Complaint Unlimited Fee Applies

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.April 5, 2021

410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC Glendale, California 91 203 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Edwin Aiwazian (SBN 232943) LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91203 Tel: (818) 265-1020 / Fax: (818) 265-1021 Attorneysfor Plaintiff E-FILED 4/5/2021 8:06 PM Clerk of Court Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara 21CV379147 Reviewed By: R. Walker SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Case N04 21 CV3791 47 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES DEANGELO DANIELS, individually, and on behalf 0f other members of the general public similarly situated; Plaintiff, vs. GARUDA LABS, INC. DBA INSTAWORK, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Violation of California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198 (Unpaid Overtime); Violation of California Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512(a) (Unpaid Meal Period Premiums); Violation of California Labor Code § 226.7 (Unpaid Rest Period Premiums); Violation of California Labor Code §§ 1194, 1197, and 1197.1 (Unpaid Minimum Wages); Violation of California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202 (Final Wages Not Timely Paid); Violation of California Labor Code § 204 (Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment); Violation of California Labor Code § 226(a) (Non-Compliant Wage Statements); Violation of California Labor Code § 1174(d) (Failure To Keep Requisite Payroll Records); Violation of California Labor Code §§ 2800 and 2802 (Unreimbursed Business Expenses); (10) Violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91 203 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMES NOW, Plaintiff DEANGELO DANIELS (“Plaintiff"), individually, and 0n behalf of other members 0f the general public similarly situated, and alleges as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This class action is brought pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure section 382. The monetary damages and restitution sought by Plaintiff exceeds the minimal jurisdiction limits 0f the Superior Court and Will be established according to proof at trial. The “amount in controversy” for the named Plaintiff, including but not limited to claims for compensatory damages, restitution, penalties, wages, premium pay, and pro rata share 0f attorneys’ fees, is less than seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000). 2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant t0 the California Constitution, Article VI, Section 10, which grants the superior court “original jurisdiction in all other causes” except those given by statute t0 other courts. The statutes under Which this action is brought do not specify any other basis for jurisdiction. 3. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendant because, upon information and belief, Defendant is a citizen of California, has sufficient minimum contacts in California, or otherwise intentionally avails itself 0f the California market so as to render the exercise 0f jurisdiction over it by California courts consistent with traditional notions 0f fair play and substantial justice. 4. Venue is proper in this Court because, upon information and belief, Defendant maintains offices, has agents, employs individuals, and/or transacts business in the State of California, County of Santa Clara. The majority 0f acts and omissions alleged herein relating t0 Plaintiff and the other class members took place in the State 0f California, including the County 0f Santa Clara. PARTIES 5. PlaintiffDEANGELO DANIELS is an individual residing in the State 0f California. /// /// 2 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91 203 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6. Defendant GARUDA LABS, INC. DBA INSTAWORK, at all times herein mentioned, was and is, upon information and belief, an employer whose employees are engaged throughout the State of California, including the County 0f Santa Clara. 7. At all relevant times, Defendant GARUDA LABS, INC. DBA INSTAWORK was the “employer” of Plaintiff within the meaning 0f all applicable California laws and statutes. 8. At all times herein relevant, Defendants GARUDA LABS, INC. DBA INSTAWORK and DOES 1 through 100, and each 0f them, were the agents, partners, joint venturers, joint employers, representatives, servants, employees, successors-in-interest, co- conspirators and/or assigns, each of the other, and at all times relevant hereto were acting within the course and scope 0f their authority as such agents, partners, joint venturers, joint employers, representatives, servants, employees, successors, co-conspirators and/or assigns, and all acts 0r omissions alleged herein were duly committed with the ratification, knowledge, permission, encouragement, authorization and/or consent 0f each defendant designated as a DOE herein. 9. The true names and capacities, whether corporate, associate, individual 0r otherwise, of defendants DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown t0 Plaintiffwho sue said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on that information and belief alleges, that each 0f the defendants designated as a DOE is legally responsible for the events and happenings referred to in this Complaint, and unlawfully caused the injuries and damages t0 Plaintiff and the other class members as alleged in this Complaint. Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint t0 show the true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained. 10. Defendant GARUDA LABS, INC. DBA INSTAWORK and DOES 1 through 100 will hereinafter collectively be referred t0 as “Defendants.” 11. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants directly 0r indirectly controlled or affected the working conditions, wages, working hours, and conditions 0f employment 0f /// 3 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91 203 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff and the other class members so as t0 make each 0f said Defendants employers liable under the statutory provisions set forth herein. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 12. Plaintiff bring this action on his own behalf and on behalf 0f all other members 0f the general public similarly situated, and, thus, seeks class certification under California Code 0f Civil Procedure section 382. 13. The proposed class is defined as follows: A11 current and former individuals classified as “independent contractors” who worked for any 0f the Defendants Within the State 0f California at any time during the period from four years preceding the filing of this Complaint to final judgment. 14. Plaintiff reserves the right to establish subclasses as appropriate. 15. The class is ascertainable and there is a well-defined community of interest in the litigation: a. Numerosity: The class members are s0 numerous that joinder 0f all Class members is impracticable. The membership 0f the entire class is unknown to Plaintiff at this time; however, the class is estimated to be greater than fifty (50) individuals and the identity 0f such membership is readily ascertainable by inspection of Defendants’ employment records. b. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical 0f all other class members’ as demonstrated herein. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the other class members With Whom he has a well-defined community of interest. c. Adequacy: Plaintiff Will fairly and adequately protect the interests of each class member, with Whom he has a well-defined community of interest and typicality 0f claims, as demonstrated herein. Plaintiff has no interest that is antagonistic t0 the other class members. Plaintiff’ s attorneys, the proposed class counsel, are versed in the rules governing 4 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91 203 LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 class action discovery, certification, and settlement. Plaintiff has incurred, and during the pendency of this action will continue to incur, costs and attorneys’ fees, that have been, are, and Will be necessarily expended for the prosecution of this action for the substantial benefit of each class member. Superiority: A class action is superior t0 other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication 0f this litigation because individual joinder 0f all class members is impractical. Public Policy Considerations: Certification 0f this lawsuit as a class action Will advance public policy obj ectives. Employers 0f this great state Violate employment and labor laws every day. Current employees are often afraid t0 assert their rights out 0f fear 0f direct or indirect retaliation. However, class actions provide the class members who are not named in the complaint anonymity that allows for the Vindication 0f their rights. 16. There are common questions 0f law and fact as to the class members that predominate over questions affecting only individual members. The following common questions of law or fact, among others, exist as t0 the members 0f the class: a. Whether Defendants’ failure t0 pay wages, Without abatement 0r reduction, in accordance With the California Labor Code, was willful; Whether Defendants’ had a corporate policy and practice of improperly classifying Plaintiff and the other class members as independent contractors; Whether Defendants required Plaintiff and the other class members t0 work over eight (8) hours per day and/or over forty (40) hours per week and failed t0 pay the legally required overtime compensation to Plaintiff and the other class members; Whether Defendants deprived Plaintiff and the other class members of 5 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91 203 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 meal and/or rest periods or required Plaintiff and the other class members t0 work during meal and/or rest periods without compensation; e. Whether Defendants failed t0 pay minimum wages t0 Plaintiff and the other class members for all hours worked; f. Whether Defendants failed t0 pay all wages due to Plaintiff and the other class members Within the required time upon their discharge 0r resignation; g. Whether Defendants failed t0 timely pay all wages due t0 Plaintiff and the other class members during their employment; h. Whether Defendants complied With wage reporting as required by the California Labor Code; including, inter alia, section 226; i. Whether Defendants kept complete and accurate payroll records as required by the California Labor Code, including, inter alia, section 1 174(d); j. Whether Defendants failed t0 reimburse Plaintiff and the other class members for necessary business-related expenses and costs; k. Whether Defendants’ conduct was willful 0r reckless; 1. Whether Defendants engaged in unfair business practices in Violation 0f California Business & Professions Code section 17200, et seq.; m. The appropriate amount of damages, restitution, and/or monetary penalties resulting from Defendants’ Violation 0f California law; and n. Whether Plaintiff and the other class members are entitled t0 compensatory damages pursuant to the California Labor Code. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 17. At all relevant times set forth herein, Defendants employed Plaintiff and other persons as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State 0f California, including the County of Santa Clara. 18. Plaintiff performed work for Defendants in November 2020 in the State 0f 6 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91 203 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 California, County 0f Santa Clara, and was classified by Defendants as an independent contractor. 19. Defendants hired Plaintiff and the other class members, classified them as independent contractors in Violation 0f California law, and failed to compensate them for all hours worked and for missed meal periods and/or rest breaks. 20. Defendants had the authority to hire and terminate Plaintiff and the other class members, t0 set work rules and conditions governing Plaintiff” s and the other class members’ employment, t0 set their rates 0f pay, and to supervise their daily employment activities. 21. Defendants exercised sufficient authority over the terms and conditions 0f Plaintiff” s and the other class members’ employment for them to be joint employers 0f Plaintiff and the other class members. 22. Defendants directly hired and paid wages t0 Plaintiff and the other class members. 23. Plaintiff and the other class members performed work in the usual course of Defendant’ business. 24. Plaintiff the other class members are each not engaged in an independently- established business. 25. By working for Defendants, Plaintiff and the other class members have not made the decision independently t0 g0 into business for themselves. Instead, Defendants have unilaterally determined that Plaintiff and the other class members are independent contractors While precluding them from taking the usual steps towards promoting and establishing an independent business. 26. Defendants prohibit Plaintiff and the other class members from setting their own rates of pay for their own services, and requires them to agree t0 a set payment. 27. Defendants continue to employ hourly-paid or non-exempt workers whom it misclassifies as independent contractors within the State 0f California. 28. Plaintiff and the other Class members worked over eight (8) hours in a day, and/or forty (40) hours in a week during their employment with Defendants. 7 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91 203 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice 0f wage abuse against their hourly-paid 0r non-exempt workers Who were misclassified as independent contractors Within the State of California. This pattern and practice involved, inter alia, misclassifying them as independent contractors, failing t0 pay them for all regular and/or overtime wages earned, and failing to provide all required meal and rest periods in Violation of California law. 30. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew 0r should have known that Plaintiff and the other class members were entitled t0 receive certain wages for overtime compensation and that they were not receiving accurate overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked. 3 1. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants failed t0 provide Plaintiff and the other class members all required rest and meal periods during the relevant time period as required under the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and thus they are entitled to any and all applicable penalties. 32. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and the other class members were entitled to receive all meal periods 0r payment 0f one additional hour 0f pay at Plaintiff’ s and the other class member’s regular rate 0f pay when a meal period was missed, and they did not receive all meal periods or payment 0f one additional hour 0f pay at Plaintiff’s and the other class member’s regular rate 0f pay when a meal period was missed. 33. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and the other class members were entitled to receive all rest periods or payment 0f one additional hour 0f pay at Plaintiff’ s and the other class member’s regular rate 0f pay when a rest period was missed, and they did not receive all rest periods or payment 0f one additional hour 0f pay at Plaintiff’s and the other class members’ regular rate 0f pay when a rest period was missed. 34. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and the other class members were entitled to receive 8 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91 203 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 at least minimum wages for compensation and that they were not receiving at least minimum wages for all hours worked. 35. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and the other class members were entitled to receive all wages owed t0 them upon discharge 0r resignation, including overtime and minimum wages and meal and rest period premiums, and they did not, in fact, receive all such wages owed to them at the time 0f their discharge 0r resignation. 36. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew 0r should have known that Plaintiff and the other class members were entitled t0 receive all wages owed t0 them during their employment. Plaintiff and the other class members did not receive payment 0f all wages, including overtime and minimum wages and meal and rest period premiums, Within any time permissible under California Labor Code section 204. 37. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew 0r should have known that Plaintiff and the other class members were entitled t0 receive complete and accurate wage statements in accordance with California law, but, in fact, they did not receive complete and accurate wage statements from Defendants. The deficiencies included, inter alia, the failure to include the total number of hours worked by Plaintiff and the other class members. 38. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew 0r should have known that Defendants had t0 keep complete and accurate payroll records for Plaintiff and the other class members in accordance With California law, but, in fact, did not keep complete and accurate payroll records. 39. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew 0r should have known that Plaintiff and the other class members were entitled t0 reimbursement for necessary business-related expenses. 40. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew 0r should have known that they had a duty t0 compensate Plaintiff and the other class members pursuant t0 California law, and that Defendants had the financial ability t0 pay such 9 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91 203 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 compensation, but willfully, knowingly, and intentionally failed to d0 so, and falsely represented to Plaintiff and the other class members that they were properly denied wages, all in order to increase Defendants” profits. 41. During the relevant time period, Defendants failed t0 pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and the other class members for all overtime hours worked. Plaintiff and the other class members were required t0 work more than eight (8) hours per day and/or forty (40) hours per week Without overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked. 42. During the relevant time period, Defendants failed to provide all requisite uninterrupted meal and rest periods t0 Plaintiff and the other class members. 43. During the relevant time period, Defendants failed t0 pay Plaintiff and the other class members at least minimum wages for all hours worked. 44. During the relevant time period, Defendants failed t0 pay Plaintiff and the other class members all wages owed t0 them upon discharge 0r resignation. 45. During the relevant time period, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the other class members all wages Within any time permissible under California law, including, inter alia, California Labor Code section 204. 46. During the relevant time period, Defendants failed to provide complete 0r accurate wage statements t0 Plaintiff and the other class members. 47. During the relevant time period, Defendants failed t0 keep complete or accurate payroll records for Plaintiff and the other class members. 48. During the relevant time period, Defendants failed t0 reimburse Plaintiff and the other class members for all necessary business-related expenses and costs. 49. During the relevant time period, Defendants failed to properly compensate Plaintiff and the other class members pursuant to California law in order t0 increase Defendants’ profits. 50. California Labor Code section 218 states that nothing in Article 1 0f the Labor Code shall limit the right 0f any wage claimant to “sue directly . . . for any wages or penalty due t0 him [0r her] under this article.” 10 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC Glendale, California 91 203 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation 0f California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198) (Against GARUDA LABS, INC. DBA INSTAWORK and DOES 1 through 100) 5 1. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 46, and each and every part thereof with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 52. California Labor Code section 1198 and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order provide that it is unlawful t0 employ persons without compensating them at a rate of pay either time-and-one-half or two-times that person’s regular rate 0f pay, depending 0n the number 0f hours worked by the person 0n a daily 0r weekly basis. 53. Specifically, the applicable IWC Wage Order provides that Defendants are and were required to pay Plaintiff and the other class members employed by Defendants, and working more than eight (8) hours in a day or more than forty (40) hours in a workweek, at the rate of time-and-one-half for all hours worked in excess 0f eight (8) hours in a day 0r more than forty (40) hours in a workweek. 54. The applicable IWC Wage Order further provides that Defendants are and were required t0 pay Plaintiff and the other class members overtime compensation at a rate 0f two times their regular rate 0f pay for all hours worked in excess 0f twelve (12) hours in a day. 55. California Labor Code section 5 10 codifies the right t0 overtime compensation at one-and-one-half times the regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a day 0r forty (40) hours in a week or for the first eight (8) hours worked 0n the seventh day 0f work, and to overtime compensation at twice the regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of twelve (12) hours in a day 0r in excess 0f eight (8) hours in a day 0n the seventh day of work. 56. During the relevant time period, Plaintiff and the other class members worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a day, and/or in excess 0f forty (40) hours in a week. 57. During the relevant time period, Defendants intentionally and willfully failed to 11 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91 203 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 pay overtime wages owed t0 Plaintiff and the other class members. 58. Defendants’ failure t0 pay Plaintiff and the other class members the unpaid balance 0f overtime compensation, as required by California laws, violates the provisions 0f California Labor Code sections 5 10 and 1198, and is therefore unlawful. 59. Pursuant t0 California Labor Code section 1194, Plaintiff and the other class members are entitled t0 recover unpaid overtime compensation, as well as interest, costs, and attomeys’ fees. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation 0f California Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512(a)) (Against GARUDA LABS, INC. DBA INSTAWORK and DOES 1 through 100) 60. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 55, and each and every part thereof With the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 61. At all relevant times, the IWC Order and California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 5 12(a) were applicable to Plaintiff” s and the other class members’ employment by Defendants. 62. At all relevant times, California Labor Code section 226.7 provides that n0 employer shall require an employee t0 work during any meal 0r rest period mandated by an applicable order 0f the California IWC. 63. At all relevant times, the applicable IWC Wage Order and California Labor Code section 5 1 2(a) provide that an employer may not require, cause 0r permit an employee t0 work for a work period of more than five (5) hours per day Without providing the employee with a meal period 0f not less than thirty (30) minutes, except that if the total work period per day 0f the employee is no more than six (6) hours, the meal period may be waived by mutual consent 0f both the employer and employee. 64. At all relevant times, the applicable IWC Wage Order and California Labor Code section 5 12(a) further provide that an employer may not require, cause or permit an employee t0 work for a work period 0f more than ten (10) hours per day without providing the 12 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91 203 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 employee with a second uninterrupted meal period of not less than thirty (30) minutes, except that if the total hours worked is no more than twelve (12) hours, the second meal period may be waived by mutual consent of the employer and the employee only if the first meal period was not waived. 65. During the relevant time period, Plaintiff and the other class members who were scheduled to work for a period 0f time no longer than six (6) hours, and Who did not waive their legally-mandated meal periods by mutual consent, were required t0 work for periods longer than five (5) hours without an uninterrupted meal period of not less than thirty (30) minutes and/or rest period. 66. During the relevant time period, Plaintiff and the other class members who were scheduled to work for a period 0f time in excess 0f six (6) hours were required t0 work for periods longer than five (5) hours Without an uninterrupted meal period 0f not less than thirty (30) minutes and/or rest period. 67. During the relevant time period, Defendants intentionally and willfully required Plaintiff and the other class members t0 work during meal periods and failed to compensate Plaintiff and the other class members the full meal period premium for work performed during meal periods. 68. During the relevant time period, Defendants failed t0 pay Plaintiff and the other class members the full meal period premium due pursuant t0 California Labor Code section 226.7. 69. Defendants’ conduct violates applicable IWC Wage Order and California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512(a). 70. Pursuant t0 applicable IWC Wage Order and California Labor Code section 226.7(b), Plaintiff and the other class members are entitled to recover from Defendants one additional hour 0f pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each work day that the meal or rest period is not provided. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation 0f California Labor Code § 226.7) 13 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC Glendale, California 91 203 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (Against GARUDA LABS, INC. DBA INSTAWORK and DOES 1 through 100) 71. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 66, and each and every part thereof With the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 72. At all times herein set forth, the applicable IWC Wage Order and California Labor Code section 226.7 were applicable t0 Plaintiff’ s and the other class members’ employment by Defendants. 73. At all relevant times, California Labor Code section 226.7 provides that n0 employer shall require an employee t0 work during any rest period mandated by an applicable order of the California IWC. 74. At all relevant times, the applicable IWC Wage Order provides that “[e]very employer shall authorize and permit all employees t0 take rest periods, Which insofar as practicable shall be in the middle 0f each work period” and that the “rest period time shall be based on the total hours worked daily at the rate 0f ten (10) minutes net rest time per four (4) hours 0r major fraction thereof” unless the total daily work time is less than three and one-half (3 1/2) hours. 75. During the relevant time period, Defendants required Plaintiff and other class members t0 work four (4) 0r more hours without authorizing or permitting a ten (10) minute rest period per each four (4) hour period worked. 76. During the relevant time period, Defendants willfully required Plaintiff and the other class members t0 work during rest periods and failed t0 pay Plaintiff and the other class members the full rest period premium for work performed during rest periods. 77. During the relevant time period, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the other class members the full rest period premium due pursuant t0 California Labor Code section 226.7 78. Defendants’ conduct violates applicable IWC Wage Orders and California Labor Code section 226.7. 79. Pursuant t0 the applicable IWC Wage Orders and California Labor Code section 14 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91 203 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 226.7(0), Plaintiff and the other class members are entitled to recover from Defendants one additional hour 0f pay at the employees’ regular hourly rate 0f compensation for each work day that the rest period was not provided. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation 0f California Labor Code §§ 1194, 1197, and 1197.1) (Against GARUDA LABS, INC. DBA INSTAWORK and DOES 1 through 100) 80. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 75, and each and every part thereof with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 81. At all relevant times, California Labor Code sections 1194, 1197, and 1197.1 provide that the minimum wage t0 be paid to employees, and the payment 0f a lesser wage than the minimum so fixed is unlawful. 82. During the relevant time period, Defendants failed t0 pay minimum wage t0 Plaintiff and the other class members as required, pursuant t0 California Labor Code sections 1194, 1197, and 1197.1. 83. Defendants’ failure t0 pay Plaintiff and the other class members the minimum wage as required violates California Labor Code sections 1194, 1197, and 1197. 1. Pursuant to those sections Plaintiff and the other class members are entitled to recover the unpaid balance of their minimum wage compensation as well as interest, costs, and attorney’s fees, and liquidated damages in an amount equal t0 the wages unlawfully unpaid and interest thereon. 84. Pursuant to California Labor Code section 1197. 1 , Plaintiff and the other class members are entitled t0 recover a penalty 0f $100.00 for the initial failure t0 timely pay each employee minimum wages, and $250.00 for each subsequent failure to pay each employee minimum wages. 85. Pursuant t0 California Labor Code section 1194.2, Plaintiff and the other class members are entitled to recover liquidated damages in an amount equal t0 the wages unlawfully unpaid and interest thereon. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 15 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91 203 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (Violation 0f California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202) (Against GARUDA LABS, INC. DBA INSTAWORK and DOES 1 through 100) 86. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 81, and each and every part thereof with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 87. At all relevant times herein set forth, California Labor Code sections 201 and 202 provide that if an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the time 0f discharge are due and payable immediately, and if an employee quits his 0r her employment, his or her wages shall become due and payable not later than seventy-two (72) hours thereafter, unless the employee has given seventy-two (72) hours’ notice 0f his 0r her intention t0 quit, in Which case the employee is entitled t0 his 0r her wages at the time 0f quitting. 88. During the relevant time period, Defendants intentionally and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and the other class members who are n0 longer employed by Defendants their wages, earned and unpaid, Within seventy-two (72) hours 0f their leaving Defendants’ employ. 89. Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and the other class members who are n0 longer employed by Defendants’ their wages, earned and unpaid, within seventy-two (72) hours 0f their leaving Defendants” employ, is in Violation 0f California Labor Code sections 201 and 202. 90. California Labor Code section 203 provides that if an employer willfully fails to pay wages owed, in accordance With sections 201 and 202, then the wages of the employee shall continue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or until an action is commenced; but the wages shall not continue for more than thirty (30) days. 91. Plaintiff and the other Class members are entitled t0 recover from Defendants the statutory penalty wages for each day they were not paid, up to a thirty (30) day maximum pursuant to California Labor Code section 203. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation 0f California Labor Code § 204) 16 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC Glendale, California 91 203 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (Against GARUDA LABS, INC. DBA INSTAWORK and DOES 1 through 100) 92. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 87, and each and every part thereof With the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 93. At all times herein set forth, California Labor Code section 204 provides that all wages earned by any person in any employment between the lst and 15th days, inclusive, of any calendar month, other than those wages due upon termination 0f an employee, are due and payable between the 16th and the 26th day 0f the month during which the labor was performed. 94. At all times herein set forth, California Labor Code section 204 provides that all wages earned by any person in any employment between the 16th and the last day, inclusive, 0f any calendar month, other than those wages due upon termination 0f an employee, are due and payable between the lst and the 10th day of the following month. 95. At all times herein set forth, California Labor Code section 204 provides that all wages earned for labor in excess of the normal work period shall be paid n0 later than the payday for the next regular payroll period. 96. During the relevant time period, Defendants intentionally and willfully failed t0 pay Plaintiff and the other class members all wages due t0 them, Within any time period permissible under California Labor Code section 204. 97. Plaintiff and the other class members are entitled t0 recover all remedies available for Violations 0f California Labor Code section 204. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation 0f California Labor Code § 226(a)) (Against GARUDA LABS, INC. DBA INSTAWORK and DOES 1 through 100) 98. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 93, and each and every part thereof with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 99. At all material times set forth herein, California Labor Code section 226(a) 17 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91 203 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 provides that every employer shall furnish each of his 0r her employees an accurate itemized statement in writing showing (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee, (3) the number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece rate if the employee is paid on a piece-rate basis, (4) all deductions, provided that all deductions made 0n written orders 0f the employee may be aggregated and shown as one item, (5) net wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates 0f the period for Which the employee is paid, (7) the name 0f the employee and his or her social security number, (8) the name and address 0f the legal entity that is the employer, and (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee. The deductions made from payments 0f wages shall be recorded in ink 0r other indelible form, properly dated, showing the month, day, and year, and a copy of the statement or a record of the deductions shall be kept on file by the employer for at least three years at the place of employment 0r at a central location within the State 0f California. 100. Defendants have intentionally and willfully failed to provide Plaintiff and the other class members With complete and accurate wage statements. The deficiencies include, but are not limited t0: the failure to include the total number 0f hours worked by Plaintiff and the other class members. 101. As a result 0f Defendants’ Violation 0f California Labor Code section 226(a), Plaintiff and the other class members have suffered injury and damage t0 their statutorily- protected rights. 102. More specifically, Plaintiff and the other class members have been injured by Defendants’ intentional and willful Violation 0f California Labor Code section 226(a) because they were denied both their legal right to receive, and their protected interest in receiving, accurate and itemized wage statements pursuant t0 California Labor Code section 226(a). 103. Plaintiff and the other class members are entitled to recover from Defendants the greater of their actual damages caused by Defendants’ failure to comply with California Labor Code section 226(a), 0r an aggregate penalty not exceeding four thousand dollars per employee. 18 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC Glendale, California 91 203 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 104. Plaintiff and the other class members are also entitled to injunctive relief to ensure compliance with this section, pursuant to California Labor Code section 226(h). EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation 0f California Labor Code § 1174(d)) (Against GARUDA LABS, INC. DBA INSTAWORK and DOES 1 through 100) 105. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 100, and each and every part thereof With the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 106. Pursuant to California Labor Code section 1174(d), an employer shall keep, at a central location in the state 0r at the plants 0r establishments at which employees are employed, payroll records showing the hours worked daily by and the wages paid t0, and the number 0f piece-rate units earned by and any applicable piece rate paid t0, employees employed at the respective plants 0r establishments. These records shall be kept in accordance with rules established for this purpose by the commission, but in any case shall be kept on file for not less than two years. 107. Defendants have intentionally and willfully failed to keep accurate and complete payroll records showing the hours worked daily and the wages paid, to Plaintiff and the other class members. 108. As a result of Defendants’ Violation 0f California Labor Code section 1174(d), Plaintiff and the other class members have suffered injury and damage to their statutorily- protected rights. 109. More specifically, Plaintiff and the other class members have been injured by Defendants’ intentional and willful Violation 0f California Labor Code section 1174(d) because they were denied both their legal right and protected interest, in having available, accurate and complete payroll records pursuant t0 California Labor Code section 1174(d). NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of California Labor Code §§ 2800 and 2802) (Against GARUDA LABS, INC. DBA INSTAWORK and DOES 1 through 100) 19 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91 203 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 110. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 105, and each and every part thereof with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 111. Pursuant t0 California Labor Code sections 2800 and 2802, an employer must reimburse its employee for all necessary expenditures incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her job duties 0r in direct consequence of his or her obedience t0 the directions of the employer. 112. Plaintiff and the other class members incurred necessary business-related expenses and costs that were not fully reimbursed by Defendants. 113. Defendants have intentionally and willfully failed to reimburse Plaintiff and the other class members for all necessary business-related expenses and costs. 114. Plaintiff and the other Class members are entitled t0 recover from Defendants their business-related expenses and costs incurred during the course and scope of their employment, plus interest accrued from the date on which the employee incurred the necessary expenditures at the same rate as judgments in civil actions in the State of California. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.) (Against GARUDA LABS, INC. DBA INSTAWORK and DOES 1 through 100) 115. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 110, and each and every part thereof with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 116. Defendants’ conduct, as alleged herein, has been, and continues to be, unfair, unlawful and harmful to Plaintiff, other class members, to the general public, and Defendants” competitors. Accordingly, Plaintiff seek to enforce important rights affecting the public interest within the meaning of Code 0f Civil Procedure section 1021.5. 117. Defendants’ activities as alleged herein are Violations 0f California law, and constitute unlawful business acts and practices in Violation 0f California Business & Professions Code section 17200, et seq. 20 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91 203 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 118. A Violation 0f California Business & Professions Code section 17200, et seq. may be predicated 0n the Violation 0f any state 0r federal law. In this instant case, Defendants’ policies and practices 0f requiring employees, including Plaintiff and the other class members, t0 work overtime without paying them proper compensation Violate California Labor Code sections 510 and 1198. Additionally, Defendants’ policies and practices 0f requiring employees, including Plaintiff and the other class members, t0 work through their meal and rest periods without paying them proper compensation Violate California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 5 12(a). Defendants’ policies and practices of failing to pay minimum wages Violate California Labor Code sections 1194, 1197, and 1197.1. Moreover, Defendants’ policies and practices of failing to timely pay wages t0 Plaintiff and the other class members Violate California Labor Code sections 201, 202 and 204. Defendants also violated California Labor Code sections 226(a), 1174(d), 2800 and 2802. 119. As a result of the herein described Violations of California law, Defendants unlawfully gained an unfair advantage over other businesses. 120. Plaintiff and the other Class members have been personally injured by Defendants’ unlawful business acts and practices as alleged herein, including but not necessarily limited t0 the loss 0fmoney and/or property. 121. Pursuant to California Business & Professions Code sections 17200, et seq., Plaintiff and the other class members are entitled to restitution 0f the wages Withheld and retained by Defendants during a period that commences four years preceding the filing of this Complaint; an award 0f attorneys” fees pursuant t0 California Code 0f Civil procedure section 1021.5 and other applicable laws; and an award of costs. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff, individually, and 0n behalf 0f other members 0f the general public similarly situated, requests a trial by jury. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually, and 0n behalf 0f other members 0f the general public similarly situated, prays for relief and judgment against Defendants, jointly and 21 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91 203 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 severally, as follows: Class Certification 1. That this action be certified as a class action; 2. That Plaintiff be appointed as the representative 0f the Class; 3. That counsel for Plaintiff be appointed as Class Counsel; and 4. That Defendants provide t0 Class Counsel immediately the names and most current/last known contact information (address, e-mail and telephone numbers) 0f all class members. As t0 the First Cause 0f Action 5. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendants violated California Labor Code sections 5 10 and 1198 and applicable IWC Wage Orders by willfully failing to pay all overtime wages due to Plaintiff and the other class members; 6. For general unpaid wages at overtime wage rates and such general and special damages as may be appropriate; 7. For pre-judgment interest 0n any unpaid overtime compensation commencing from the date such amounts were due; 8. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit incurred herein pursuant t0 California Labor Code section 1194; and 9. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. As t0 the Second Cause 0f Action 10. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendants violated California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512 and applicable IWC Wage Orders by willfully failing to provide all meal periods (including second meal periods) t0 Plaintiff and the other class members; 11. That the Court make an award to Plaintiff and the other class members 0f one (1) hour of pay at each employee’s regular rate 0f compensation for each workday that a meal period was not provided; 12. For all actual, consequential, and incidental losses and damages, according t0 22 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91 203 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 proof; 13. For premium wages pursuant t0 California Labor Code section 226.7(0); 14. For pre-judgment interest 0n any unpaid wages from the date such amounts were due; 15. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit incurred herein; and 16. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. As t0 the Third Cause 0f Action 17. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendants violated California Labor Code section 226.7 and applicable IWC Wage Orders by willfully failing t0 provide all rest periods to Plaintiff and the other class members; 18. That the Court make an award to Plaintiff and the other class members 0f one (1) hour of pay at each employee’s regular rate 0f compensation for each workday that a rest period was not provided; 19. For all actual, consequential, and incidental losses and damages, according t0 proof; 20. For premium wages pursuant t0 California Labor Code section 226.7(0); 21. For pre-judgment interest 0n any unpaid wages from the date such amounts were due; and 22. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. As t0 the Fourth Cause 0f Action 23. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendants violated California Labor Code sections 1194, 1197, and 1197.1 by willfully failing t0 pay minimum wages t0 Plaintiff and the other class members; 24. For general unpaid wages and such general and special damages as may be appropriate; 25. For statutory wage penalties pursuant t0 California Labor Code section 1197.1 for Plaintiff and the other class members in the amount as may be established according to proof at trial; 23 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91 203 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 26. For pre-judgment interest on any unpaid compensation from the date such amounts were due; 27. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit incurred herein pursuant t0 California Labor Code section 1194(a); 28. For liquidated damages pursuant t0 California Labor Code section 1194.2; and 29. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. As t0 the Fifth Cause 0f Action 30. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendants violated California Labor Code sections 201, 202, and 203 by willfully failing t0 pay all compensation owed at the time of termination 0f the employment 0f Plaintiff and the other class members n0 longer employed by Defendants; 31. For all actual, consequential, and incidental losses and damages, according t0 proof; 32. For statutory wage penalties pursuant t0 California Labor Code section 203 for Plaintiff and the other class members Who have left Defendants’ employ; 33. For pre-judgment interest on any unpaid compensation from the date such amounts were due; and 34. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. As t0 the Sixth Cause 0f Action 35. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendants violated California Labor Code section 204 by willfully failing t0 pay all compensation owed at the time required by California Labor Code section 204 t0 Plaintiff and the other class members; 36. For all actual, consequential, and incidental losses and damages, according t0 proof; 37. For pre-judgment interest on any unpaid compensation from the date such amounts were due; and 38. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. As t0 the Seventh Cause of Action 24 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91 203 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 39. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendants violated the record keeping provisions 0f California Labor Code section 226(a) and applicable IWC Wage Orders as to Plaintiff and the other Class members, and WillfiJlly failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements thereto; 40. For actual, consequential and incidental losses and damages, according to proof; 41. For statutory penalties pursuant t0 California Labor Code section 226(6); 42. For injunctive relief to ensure compliance with this section, pursuant to California Labor Code section 226(h); and 43. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. As t0 the Eighth Cause 0f Action 44. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendants violated California Labor Code section 1174(d) by willfully failing t0 keep accurate and complete payroll records for Plaintiff and the other class members as required by California Labor Code section 1 174(d); 45. For actual, consequential and incidental losses and damages, according t0 proof; 46. For statutory penalties pursuant to California Labor Code section 1174.5; and 47. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. As t0 the Ninth Cause 0f Action 48. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendants violated California Labor Code sections 2800 and 2802 by willfully failing to reimburse Plaintiff and the other class members for all necessary business-related expenses as required by California Labor Code sections 2800 and 2802; 49. For actual, consequential and incidental losses and damages, according to proof; 50. For the imposition 0f civil penalties and/or statutory penalties; 5 1. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs 0f suit incurred herein; and 52. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. As t0 the Tenth Cause 0f Action 53. That the Court decree, adjudge and decree that Defendants violated California 25 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 41 O West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91 203 LAWYERSfor JUSTICE, PC #UJN \OOONOUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq. by failing to provide Plaintiff and the other class members all overtime compensation due t0 them, failing to provide all meal and rest periods t0 Plaintiff and the other class members, failing t0 pay at least minimum wages t0 Plaintiff and the other class members, failing t0 pay Plaintiff’ s and the other class members’ wages timely as required by California Labor Code section 201, 202 and 204 and by violating California Labor Code sections 226(a), 1174(d), 2800 and 2802. 54. For restitution 0f unpaid wages to Plaintiff and all the other class members and all pre-judgment interest from the day such amounts were due and payable; 55. F01“ the appointment of a receiver to receive, manage and distribute any and all funds disgorged from Defendants and determined t0 have been wrongfully acquired by Defendants as a result 0f Violation 0f California Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.; 56. For reasonable attorneys” fees and costs 0f suit incurred herein pursuant to California Code 0f Civil Procedure section 1021.5; 57. For inj unctive relief to ensure compliance with this section, pursuant to California Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.; and 58. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: April 5, 2021 LAWYERSfor JUSTICE, PC By:WM Edwin Aiwazian Altorneysfor Plaintiff 26 CLASS ACTION COMPLAlN’I‘ FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL