case fits both a general and a more speaftc type of case fisted in item 1, check the more specific one. If the case has multiple causes of action, check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action. To assist you in completing the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below. A cover sheet must be filed only with your initial paper. Failure to file a cover sheet with the first paper filed in a civil case may subject a party, its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 of the California Rules of Court. To Parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A "collections case" under rule 3.740 is defined as an action for recovery of money owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000, exclusive of interest and attorney's fees, arising from a transaction in which property, services, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: (1) tort damages, (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (5) a prejudgment writ of attachment. The identification of a case as a rule 3.740 collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the general time-for-service requirements and case management rules, unless a defendant files a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740. To Parties in Complex Cases. In complex cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the case is complex. If a plainttff believes the case is complex under rule 3 400 of the California Rules of Court, this must be indicated by completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. If a plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served with the complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may file and serve no later than the time of its first appearance a joinder in the plaintiffs designation, a counter-designation that the case is not complex, or, if the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that the case is complex. CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Breach of Contrad/Warranty (06) Rules of Court Rules 3.40b-3.403) Breach of Rental/Lease Antitrust/Trade Regulation (03) Contract (not unlawful detainer Construction Defect (10) or wrongful eviction) Claims Involving Mass Tort (40) Contract/Warranty BreachWelter Securities Litigation (28) Plaintiff (nct fraud or neg//gencej Environmental/Toxic Tort (30) Negligent Breach of Contract/ Insurance Coverage Claims Warranty (ans/ng from pmv/stona//y complex Other Breach of Centred/Warranty case type listed above) (41) Collections (e.g., money owed, open Enforcement of Judgment book accounts) (09) Enforcement of Judgment (20) Collection Case-Setter Plaintrif Abstract of Judgment (Out of Other Promissory Note/Collections County) Case Confession of Judgment (000- insurance Coverage (not provisionally domestic relations) complex) (18) Sister State Judgment Auto Subrogation Administrative Agency Award Other Coverage (not unpaid taxes) Other Contract (37) Petition/Cerilcstion of Entry of Contractual Fraud Judgment on Unpaid Taxes Other Contract Dispute Other Enforcement of Judgment Real Property Case Eminent Domain/Inverse Miscellaneous Civil Complaint Condemnation (14) RICO (27) Wrongful Eviction (33) Other Complaint (noi speciq/gdabove) (42) Other Real Properly (e.g., quiet fitle) (26) Writ of Possession of Real Property In/unctive Relief Only (non- Mortgage Foreclosure harassmeng Quiet Title Mechanics Lien Other Real Properly (not eminent Other Commercial Complaint domain, /and/orrgferiant, or foreclosure/ Other Civil ComplaintUnlawful Detainer (non-/orf/Ron-complex) Commerdsl (31) Miscellaneous Civil Petition Residential (32) Partnership and Corporate Drugs (38) (/7 the case involves illegal Governance (21) drugs, check this item; athena/se, Other Petition (no/ specified report as Commercial or Res/den/ra/) above) (43) Judicial Review Civil Harassment Asset Forfeiture (05) Workplace Violence Petition Rs: Arbitration Award (11) Elder/Dependent Adult Writ of Mandate (02) Abuse Writ-Administrative Mandamus Election Contest Writ-Mandamus on Limited Court Petition for Name Change Case Matter Petition for Relief From Late Writ-Other Limited Court Case Claim Review Other Civil Petition Other Judicial Review (39) Review of Health Officer Order Notice of Appeal-Labor Commissioner A eats CM 010 [Rav July 1,2007I CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Paga2012 Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 37 of 38 SUMMONS (CITACION JUDICIAL) NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (Atf)SO AL DEMANDADO)i ARAMARK FOOD AND SUPPORT SERVICES GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES I through 50, inclusive YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE)i LILLIANA HERNANDEZ, an individual SUM-100 FOR CotfRF USE OHLv IsoLC PARA Uso UE LA coRTQ NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below. You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on yau to fil a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letler or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.goviselihaip), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court. There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprolit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the california Legal services web site l www lawhelpcalifomia.org), the california courts online self-Help center (www.courtlnfa.ca.gov/sellhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $ 10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. IAVISO! Lo han demandado. Si no msponde dentro de 30 dias, la corte puede dacidir en su contra sin ascuchar su version. Lea lainfarmacion a conilnuacion. Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO daspuas de qua Ie entraguen cata citaci6n y papeias legaies para presentar una respuesta por escrtto en esta corte y Racer qua se enlregua una copia al demand ante. Una carta o una liamada tele fdni ca no lo protegen. Su resp uesla por escrito liana que esiar en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su casa an la corte. Es posible qua haya Un fonnulario qua usted pusda ussr para su rospuesta. Puede encontrar as fos formularios de la cart y mes informacian en el Ceniro de Ayuda de las Cortes de Caliromi a (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en la corte que le quads mas ceres. Si no puede pager la cuota da prasentacidn, pida al secrelario de la corle que le de un formulario de exenci6n de pago de cuoias. Si no presents su raspuesta a lismpo, puede perder el casa porincumplimiento y la corte le podni quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia. Hay otros raquisitos legales. Es recomendable que llama a un abogado inmediatamenie. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de remi si6n a abagados. Si no puede pager a un abagado, es posible qua curn pie con los requisitos para obtener servicios legs les gratuiios de un programa de servicios Iegales sin fines de lucm. Pueds encontrar estos grupos sin fines de Iucm en el sitio web de California Legal Services, (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Ceniro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov) o poniendose en conlacio con la corte o el colegio de abogados locales. A UISO: Por ley, la corte iisne demcha a reclamar las cuotas y los cosios exenios porimponer un gravamen sobre cualquier rBCuperaCi6n de $1 0,000 6 mas de va/or racibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesion da arbilra)e en un caso de deracho civil. Tiene que pager el gravamen de la carte antes de que la carte pueda desechar el caso. The name and address of the court is: (El nombre y direccidn de la corfe es): Santa Clara County Superior Court 191 N First Street, San Jose, CA 95113-1090 CASE NUMBER: Iwumem deiCav)' name, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre, le din. ccion y el numero de teldfono del ebogado del demandente, o del demendenie que no tiene ebogado, es): David Yeremian, 535 N. Brand Blvd. Suite 705, Glendale, CA 91203 (818) 230-8380 DATE: Clerk, by (Fecha) (Secrelario) (For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-Of0).) (Pare pruebe de enirega de esle citati6n use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)) , Deputy (Adjunio) ISEALI NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served 1. ~ as an individual defendant. 2. ~ as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): 3 ~ on behalf of (specify)i under: ~ CCP 416.10 (corporation) CCP 416.60 (minor) CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) ~ CCP 416.70 (conservatee) CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) ~ CCP 416.90 (authorized person)~ other (specify): 4. ~ by personal delivery on (dele): Pa e1of1 Form Adopted for Mandatory ave Juteoet CoUoot of CetmÃule sUM-100 Inev July 1,2000) SUNIMONS Code of Civil Piocedwe 00 412 20, JSS w ww coutfiufo ca gov 20CV365914 Clerk of Court4/1/2020 12:33 PM E-FILED 4/1/2020 12:33 PM Clerk of Court Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara 20CV365914 Reviewed By: M Reynoso Envelope: 4220398 M Reynoso Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 38 of 38 [\Jr-i #9) \OOOQGNLII 10 11 12 l3 l4 15 16 l7 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS 5: BOCHUS LIP Annular; A1 LAW SanANusm Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1-1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 1 of 2 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Eric Meckley, Bar No. 168181 eric.meckley@morganlewis.com Maureen N. Beckley, Bar No. 3 16754 maureen.beckley@morganlewis.com One Market Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 Tel: +1.415.442.1000 Fax: +1.415.442.1001 Attorneys for Defendant ARAMARK FOOD AND SUPPORT SERVICES GROUP, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION LILLIANA HERNANDEZ, an individual, Plaintiff, vs. ARAMARK FOOD AND SUPPORT SERVICES GROUP, INC, a Delaware corporation, and DOES l through 50, inclusive, Defendant. DB2/ 3904 l 097.] Case No, 5:20-cv-3633 DECLARATION OF AMY GOLEMBO IN SUPPORT OF REMOVAL DECLARATION OF AMY GOLEMBO IN SUPPORT OF REMOVAL \OOO'QONUILMMH NNNNNNNNHi-IHHHHn-IHi-AH HCNLA-bMNI-OOOO‘JQm-DMNi-‘C 28 MORGAN, LEWIS 5r BOCIClUS LIP Annular; A1 LAW SanANusm Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1-1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 2 of 2 DECLARATION OF AMY GOLEMBO I, Amy Golembo, hereby declare: l. I am employed in the Legal Department of Aramark food and Support Services Group, Inc. (“Aramark”). I submit fl1is declaration in support ofDefendant’s Notice ofRemoval. As a result ofmy position, Ihave personal knowledge 0f the facts set forth in this declaration, and could competently testify to them under penalty of perjury if called as a witness. 2. In my position, I am knowledgeable about and familiar with the business status and structure 0f Defendant Aramark Food and Support Services Group, Inc. AS part ofmy responsibilities, I have access to company corporate records and may review these files as business needs arise. Such files and records are maintained in the usual and normal course of business by Aramark Food. 3. Aramark Food and Support Services Group, Inc. is incorporated in the state of Delaware, and is headquartered, has its principal place of business and executive officers and directors in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 29m day of May, 2020 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 14WgaMa Amy (glergbo DECLARATION OF AMY GOLEMBO IN SUPPORT OF REMOVAL DB2/ 3904 l 097.] Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1-2 Filed 06/01/20 Page 1 of 2 l MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Eric Meckley, Bar No. 168181 2 eric.meckley@morganlewis.com Maureen N. Beckley, Bar No. 3 16754 3 maureen.beckley@morganlewis.com One Market 4 Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 5 Tel: +1.415.442.1000 6 Fax: +1.415.442.1001 Attorneys for Defendant 7 ARAMARK FOOD AND SUPPORT SERVICES 8 GROUP, INC. 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT 0F CALIFORNIA 11 SAN JOSE DIVISION 12 13 LILLIANA HERNANDEZ, an individual, Case No. 5:20-cv-3633 14 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF LAVESTER RANKIN IN SUPPORT OF REMOVAL 15 vs. 16 ARAMARK FOOD AND SUPPORT SERVICES GROUP, INC., a Delaware l7 corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 18 Defendant. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 M G ,IEWTSGImus Lu: DECLARATION 0F LAVESTERRANKm Amsxr LAN [N SUPPORT OF REMOVAL S’MWM 1332/ 390410951 M \Dooflmm-hm 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS 3: BUCK] US LLP A‘I‘I‘URNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCEco Case 5:20-cv-03633 Document 1-2 Filed 06/01/20 Page 2 of 2 DECLARATION OF Lavester Rania); I, Lavester Rankin hereby declare: 1. I am employed in the Human Resources Department 0f the West Region 0f Business Dining (“Aramark”). I submit this declaration in support of Defendant’s Notice of Removal. As a result ofmy position, I have personal knowledge ofthe facts set forth in this declaration, and could competently testify to them under penalty of peljury if called as a witness. 2. In my position, 1 am knowledgeable about and familiar with the business and operations 0fDefendant Aramark Food and Support Services Group, Inc. (“Aramark Food”). As part ofmy responsibilities, I have access to current and former employees’ personnel files and payroll records. Ireview these files as business needs arise. Such files and records are maintained in the usual and normal course 0f business by Aramark Food. 3. Based upon my accessing and reviewing available records, the records reflect that Plaintiff Lilliana Hernandez was employed by Aramark Food fi'om approximately April 27, 2015 through approximately March 20, 2019, and worked onsite at client locations at Palmer College ‘ in San Jose, California and SSL in Palo Alto, California. Ms. Hernandez’s payroll records reflect that she had a permanent residence address in California. 4. Ms. Hernandez’s payroll records reflect that her hourly rate ofpay changed during the course ofher employment. The records show that in 2016, her average hourly rate was approximately $14.63; in 201 7, her average hourly rate was approximately $16.09 per hour; and in 201 8, her average hourly rate was approximately $17.48. The records also reflect that Ms. Hernandez’s hourly rate of pay at the time of her termination was $ 1 8.17 per hour. 5. There are no documents in Plaintiff’s available records that suggest that she is now or during her employment With Aramark Food was a citizen of Pennsylvania or Delaware. I declare under penalty of pteury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 28th day ofMay, 2020 in San Lorenzo, CA. [M24404 212/4" ster Rankin 2 DECLARATION OF LAVESTER RANKIN IN SUPPORT 0F REMOVAL ‘ 1332; 39041095.: JSCAND 44 (Rev, 07/19) Case 5. 20-c-v-0363%18?iu8Mfi gifigfigmmo Page 1 of 1 The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither re lace nor supplement the filin and service ofpleadings or otheryapers as required by law except as provided by local rules of coufi. This form, approved 1n its original form y the Judicial Conference o the United States 1n September 19 4 ls required for the Clerk of Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS 0NNEXTPAGE 0F THIS FORM) DEFENDANTS ARAMARK FOOD AND SUPPORT SERVICES GROUPJNC. County 0f Residence of First Listed Defendant (IN US. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. Attorneys 10,0an MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Eric Meclgey 168181 Maureen N. eckley Bar No 316754 One Market, Spearétreet Tower, San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel. 1.415.442 lOOO/Fax: 1 415.442. 1001 I. (a) PLAINTIFFS LILLMNA HERNANDEZ (b) County 0f Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Santa Cruz (EXCEPTINUS PLAINTIFF CASES) (C) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) DAVID YEREMIAN &ASSOC|ATES, INC Davi Yeremian, SBN 226 Jason Rothman, SBN 30493361) 535 N. Brand Blvd. Suite 705, Glendale, CA 91203 Tel. (818) 230-8380/Fax: (818) 230-0308 H. BASIS 0F JURISDICTION (Place an “ X” in One Box Only) HI. CITIZENSHIP 0F PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “ X‘ in One Boxfor Plaintiff (For Diversity Caxex Only) and One Boxfor Defendant) I I . PTF DEF PTF DEF 1 U's' Government Plamtlff 3 nggrgggisaoegt Not a Par ) Citizen of This State x 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4 I I ty of Business In This State 2 U S G I D f d I x 4 D. .t Citizen ofAnother State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 x 5 ' ' ovemmen e en an “.lerSl y. . . . . ofBusiness In Another State I d t C t h P t It III(n 1w e l wens 1p 0f ar les m em ) Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6 Foreign Country IV. NATURE 0F SUIT (Place an " X" in One Box Only) CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANIGIUPTCY OTHER STATUTES 1 10 Insurance FERSONAL INJURY FERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure of 422 Appeal 28 USC § 158 375 False Claims Act 120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury ,1)“,de Property 21 USC § 881 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 376 Qui Tam (31 USC 130 Miller ACt 315 Airplane Product Liability Liability 690 Other § 157 § 3729(a» 140 Negotiable Instrument 320 Assault, Libel & Slander 367 Health Care/ LABOR PROPERTY RIGHTS 400 State Reappomnmem 150 Recovery 0f 330 Federal Employers’ fharmaceutlcal ?ersqqnal 710 Fair Labor Standards Act 820 Copyrights 410 Anmmsr _ Overpayment Of Liabim “Jury Pwdua Llabl "Y 430 Banks and Bankmg , y . 720 Labor/Management 830 Patent Veteran s Benefits . 368 Asbestos Personal Injury , 450 Commerce340 Mam” - ‘ - Relatlons 835 Patent-Abbreviated New 151 Medicare Act . . . , Pmdu“ Liablhty . . . 460 D '345 Manna Product Llablllty PERSONAL PROPERTY 740 Rallway Labor Act Drug Appllcatlon eponanon 152 Eggvegdd DifEaultlei 350 Motor Vehicle 75 1 Family and Medical 840 Trademark 470 RaCketeer Infllfen‘fed & V6te::fl§)0ans Xc u es 355 Motor Vehicle Product 370 Other Fraud Leave Act IAL E TY Corrupt Orgamzatlons 153 R f Liability 371 Truth in Lending 790 Other Labor Litigation SOC s CUR] 480 Consumer Credit ecove o Overpayment 360 Other Personal Injury 380 Other Personal Pmpeny 791 Employee Retirement 861 HIA (1395fi) 485 Telephgne Consumer - - Damage ' 862 Black Lung (923) Protectlon Act 0f Veteranvs Benefits 362 Personal Injury -Medlca1 Income secumy ACt , . Malpractice 335 Propérty Damage Product IMMIGRATION 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 490 Cable/Sat TV 160 St°°kh°1ders suns L‘ablhty I _ 864 SSID Title XVI 850 Secumies/Commodities/ 190 Other C‘mm‘ct CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 462 Namiallmon 865 RSI (405(g)) Exchange 195 Contract Product Liability ‘ ‘ , Appllcanon 890 Other Statute Actions _ 440 Other C1V11 nghts HABEAS CORPUS ‘ ' FEDERAL TAX SUITS ry 196 Franchlse 465 Other Imm1grat10n 891 A icuhuml Acts 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Actions ' ‘ gr REAL PROPERTY 870 Taxes (U'S' Pla‘m‘ff °‘ 893 Environmental MattersX 442 Employment 5 10 Motions to Vacate Defendant) r 210 Land Condemnation 443 Housing/ r Sentence 871 IRsiThird Party 26 USC 895 ?:tedom of Informatmn 220 Foreclosure Accommodations 530 General § 7609 896 b, . 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 445 Amer. w/Disabilitiesi 535 Death penalty Ar lvtr-atlorf 240 Torts to Land Employment OTHER 899 :wsgauve Priced“? f - - - 446 Amer. w/Disabilitiesiother c eVleW 0r ppea 0 245 T011 Pmduct Llflblllty ‘ 540 Mandamus & Other Agency Dec1510n 290 A11 Other Real Property 448 Educam“ 550 Civil Rights 950 Constitutionality of State 555 Pn'son Condition Statutes 560 Civil Detainew Conditions of Confinement V. ORIGIN (Place an ” X” in One Box Only) 1 Original X 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistfict Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District (specifii) LitigationiTransfer LitigatiorkDirect File VI. CAUSE 0F Cite the U S C1Vi1 Statute under Which V0u are fillng (Du not cite iurisdicfional statutes unless diversitv)’ USC 1332 aACTION ( ) Brief descrintion 0f cause: . . o _W age and hour clalms allegmg Vlolatlon of Labor Code VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND s n/a CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: COWLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, Fed. R. Civ. P. JURY DEMAND: X Yes No VIII. LATED CASE(S)’ JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER IF ANY (See instructions): IX. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil Local Rule 3-2) (Place an “X” in One Box Only) SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND X SAN JOSE EUREKA-MCIGNLEYVILLE DATE 06/0 “202° SIGNATURE 0FATTORNEY 0F RECORD /S/ Em MCCkley 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO Case 5:20-cv-O3633 Document2 Filed 06/01/20 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Eric Meckley, Bar N0. 168 1 81 eric.meckley@morganlewis.com Maureen N. Beckley, Bar N0. 3 1 6754 maureen.beckley@morganlewis.com One Market Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94 1 05-1 596 Tel: +1.415.442. 1000 Fax: +1.415.442. 1001 Attorneys for Defendant ARAMARK FOOD AND SUPPORT SERVICES GROUP, INC. Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION LILLLANA HERNANDEZ, an individual, Case No. 5:20-cv-03633 Plaintiff, ARAMARK FOOD AND SUPPORT SERVICES GROUP, INC.’S VS. CERTIFICATION OF INTERESTED ARAMARK FOOD AND SUPPORT SERVICES GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant. DB2/ 390410932 ENTITIES 0R PERSONS DEFENDANT’S CERTIFICATION OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PARTIES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO Case 5:20-cv-O3633 Document 2 Filed 06/01/20 Page 2 of 2 Pursuant t0 Northern District 0f California Civil Local Rule 3-1 5 and consistent With Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, the undersigned counsel 0f record for Defendant Aramark Food and Support Services Group, Inc. certify that the following listed persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships, corporations (including parent corporations) 0r other entities (i) have a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, 0r (ii) have a non-financial interest in that subj ect matter 0r in a party that could be substantially affected by the outcome 0f this proceeding: Aramark Services, Inc., Aramark Intermediate HoldCo Corporation, and Aramark have a financial interest in a party to the proceeding. Aramark Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation With its headquarters in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is the sole owner 0f and stockholder 0f Aramark Food and Support Services Group, Inc. Aramark Intermediate HoldCo Corporation, a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is the sole owner and stockholder ofAramark Services, Inc. Aramark, a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is the sole owner and stockholder of Aramark Intermediate HoldCo Corporation. Dated: June 1, 2020 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP By /S/ Eric Meckley Eric Meckley Maureen N. Beckley Attorneys for Defendant ARAMARK FOOD AND SUPPORT SERVICES GROUP, INC. DEFENDANT’S CERTIFICATION OF DBz/ 390410932 INTERESTED ENTITIES 0R PARTIES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO PROOF 0F SERVICE BY MAIL I am a citizen of the United States and employed in San Francisco County, California. I am over the age 0f eighteen years and not a party to the Within-entitled action. My business address is One Market, Spear Street Tower, San Francisco, CA 94105-1596. I am readily familiar with this firm’s practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. On June 2, 2020, Iplaced with this firm at the above address for deposit with the United States Postal Service a true and correct copy of the within document(s): NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND PLAINTIFF OF REMOVAL 0F ACTION in a sealed envelope, postage fully paid, addressed as follows: David Yeremian Attorneysfor PlaintiflLilliana Hernandez Jason Rothman David Yeremian & Associates 535 N. Brand B1Vd., Suite 705 Glendale, CA 91203 david@yeremianlaw.com jason@yeremianlaw.com Following ordinary business practices, the envelope was sealed and placed for collection and mailing on this date, and would, in the ordinary course of business, be deposited With the United States Postal Service 0n this date. Executed 0n June 2, 2020, at San Francisco, California. I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws 0f the State 0f California that the above is true and correct.WW Adele Doyle PROOF OF SERVICE DB2/ 390734191