NoticeCal. Super. - 6th Dist.April 5, 202110 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21 CV3791 47 Santa Clara - Civil Edwin Aiwazian (SBN 232943) Arby Aiwazian (SBN 269827) Joanna Ghosh (SBN 272479) LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91203 Tel: (818) 265-1020 / Fax: (818) 265-1021 Attorneysfor Plaintiff Deangelo Daniels Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 8/18/2021 4:18 PM Reviewed By: R. Walker Case #21 CV379147 Envelope: 7090954 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA DEANGELO DANIELS, individually, and 0n behalf of 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. Case No.2 21CV379147 CLASS ACTION NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY Superior Court of California for the County 0f Santa Clara, Case N0. 21CV379147 Superior Court of California for the County 0f Santa Clara, Case N0. 21CV383683 Superior Court of California for the County 0f San Francisco, Case No. CGC-21-589650 Superior Court of California for the County 0f San Francisco, Case No. CGC-20-586542 Superior Court of California for the County 0f Alameda, Case N0. RG20061241 Superior Court of California for the County 0f Alameda, Case N0. RG20067292 NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 T0 THE CLERK OF THE COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, on August 16, 2021, Plaintiff in the above-captioned case and in the action entitled Deangelo Daniels v. Garuda Labs, Inc. dba Instawork, Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case N0. 2 1 CV383683, submitted a Petition for Coordination and t0 Stay Cases to the Chairperson of the Judicial Council (located at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, 5th Floor, San Francisco, California 94102-3688), pursuant t0 California Code 0f Civil Procedure section 404, et seq., and California Rules 0f Court 3.521, et seq., requesting assignment 0f a judge t0 determine Whether it is appropriate t0 coordinate the following actions: a. Deangelo Daniels v. Garuda Labs, Inc. dba Instawork, Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case N0. 21CV379147, filed on April 5, 2021; b. Deangelo Daniels v. Garuda Labs, Inc. dba Instawork, Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case N0. 21CV383683, filed on June 25, 2021; c. Daniel Llamas v. Advantage Workforce Services, LLC, et al.; San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-21-589650, field 0n February 5, 2021; d. Ishan Basu-Kesselman v. Garuda Labs, Ina; San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-20-586542 filed on September 3, 2020; e. Taz’ Tran v. Garuda Labs, Inc. d/b/a Instawork; Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. RG20061241 filed 0n May 11, 2020; and f. Tai Tran v. Garuda Labs, Ina, d/b/a Instawork; Alameda County Superior Court, Case N0. RG20067292 filed 0n July 9, 2020. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE THAT, pursuant to California Rules 0f Court, Rule 3.526, any party t0 this action Who intends t0 support the Petition for Coordination may serve and submit a written statement in support 0f the Petition for Coordination. Any response in support must be served and filed at least nine (9) court days before the date set for hearing in this matter. 1 NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY Ul-PUJN VG 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE THAT, pursuant t0 California Rules 0f Court, Rule 3.525, any written opposition to the Petition for Coordination must be submitted and served at least nine (9) court days before the hearing date set in this matter. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE THAT, pursuant t0 California Rules 0f Court, Rule 3.515(d), any party intending t0 oppose the request for stay must serve and submit a written opposition t0 the request for stay within ten (10) days after service ofthe Petition for Coordination. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE THAT, a true and correct copy of the Petition for Coordination and all supporting documents are attached hereto as “Exhibit 1” and Will be filed in the above-captioned court. The Petition for Coordination and all supporting documents were served on all parties in all matters 0n August 18, 2021. Dated: August 18, 2021 LAWYERSfor JUSTICE, PC By: Joanna Ghosh Attorneysfor Plaintiff-Petitioner 2 NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY EXHIBIT 1 N \oooua‘UI-AW 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Edwin Aiwazian (SBN 232943) Arby Aiwazian (SBN 269827) Ovsanna Takvoryan (SBN 217435) LAWYERSfor JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91203 Tel: (818) 265-1020 /Fax: (818) 265-1021 RECEHVED Judicial Councll of Callfomla AUG l7 2021 Ooordl n er ‘) Attomeysfor Plaintifl-Petitioner Deangelo Daniels JUDICIAL COUNCIL 0F THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA DEANGELO DANIELS, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated; Plaintiff, VS. GARUDA LABS, INC. DBA INSTAWORK, an unknown business entity; and DOES l through 100, inclusive; Defendants. DEANGELO DANIELS, individually, and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act; Plaintifl', vs. GARUDA LABS, INC. DBA INSTAWORK, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive; Defendants. DANIEL LLAMAS, on behalf of himself and all other aggrieved employees; Plaintifi‘, VS. Judicial Councilgeding 50.: CLASS ACTION PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY (CALIFORNIA CODE 0F CIVIL PROCEDURE 404) Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara, Case No. 21CV379147 Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara, Case No. 21CV383683 Superior Court of Califdmia for the County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-21-589650 Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-20-586542 Superior Court of California for the County ofAlameda, Case No. RG20061241 Superior Court of California for the County ofAlameda, Case No. RG20067292 PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ADVANTAGE WORKFORCE SERVICES, LLC, a California corporation; INSTAWORK, a business entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive; Defendants. ISHAN BASU-KESSELMAN, on behalf of the State 0f California, as a private attorney general; Plaintiff, vs. GARUDA LABS, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive; Defendants. TAI TRAN, individually and on behalf 0f all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, vs. GARUDA LABS, INC., DBA INSTAWORK; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive; Defendants. TAI TRAN, 0n behalf of himself and all other aggrieved employees; Plaintiff, vs. GARUDA LABS, INC., DBA INSTAWORK; and DOES 1-10, inclusive; Defendants. 1 PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA: Pursuant t0 California Code 0f Civil Procedure section 404, et seq. and California Rules 0f Court 3.521, et seq., Plaintiff-Petitioner Deangelo Daniels ("Plaintiff-Petitioner”), hereby respectfully submits this petition for assignment 0f a judge to determine whether coordination of the above-entitled actions is appropriate and that the Alameda County be designated as the appropriate coordination site and that all six actions be stayed pending determination by the assigned judge as to whether coordination is appropriate. Plaintiff-Petitioner who brings this petition is the sole plaintiff in two 0f the six actions sought to be coordinated, and accordingly, a direct petition is authorized. This petition is based on California Code 0f Civil Procedure sections 404 and 404.1, California Rules 0f Court, Rule 3.521, the attached memorandum in support and Declaration 0f Ovsanna Takvoryan, and the complete files and records of the actions sought t0 be coordinated, and the following: 1. The full title 0f the actions sought t0 be coordinated are: a. Deangelo Daniels v. Garuda Labs, Inc. dba Instawork, Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 21CV379147, filed 0n April 5, 2021 (“Daniels Class Action”); b. Deangelo Daniels v. Garuda Labs, Inc. dba Instawork, Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 2 1 CV383683, filed 0n June 25, 2021 (“Daniels PAGA Action”); c. Daniel Llamas v. Advantage Workforce Services, LLC, et al.; San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-21-589650, field on February 5, 2021 (“Llamas PAGA Action”); d. Ishan Basu-Kesselman v. Garuda Labs, Ina; San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-20-586542 filed 0n September 3, 2020 (“Basu- Kesselman PAGA Action”); 2 PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. as follows: 6. Tai Tran v. Garuda Labs, Inc. d/b/a Instawork; Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. RG20061241 filed on May 11, 2020 (“Tran Class Action”); and Tai Tran v. Garuda Labs, Ina, d/b/a Instawork; Alameda County Superior Court, Case N0. RG20067292 filed 0n July 9, 2020 (“Tran PAGA Action”). The names 0f all parties, and the names and addresses 0f counsel for each party is a. Plaintiff-Petitioner Deangelo Daniels is the only named plaintiff, proposed C. class representative, and PAGA representative in the Daniels Class Action and the Daniels PAGA Action, respectively, and is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian (SBN 232943) LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 / Fax: (818) 265-1021 Daniel Llamas is the only named plaintiff and proposed class representative in the Llamas PAGA Action, and is represented by: Shaun Setareh (SBN 2045 14) David Keledjian (SBN 309135) SETAREH LAW GROUP 9665 Wilshire B1Vd., Suite 430 Beverly Hills, California 90212 Telephone (310) 888-7771 Facsimile (310) 888-0109 Ishan Basu-Kesselman is the only named plaintiff and PAGA representative in the Basu-Kesselman PAGA Action, and is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687) Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975) Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066) Nicholas J. De Blouw (State Bar #280922) BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 3 PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 d. C. f. Tai Tran is the only named plaintiff, proposed class representative, and PAGA representative in the Tran Class Action and the Tran PAGA Action, respectively, and is represented by: Jonathan M. Lebe (SBN 284605) Zachary Gershman (SBN 328004) LEBE LAW, APLC 777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90021 Telephone: (2 1 3) 358-7046 Isam Khoury (SBN 58759) Michael D. Singer (SBN 115301) Kristina Alicia De La Rosa (SBN 279821) COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER 605 C Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595-3001 Facsimile: (619) 595-3000 Garuda Labs, Inc. dba Instawork (“Instawork”) is the defendant in all six actions, the Daniels Class Action, the Daniels PAGA Action, the Llamas PAGA Action, the Basu-Kesselman PAGA Action, the Tran Class Action, and the Tran PAGA Action (collectively, the “Actions”) and is represented in all 0f the Actions by: ANDREW M. SPURCHISE, Bar No. 245998 LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 900 3rd Avenue, 8th Floor New York, NY 10022-3298 Telephone: 212.583.9600 Fax No.2 212.832.2719 ELISA NADEAU, Bar No. 199000 LINDA NGUYEN BOLLINGER, Bar No. 2895 1 5 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor San Jose, CA 951 13.2431 Telephone: 408.998.4150 Fax No.2 408.288.5686 Advantage Workforce Services, LLC (“Advantage Workforce”) is a defendant in the Llamas PAGA Action, and is represented by: 4 PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ANDREW M. SPURCHISE, Bar N0. 245998 LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 900 3rd Avenue, 8th Floor New York, NY 10022-3298 Telephone: 212.583.9600 Fax No.2 212.832.2719 ELISA NADEAU, Bar No. 199000 LINDA NGUYEN BOLLINGER, Bar No. 2895 1 5 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor San Jose, CA 951 13.2431 Telephone: 408.998.4150 Fax No.2 408.288.5686 3. Plaintiff-Petitioner is informed that all 0f the above-titled actions are pending in the Superior Courts in Which they have been filed. 4. Plaintiff-Petitioner’s attorney has served the summons and complaint in the Daniels Class Action and the Daniels PAGA Action and has made appearances at a case management conference in both cases. Plaintiff-Petitioner’s attorney has not appeared in the Llamas PAGA Action, the Basu-Kesselman PAGA Action, the Tran Class Action, and the Tran PAGA Action t0 date. 5. Plaintiff-Petitioner is not aware 0f any other pending actions sharing a common question 0f fact or law With the included Actions. 6. Plaintiff-Petitioner is informed and believes the status 0f each of the included Actions is as follows: a. Status 0f Daniels Class Action: i. The Complaint was filed on April 5, 2021. ii. An Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline was entered on April 6, 2021. iii. A Case Management Conference is set for November 10, 2021. b. Status of Daniels PAGA Action: i. The Complaint was filed 0n June 25, 2021. 5 PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ii. iii. iV. An Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline was entered 0n June 28, 2021. An Order and Notice 0f Reassignment of Case was entered on July 2, 2021, deeming the Daniels PAGA Action t0 be related t0 the Daniels Class Action, and ordering the reassignment 0f the Daniels PAGA Action t0 Department 3, the Honorable Patricia M. Lucas presiding (Where the Daniels Class Action is pending). A Case Management Conference is set for November 10, 2021. c. Status 0fLlamas PAGA Action: i. ii. iii. iV. V. Vi. The Complaint was filed on February 5, 2021. On April 15, 2021, plaintiff in the Llamas PAGA Action filed a Notice of Submission 0f Petition for Coordination and Request t0 Stay Cases, requesting assignment of a judge t0 determine whether it is appropriate t0 coordinate the Llamas PAGA Action, the Basu-Kesselman PAGA Action, the Tran Class Action, and the Tran PAGA Action (the “Llamas Petition for Coordination”).1 A Demurrer T0 Abate, Or, In The Alternative, Motion For Stay (the “Llamas Demurrer”) was filed by defendants in the Llamas PAGA Action, Instawork and Advantage Workforce, 0n April 29, 2021. The Llamas Demurrer is set t0 be heard on August 27, 2021. A Case Management Conference is set for October 6, 2021. There is currently n0 stay. d. Status 0fBasu-Kesselman PAGA Action: i. The Complaint was filed 0n September 3, 2020. 1 It appears that the Llamas Petition for Coordination has been abandoned by the plaintiff in the Llamas PAGA Action. 6 PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6. ii. iii. iV. Vi. Vii. A Demurrer To Abate, Or, In The Alternative, Motion For Stay (the “Basu-Kesselman Demurrer”) was filed by defendant, Instawork, 0n November 30, 2020. On December 2 1 , 2020, the parties in the Basu-Kesselman PAGA Action entered into a joint stipulation t0: (1) continue the hearing 0n the Basu- Kesselman Demurrer, (2) stay formal discovery pending mediation, and (3) extend plaintiff” s five-year statute 0f limitations (the “Basu- Kesselman Stipulation”). On December 29, 2020, an order was entered 0n the Basu-Kesselman Stipulation continuing the hearing 0n the Basu-Kesselman Demurrer t0 July 26, 2021, and staying formal discovery pending mediation. On April 15, 2021, plaintiff in the Llamas PAGA Action filed a Notice of Submission of Petition for Coordination and Request to Stay Cases, requesting assignment of a judge t0 determine whether it is appropriate t0 coordinate the Llamas PAGA Action, the Basu-Kesselman PAGA Action, the Tran Class Action, and the Tran PAGA Action. On August 9, 2021, the Court entered the order granting the Basu- Kesselman Demurrer (the “Demurrer Order”). The Demurrer Order specifically provides that “[i]f the actions are coordinated, of course, the coordination court may lift the stay.” See Takvoryan Decl., Exh. F, p.3, lines 14-15. A Case Management Conference is set for September 15, 2021. Status of Tran Class Action: i. ii. iii. The Complaint was filed 0n May 11, 2020. An order was entered 0n December 10, 2020, granting in part Defendants’ motion to compel the Tran Class Action to arbitration. On April 15, 2021, plaintiff in the Llamas PAGA Action filed a Notice of Submission of Petition for Coordination and Request to Stay Cases, 7 PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 requesting assignment of a judge t0 determine whether it is appropriate t0 coordinate the Llamas PAGA Action, the Basu-Kesselman PAGA Action, the Tran Class Action, and the Tran PAGA Action. iV. A Case Management Conference is set for September 28, 2021. f. Status of Tran PAGA Action: i. The Complaint was filed 0n July 9, 2020. ii. A Demurrer to Complaint (the “Tran Demurrer”) was filed by defendant, Instawork, 0n November 2, 2020. Thereafter, a First Amended Complaint was filed 0n November 9, 2020. iii. The parties were unable t0 come to a resolution at a mediation held on March 9, 2021 With the Hon. Michael Latin (Ret). iV. On April 15, 2021, plaintiff in the Llamas PAGA Action filed a Notice of Submission of Petition for Coordination and Request to Stay Cases, requesting assignment of a judge t0 determine whether it is appropriate t0 coordinate the Llamas PAGA Action, the Basu-Kesselman PAGA Action, the Tran Class Action, and the Tran PAGA Action. V. The parties were again unable t0 come t0 a resolution at a mediation held 0n July 22, 2021 With mediator Mark Rudy. Vi. A Case Management Conference is set for September 17, 2021. 7. The included Actions fall Within the definition 0f complex litigation. Two 0f the six included Actions are brought as class actions on behalf of the same group 0f current and former employees of Instawork. The other four included Actions are related PAGA Actions. Proof that each included Action described in this petition meets the coordination standards specified in California Code of Civil Procedure sections 404 and 404.1 is hereby submitted in the Memorandum of Points and Authorities and the Declaration 0f Ovsanna Takvoryan filed concurrently herewith. 8. This petition is made 0n the ground that the included Actions share common questions 0f law and fact, and that coordination of the Actions Will promote the ends 0f justice 8 PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and conserve judicial resources. The petition is supported by the Declaration 0f Ovsanna Takvoryan and Memorandum 0f Points and Authorities in support 0f the petition setting forth facts showing that the Actions are complex and that coordination would satisfy the criteria set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 404.1. For example, significant common questions 0f law and fact predominate in the Actions; the convenience 0f the parties, Witnesses and counsel Will be served; judicial facilities and resources will be more efficiently utilized; the burden 0n and congestion in the courts' calendars will be minimized; the disadvantage of duplicative or inconsistent rulings Will be avoided; global resolution of overlapping actions Will be encouraged. A11 0f the Actions share significant common questions 0f law and fact making it appropriate that one judge hear all the Actions. A11 0f the included Actions allege wage-and-hour Violations, including inter alia, failure t0 pay all wages earned, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, final wages not timely paid, wages not timely paid during employment, failure t0 provide accurate wage statements, failure t0 keep accurate payroll records, failure to reimburse business expenses, unfair business practices and Violation 0f California Labor Code 2698, et seq. (i.e., PAGA), that arose out 0f an employment relationship between Defendant and its current and former non-exempt employees in California. The complaints are based on the same or similar claims. Having each 0f the included Actions proceed independently would be disadvantageous and risk duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments. 9. Based 0n the Llamas Petition for Coordination, the Llamas Demurrer, and the Basu- Kesselman Demurrer, it appears that the only named plaintiff in the Llamas PAGA Action as well as defendants Instawork and Advantage Workforce agree that the included Actions involve common questions of fact and law. 10. Pending determination 0f Whether coordination is appropriate, Plaintiff-Petitioner requests an immediate stay 0f all the included Actions. The request for a stay is made 0n the ground that the stay order is necessary and appropriate to fulfill and effectuate the purposes of coordination. 11. If n0 party to any 0f the included Actions serves and submits a written opposition to this petition within the time allowed by California Rule 0f Court 3.525, then Plaintiff-Petitioner 9 PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY \OOOQQUIAUJN- “NamcwaF‘oomqamhwn-o requests that this Petition for Coordination be granted without a hearing. Plaintiff-Petitioner requests that a hearing on this petition be conducted in the Alameda County Superior Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 404 and 404.3, and California Rules of Court 3.52] and 3.540. The following facts support assignment ofthe Alameda County Superior Court as the site of the hearing on this petition: a. Alameda County Superior Couns have considerable experience and are well- equipped to handle complex litigation and are convenient to the parties, witnesses, and counsel: b. Coordinating the Actions will eliminate the need for duplicative pleadings, depositions, motions, and other discovery; c. All cases are in the early stages of development and coordination would not materially affect the schedule of any party. No deposition has been taken in any of the Actions. No motion regarding class certification has been filed in any of the included Actions. Dated: August 16, 2021 LAWYERSfar JUSTICE, PC By: th I Q/j/VW‘K OJsanna ak oryan‘ Attorneys o laintiff-Petitioner 10 PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY \OOOQamh 10 11 12 l3 l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Edwin Aiwazian (SBN 232943) Arby Aiwazian (SBN 269827) Ovsanna TakvoryanS(rBN 217435)LAWYERSfor JUS ICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 9 1 203 Tel: (818) 265-1020 /Fax: (818) 265-1021 RECEWED Judicial Council of Callfomla AUG l 7 2021 J atlonLawyer Attomeysfor Plaintiff-Petitioner Deangelo Daniels JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEANGELO DANIELS, individually, and on behalf of other members ofthe general public similarly situated; Plaintifi‘, vs. GARUDA LABS, INC. DBA INSTAWORK, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive; Defendants. DEANGELO DANIELS, individually, and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act; Plaintiff, vs. GARUDA LABS, INC. DBA INSTAWORK, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive; Defendants. DANIEL LLAMAS, on behalf of himself and all other aggrieved employees; Plaintifi‘, VS. Wei gg No.:W LIEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY (CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 404) Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara, Case No. 21 CV379147 Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara, Case No. 21CV383683 Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-21 -589650 Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-20-586542 Superior Court of California for the County ofAlameda, Case No. RG20061241 Superior Court of California for the County ofAlameda, Case No. RGZOO67292 MEMORANDUM OFPOMS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ADVANTAGE WORKFORCE SERVICES, LLC, a California corporation; INSTAWORK, a business entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive; Defendants. ISHAN BASU-KESSELMAN, on behalf of the State 0f California, as a private attorney general; Plaintiff, vs. GARUDA LABS, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive; Defendants. TAI TRAN, individually and on behalf 0f all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, vs. GARUDA LABS, INC., DBA INSTAWORK; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive; Defendants. TAI TRAN, 0n behalf of himself and all other aggrieved employees ; Plaintiff, vs. GARUDA LABS, INC., DBA INSTAWORK; and DOES 1-10, inclusive; Defendants. 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA: Pursuant t0 California Code 0f Civil Procedure section 404, et seq. and California Rules 0f Court 3.521, et seq., Plaintiff-Petitioner Deangelo Daniels ("Plaintiff-Petitioner”), who is the sole named plaintiff in two 0f the six actions sought to be coordinated, hereby submits this Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support 0f her Petition for Coordination and Motion for Stay. I. INTRODUCTION California law authorizes the coordination 0f complex cases pending in different courts Whenever they share common questions of law 0r fact. Code CiV. Proc. § 404. The statute seeks t0 coordinate these types 0f cases t0 promote the efficient use ofjudicial resources and to facilitate resolution of all actions. Code CiV. Proc. § 404.1 (factors to be considered). By this petition, Plaintiff-Petitioner seeks t0 designate as complex and coordinate the following actions in Alameda County: - Deangelo Daniels v. Garuda Labs, Inc. dba Instawork, Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 21CV383683, filed 0n June 25, 2021 (“Daniels PAGA Action”); - Deangelo Daniels v. Garuda Labs, Inc. dba Instawork, Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 21CV379147, filed 0n April 5, 2021 (“Daniels Class Action”); - Daniel Llamas v. Advantage Workforce Services, LLC, et al.; San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-21-589650, field 0n February 5, 2021 (“Llamas PAGA Action”); - Ishan Basu-Kesselman v. Garuda Labs, Ina; San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC- 20-586542 filed 0n September 3, 2020 (“Basu-Kesselman PAGA Action”); - Tai Tran v. Garuda Labs, Ina, d/b/a Instawork; Alameda County Superior Court, Case N0. RG20067292 filed 0n July 9, 2020 (“Tran PAGA Action”); and - Tai Tran v. Garuda Labs, Inc. d/b/a Instawork; Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. RG20061241 filed 0n May 11, 2020 (“Tran Class Action”). Coordination 0f the Daniels Class Action, the Daniels PAGA Action, the Llamas PAGA Action, the Basu-Kesselman PAGA Action, the Tran Class Action, and the Tran PAGA Action 2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (collectively, the “Actions”) is appropriate and necessary. These Actions are all premised on the same operative facts. Defendant Garuda Labs, Inc. dba Instawork (“Instawork”) is the named defendant in each 0f the complaints, and each 0f the causes 0f action against Defendant arise from alleged wage-and-hour Violations. Further, the putative classes in all six Actions will also consist of current and former employees 0f Defendant in California, rendering any determinations of issues regarding evidence, class certification, liability, 0r remedies duplicative. Plaintiff- Petitioner and the Plaintiffs in the other Actions will likely seek substantially the same discovery from Instawork. Coordinating the Actions “will promote the ends ofjustice” as required under California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 404 and 404.1. A11 of the Actions involve nearly identical allegations and will likely seek similar discovery against Instawork. Coordination will save the courts and parties significant resources by avoiding duplicative proceedings and discovery and preventing inconsistent rulings, all While promoting global resolution of overlapping claims. Finally, Code 0f Civil Procedure Section 404 authorizes coordination 0f these Actions because all are complex pursuant t0 California Rules 0f Court 3.400(b). The Daniels Class Action and the Daniels PAGA Action have already been deemed complex and are currently pending as related cases in Department 3 of the Santa Clara County Superior Court. Coordination is thus appropriate under California Code of Civil Procedure section 404, er seq. and California Rules 0f Court 3.521, et seq., which authorize the coordination 0f complex cases pending in different courts to promote the efficient use of the parties’ and the courts’ resources. As such, Plaintiff-Petitioner respectfully requests that all six Actions be coordinated to permit a thorough and efficient adjudication 0f the complex issues in the included Actions and Alameda County Superior Court be designated as the appropriate coordination site and venue. II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. The Tran Class Action On May 11, 2020, Tai Tran (“Tran”) filed his putative class action complaint in the Alameda Superior Court against Instawork asserting wage and hour claims against Instawork and thereby commenced the Tran Class Action. Takvoryan Decl., 1] 3. 3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Tran Class Action seeks recovery for the following alleged Labor Code Violations: (1) Failure t0 Pay Minimum Wages (Cal. Labor Code §§ 1182.12, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1199, and the IWC Wage Order); (2) Failure t0 Pay Overtime Wages (Cal. Labor Code §§ 5 10, 1194, 1198, and the IWC Wage Order); (3) Failure to Timely Pay A11 Earned Wages (Cal. Labor Code §§ 204, 210 and the IWC Wage Order); (4) Failure t0 Provide Meal Periods (Cal. Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512, and the IWC Wage Order); (5) Failure to Provide Rest Breaks (Cal. Labor Code § 226.7 and the IWC Wage Order); (6) Failure t0 Pay Wages Upon Separation of Employment and Within the Required Time (Cal. Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, and the IWC Wage Orders); (7) Failure to Furnish Accurate and Itemized Wage Statements (Cal. Labor Code § 226, and the IWC Wage Order); (8) Failure t0 Reimburse A11 Business Expenses (Cal. Labor Code § 2802, and the IWC Wage Order); and (9) Violation 0f California Business Professions Code § 17200, et seq. Takvoryan Decl., 1] 4, EXh. A. An Order Deeming Case Complex was entered 0n August 25, 2020. Takvoryan Decl., fl 5, EXh. B. On December 10, 2020, the Alameda Superior Court granted in part Instawork’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case. A Case Management Conference is set in the Tran Class Action for September 28, 2021. Takvoryan Decl., 11 6. B. The Tran PAGA Action On July 9, 2020, Tran filed his Compliant for Recovery 0f Civil Penalties Pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) (the “Tran PAGA Complaint”) in the same Alameda Superior Court against Instawork alleging wage and hour Violations, commencing the Tran PAGA Action. Takvoryan Decl., 1] 7. The Tran PAGA Action alleges Violation 0f the following wage and hour laws: (1) PAGA Civil Penalties for Violations of Labor Code §§ 226.8 for Willful Misclassification; (2) PAGA Civil Penalties for Violations 0fLabor Code §§ 1194, 1197.1, and the Applicable Wage Order for Failure to Pay A11 Minimum Wages; (3) PAGA Civil Penalties for Violations 0f Labor Code §§ 510, 1194, 1198 and the Applicable Wage Order for Failure to Pay A11 Overtime Wages; (4) PAGA Civil Penalties for Violations of Labor Code §§ 204, 210 and the Applicable Wage Order for Failure to Pay A11 Wages; (5) PAGA Civil Penalties for Violations of Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512, and the Applicable Wage Order for Failure to Provide Timely and Compliant Meal Periods; 4 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (6) PAGA Civil Penalties for Violations 0f Labor Code § 226.7, and the Applicable Wage Order for Failure t0 Provide Timely and Compliant Rest Periods; (7) PAGA Civil Penalties for Violations 0fLabor Code §§ 246 et seq. for Failure to Provide Sick Pay; (8) PAGA Civil Penalties for Violations 0f Labor Code §§ 221 (Unlawful Deduction of Wages); (9) PAGA Civil Penalties for Violations of Labor Code §§ 226(a), 226.3 and the Applicable Wage Order for Failure t0 Provide Accurate and Itemized Wage Statements; (10) PAGA Civil Penalties for Violations 0f Labor Code §§ 201-203 for Failure t0 Timely Pay A11 Wages Due t0 Terminated/Separated Employees; and (11) PAGA Civil Penalties for Violations 0f Labor Code §§ 2802 and the Applicable Wage Order for Failure t0 Reimburse A11 Reasonable and Necessary Business Expenses. Takvoryan Decl., 11 8. A Demurrer to the Tran PAGA Complaint was filed by defendant, Instawork, 0n November 2, 2020. Thereafter, 0n or about November 9, 2020, Tran filed a First Amended Complaint for the Recovery 0f Civil Penalties. Takvoryan Decl., fl 9, Exh. C. The parties were unable t0 come t0 a resolution at a mediation held 0n March 9, 2021 With the Hon. Michael Latin (Ret.). The parties participated in a second mediation with mediator Mark Rudy 0n July 22, 2021 but were again unable t0 come to a resolution. Takvoryan Decl., fl 10. The Tran PAGA Action is pending before the Alameda Superior Court, with a Case Management Conference scheduled for September 17, 2021. Takvoryan Decl., 1] 11. C. The Basu-Kesselman PAGA Action On September 3, 2020, Ishan Basu-Kesselman (“Basu-Kesselman”) filed a Representative Action Complaint in San Francisco Superior Court “0n behalf 0f the people of the State of California and as an ‘aggrieved employee’ acting as a private attorney general under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004, § 2699, et seq. (“PAGA”) only, ...” against Instawork alleging wage and hour Violations and thereby commencing the Basu-Kesselman PAGA Action. Takvoryan Decl., 1] 12. Basu-Kesselman is seeking “Civil Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code § 2699, et seq, for Violations 0f Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204 et seq., 210, 226(a), 226.7, 351, 510, 512, 558(a)(1)(2), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2892, California Code 0f Regulations, Title 8, Section 11040, Subdivision 5(A)-(B), and the applicable Wage Order(s).” Takvoryan Decl., fl 13, Exh. D. 5 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A Demurrer To Abate, Or, In The Alternative, Motion For Stay (the “Basu-Kesselman Demurrer”) was filed by defendant, Instawork, 0n November 30, 2020. The Basu-Kesselman Demurrer is brought pursuant t0 California Code 0f Civil Procedure section 430.10(c) 0n the ground that the Basu-Kesselman PAGA Action is “between the same parties 0n the same causes of action as the previously-filed and pending actions [the Tran Class Action and the Tran PAGA Action] .” Takvoryan Decl., 1] 14, Exh. E. On December 21, 2020, the parties in the Basu-Kesselman PAGA Action entered into a joint stipulation t0: (1) continue the hearing on the Basu-Kesselman Demurrer, (2) stay formal discovery pending mediation, and (3) extend plaintiff” s five-year statute of limitations (the “Basu- Kesselman Stipulation”). Takvoryan Decl., fl 15. On December 29, 2020, an order was entered 0n the Basu-Kesselman Stipulation continuing the hearing on the Basu-Kesselman Demurrer to July 26, 2021, and staying formal discovery pending mediation. Id. On August 9, 202 1 , the Court entered the Order Granting Defendant Instawork’s Demurrer to Abate, or, In The Alternative, Motion for Stay. Takvoryan Decl., 1] 16, EXh. F. The Court found that a stay is appropriate as it “Will prevent duplicative discovery and conflicting rulings. A stay Will also conserve judicial resources.” See Takvoryan Decl., EXh. F, p3, lines 20-21. The Demurrer Order specifically provides that “[i]f the actions are coordinated, of course, the coordination court may lift the stay.” See Takvoryan Decl., Exh. F, p.3, lines 14-15. A Case Management Conference is set in the Basu-Kesselman PAGA Action for September 15, 2021. Takvoryan Decl., 1] 17. D. The Llamas PAGA Action On February 5, 2021, Daniel Llamas (“Llamas”) filed his Complaint for Civil Penalties (Lab. Code §§ 2698 et seq.) in the San Francisco Superior Court commencing the Llamas PAGA Action. Llamas alleges, “0n behalf 0f himself, all other aggrieved employees, the State 0f California, and the general public” that defendants “Advantage Workforce Services, LLC, a California corporation” (“Advantage”) and Instawork: (1) failed to provide Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees With meal periods; (2) failed t0 provide them with rest periods; (3) failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods; (4) failed t0 properly record their meal and rest breaks; (5) failed t0 provide them With accurate written wage statements; (6) failed 6 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 t0 reimburse them for necessary business expenditures incurred; and (7) failed t0 pay them all of their final wages following separation 0f employment. Takvoryan Decl., 11 18, EXh. G. On April 15, 2021, plaintiff in the Llamas PAGA Action filed a Notice 0f Submission of Petition for Coordination and Request to Stay Cases, requesting assignment 0f a judge t0 determine whether it is appropriate to coordinate the Llamas PAGA Action, the Basu-Kesselman PAGA Action, the Tran Class Action, and the Tran PAGA Action (the “Llamas Petition for Coordination”). Takvoryan Decl., 11 19, EXh. H. On April 15, 2021, plaintiff in the Llamas PAGA Action filed a Notice of Submission 0f the Llamas Petition for Coordination in the Basu-Kesselman PAGA Action, in the Tran Class Action, and in the Tran PAGA Action. Takvoryan Decl., fl 20. On April 29, 2021, A Demurrer T0 Abate, Or, In The Alternative, Motion For Stay (the “Llamas Demurrer”) was filed by defendants in the Llamas PAGA Action, Instawork and Advantage Workforce, on April 29, 2021. The Llamas Demurrer is brought pursuant to California Code 0f Civil Procedure section 430. 1 O(c) on the ground that the Llamas PAGA Action is “between the same parties on the same causes 0f action as the previously-filed and pending actions [the Tran Class Action; the Tran PAGA Action; and the Basu-Kesselman PAGA Action] .” Takvoryan Decl., fl 21, EXh. I. The Llamas Demurrer is scheduled t0 be heard on August 27, 2021. Takvoryan Decl., fl 21. A Case Management Conference is set in the Llamas PAGA Action for October 6, 2021. Takvoryan Decl., 1] 22. E. The Daniels Class Action On April 5, 2021, Plaintiff-Petitioner filed her Class Action Complaint for Damages in the Santa Clara Superior Court commencing the Daniels Class Action. Takvoryan Decl., fl 23. The Daniels Class Action seeks recovery for the following: (1) Violation of California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198 (Unpaid Overtime); (2) Violation of California Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512(a) (Unpaid Meal Period Premiums); (3) Violation 0f California Labor Code § 226.7 (Unpaid Rest Period Premiums); (4) Violation 0f California Labor Code §§ 1194, 1197, and 1197.1 (Unpaid Minimum Wages); (5) Violation 0f California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202 (Final Wages Not Timely Paid); (6) Violation of California Labor Code § 204 (Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment); (7) Violation 0f California Labor Code § 226(a) (Non-Compliant Wage 7 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Statements); (8) Violation of California Labor Code § 1174(d) (Failure To Keep Requisite Payroll Records); (9) Violation of California Labor Code §§ 2800 and 2802 (Unreimbursed Business Expenses); (10) Violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. Takvoryan Decl., 1] 24, Exh. J. An Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline was entered on April 6, 2021. Takvoryan Decl., 1] 25, Exh. K. A Case Management Conference is set in the Daniels Class Action for November 10, 2021. Takvoryan Decl., 1] 26. F. The Daniels PAGA Action On June 25, 2021, Plaintiff-Petitioner filed her Complaint for Enforcement Under The Private Attorneys General Act, California Labor Code § 2698, et seq. in the Santa Clara Superior Court commencing the Daniels PAGA Action. Takvoryan Decl., 11 27. The Daniels PAGA Action seeks civil penalties pursuant t0 California Labor Code sections 2699(a), (f) and (g), costs/expenses, and attorneys’ fees for Violation 0f California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 226(a), 226.7, 510, 512(a), 1174(d), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2800 and 2802. Takvoryan Decl., 1] 28, Exh. L. An Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline was entered on June 28, 2021. Takvoryan Decl., fl 29, Exh. M. An Order and Notice of Reassignment of Case was entered on July 2, 2021, deeming the Daniels PAGA Action to be related to the Daniels Class Action, and ordering the reassignment of the Daniels PAGA Action t0 Department 3, the Honorable Patricia M. Lucas presiding (where the Daniels Class Action is pending). Takvoryan Decl., fl 30, Exh. N. A Case Management Conference is set in the Daniels PAGA Action for November 10, 2021. Takvoryan Decl., 11 31. III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE INCLUDED ACTIONS Plaintiff-Petitioner, PlaintiffLlamas, PlaintiffBasu-Kesselman, and PlaintiffTran all seek, inter alia, unpaid wages, penalties, interest, and fees from Defendant Instawork. Plaintiff- Petitioner, PlaintiffLlamas, PlaintiffBasu-Kesselman, and Plaintiff Tran are all former employees 0f Defendant and the putative class Which they seek t0 represent consist of all current and former non-exempt employees 0f Defendant in California and are nearly identical t0 each other. As the included Actions stand today, Plaintiff-Petitioner, PlaintiffLlamas, Plaintiff Basu-Kesselman, and 8 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Tran all allege, inter alia, that they were not paid all wages due for all hours worked, denied meal and rest periods, not reimbursed for business expenses, not furnished accurate itemized wage statements, and not paid all wages due upon separation and during employment. The claims asserted in the included Actions are nearly identical, as such, it is likely that class certification discovery, merits-related pre-trial discovery, and remedies-related discovery will involve significant overlap. IV. COORDINATION OF THE INCLUDED ACTIONS IS PROPER AND WILL PROMOTE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE Coordination promotes “judicial efficiency and economy by providing for the unified management 0f both pretrial and trial phases 0f the coordinated cases.” Citicorp North Am, Inc. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Ca1.App.3d 563, 565. A party may petition the Chair 0fthe Judicial Council for coordination. Code CiV. Proc. § 404. When the petition is made by all 0f the plaintiffs in one of the included actions, as is the case here, it may be submitted Without obtaining the permission 0f the presiding judge in that included action. Id. Coordination is proper when two requirements are met: (1) the actions are “complex” as defined by the Judicial Council, and (2) the actions meet the coordination criteria set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 404.1. Id. Under section 404.1, the Court is to consider Whether coordination promotes the ends ofjustice, “taking into account Whether common questions 0f fact or law predominate and are significant to the litigation; the convenience 0f the parties, witnesses, and counsel; the relative development 0f the actions and the work product of counsel; the calendar of the courts; the disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, 0r judgments; and the likelihood 0f settlement 0f the actions without further litigation should coordination be denied.” A. All of the included Actions Have Either Been Designated as Complex 0r Are Provisionally Deemed Complex and Should be Deemed Complex. California Rules of Court 3.400 defines a “complex case” as an “action that requires exceptional judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the court or the litigants and t0 expedite the case, keep costs reasonable, and promote effective decision making by the 9 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 court, the parties, and counsel.” Moreover, Rule 3.400, subsection (c)(6) provides that an action is provisionally a complex case if it involves class action claims. Here, the Santa Clara Superior Court designated the Daniels Class Action as complex on April 6, 2021. Takvoryan Decl., 11 25, EXh. K. The Santa Clara Superior Court also designated the Daniels PAGA Action as complex 0n June 28, 2021. Takvoryan Decl., 1] 29, Exh. M. The Alameda County Superior Court has also deemed the Tran Class Action as complex 0n August 25, 2020. Takvoryan Decl., 11 5, EXh. B. Similarly, the Basu-Kesselman PAGA Action, the Tran PAGA Action, and the Llamas PAGA Action, should be deemed a “complex case” just like the Daniels PAGA Action, because they Will also likely involve numerous pre-trial motions raising novel and time-consuming legal issues, management 0f a large number 0f Witnesses and substantial documentary evidence, and substantial post-judgment judicial supervision. Accordingly, the first requirement for coordination is met. B. The Actions Meet the Standards for Coordination. California Code 0f Civil Procedure section 404.1 sets forth the following criteria for coordination: Coordination 0f civil actions sharing a common question 0f fact or law is appropriate if one judge hearing all of the actions for all purposes in a selected site 0r sites will promote the ends ofjustice taking into account Whether the common question 0f fact 0r law is predominating and significant t0 the litigation; the convenience of the parties, Witnesses, and counsel; the relative development of the actions and the work product 0f counsel; the calendar of the courts; the disadvantages 0f duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments; and, the likelihood 0f settlement 0f the actions Without further litigation should coordination be denied. A court must weigh and balance all 0f these factors When considering a petition for coordination. Pesses v. Superior Court (1980) 107 Cal. App. 3d 117, 125-26. Here, all 0fthe factors are present. i. The Actions Involve the Same Questions ofLaw and Fact. The included Actions involve an overlapping putative class. Further, all the Actions allege nearly identical causes 0f action stemming from the same allegations that Defendant violated California wage-and-hour laws. Specifically, Plaintiff-Petitioner, PlaintiffLlamas, PlaintiffBasu- Kesselman, and Plaintiff Tran all allege, inter alia, that Defendant failed t0 pay minimum and overtime wages, failed to provide meal and rest breaks and associated premiums, failed t0 timely pay wages during employment and at termination, failed t0 provide accurate wage statements, 10 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 failed to keep accurate payroll records, and failed t0 reimburse business expenses, and thereby engaged in unfair business practices under California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq. and conduct giving rise to civil penalties recoverable under the Private Attorneys General Act. As such, Plaintiff-Petitioner, Plaintiff Llamas, Plaintiff Basu-Kesselman, and Plaintiff Tran will likely be requesting the same discovery and documents, and Defendant will be producing identical responses and documents, regarding its employment and operations policies, practices, and practices in connection with employment 0f non-exempt employees in California in each of the included Actions. Further, any resolution in any of the included Actions (by way 0f contested trial or stipulated settlement) Will likely cover the putative class in the other included Actions. ii. Coordination Will Promote the Efficient Use ofJudicial Resources and Will Advance the Convenience offhe Parties, Witnesses, and Counsel. The convenience 0f the parties, Witnesses, and counsel Will be served by the coordination of class certification, merits, and remedies-related discovery. In particular, the coordination of the depositions 0f Witnesses (including, but not limited t0, Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable designees), will save an enormous amount 0f expense and will avoid duplicative proceedings. Additionally, Plaintiff-Petitioner anticipates the production 0f thousands 0f pages 0f documents and data, including, but not limited to, contact information of the putative class members, documents relating to Defendant’s employment and operations policies, practices, and procedures, and time and wage data for the putative class. The coordination of discovery will prevent the parties in the included Actions from duplicating efforts in requesting, producing, and reviewing any such documents. Further, the fact that the Actions are pending in different counties, and that the various plaintiffs in the different Actions are citizens 0f different counties, is not a barrier to coordination and assignment of the Alameda County Superior Court as the site 0f the coordinated proceedings. In McGham Medical Corp, v. Superior Court (1992) 11 Cal.App.th 804, 813-814, the Court 0f Appeal rejected the notion that transfer should be denied where travel may cause undue burden as long as the benefits 0f transfer and coordination are significant. Judicial facilities and resources will be more efficiently utilized ifthe cases are coordinated 11 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 because there will be a single judge in a single courtroom hearing the crucial discovery, certification, and pre-trial motions anticipated in the included actions. Coordination will also obviate the risk of inconsistent rulings and avoid the necessity for multiple petitions for appellate review. Finally, all of the included Actions are in the early stages of litigation. As such, coordinating the Actions now before additional discovery and motions have taken place will greatly aid in efficiency. iii. Coordination is Proper. As the included Actions are still in the very early stages of litigation, n0 party Will suffer any prejudice by coordination. In fact, the parties will save significant resources through coordination, and the parties’ efficiency Will be increased With regards t0 discovery and pre-trial motions such as a motion for class certification. iv. Coordination Will Help Relieve the Burden offhe Calendars 0fthe Courts. Coordination Will help relieve that burden 0n the judicial system by avoiding separate proceedings and adjudication lawsuits involving overlapping wage-and-hour allegations, same employer, and same putative class 0f employees. Coordination Will also promote efficient calendaring among and between the courts and Will eliminate the potential for court proceedings in the included Actions in different courts 0n the same days or dates. v. Refusal t0 Coordinate May Result in Duplicative and Inconsistent Rulings. The courts will also benefit from coordination of the included actions, as this will reduce backlog, calendar congestion, and permit one court to rule on complex issues impacting putative class members and class action claims, rather than two different courts issuing potentially conflicting rulings 0n the same 0r similar issues. Moreover, a single trial court should resolve motions with orders and rulings that Will be subject t0 review in one Court of Appeal. Indeed, the California Court 0f Appeal advocates for coordination as a means 0f achieving consistency in judicial rulings, as “The rulings on. . .motions should be uniform. If possible, trial rulings should be accomplished in a manner permitting uniform and centralized resolution 0f appeal. This sort 0f treatment can be achieved by coordination of motion practice.” McGham, 11 Ca1.App.4th at 814. Coordination 0f the included Actions will achieve this end. /// /// 12 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 vi. Settlement Shall Become More Complicated 1f the Court Does Not Coordinate the Included Actions. Coordination is appropriate because, without coordination, discussions regarding how to most efficiently adjudicate and/or resolve the claims at issue will be less productive. Generally, the motivating factors for resolving cases are the elimination 0f further litigation, avoidance of the risk of an adverse judgment at trial, and the avoidance of additional litigation costs. If the cases are not coordinated, resolution 0f one action may not end the litigation as to the other, leaving Defendant and the remaining action with continued risk 0f adverse judgments and substantial litigation costs. V. THE INCLUDED ACTIONS SHOULD BE COORDINATED IN THE ALAMEDA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Should this petition be granted, the Alameda County Superior Court should be selected as the site for the coordinated proceedings. The Alameda County Superior Court has already deemed the Tran Class Action as complex and has given it a “complex case/class action case designation” in order t0 more efficiently manage the action. Takvoryan Decl., fl 5, Exh. B. The Alameda County Superior Court is also well-experienced and equipped to manage complex, class actions such as those at issue here. VI. ISSUING A STAY OF THE INCLUDED ACTIONS PENDING DETERMINATION OF THIS PETITION WILL PROMOTE THE OBJECTIVES OF COORDINATION Plaintiff-Petitioner also moves to stay the included Actions while the Court decides whether these Actions should be coordinated and, if so, where the site of the coordinated proceedings should be. The requested stay is expressly authorized by California Code 0f Civil Procedure section 404.5 and California Rule 0f Court 3.515, and is appropriate t0 effectuate the purposes 0f coordination, including the efficient utilization of judicial facilities and manpower, the avoidance 0f inconsistent rulings and orders, and the convenience 0f the parties and counsel. Code CiV. Proc. § 404. 1. 13 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY \OWQO‘thN 10 11 12 l3 l4 15 l6 l7 l8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The coordination rules provide for interim and automatic stays in order to avoid piecemeal discovery and motion practice, and multiple response deadlines in separate cases. A stay would preserve the status quo and, if the cases are coordinated, allow the coordination trial judge to efi'lcicntly manage these cases in their entirety as the rules contemplate. VII. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff-Petitioner respectfully requests that all six ofthe included Actions be stayed pending resolution of the petition for coordination, that a coordination motion judge be assigned to determine whether the Daniels Class Action, the Daniels PAGA Action, the Llamas PAGA Action, the Basu-Kesselman PAGA Action, the Tran Class Action, and the Tran PAGA Action should be coordinated, that the Alameda County Superior Court be assigned as the site of the hearing of the petition for coordination, and that the Alameda County Superior Court be assigned as the site ofthe coordinated proceedings. Dated: August l6, 2021 LAWYERSfor JUSTICE, PC By:m IW Ovsanna Worym Attorneysfor Plaintiff-Petitioner I4 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES [N SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY \OOOQ@LA#WNh-I NNNNNNNN wummgw~_8$;:aazas:s Edwin Aiwazian (SBN 232943) Arby Aiwazian (SBN 269827) Ovsanna Takvoryan (SBN 21 7435) LAWYERSfor JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91203 Tel: (818) 265-1020 /Fax: (818) 265-1021 RECEIVED Judlclal Council of Callfomla AUG l 7 2021 f.) Ooordln Lawya- Attomeysfor Plaintifi-Petitioner Deangelo Daniels JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA DEANGELO DANIELS, individually, and on behalf of other members ofthe general public similarly situated; Plaintiff, vs. GARUDA LABS, INC. DBA INSTAWORK, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive; Defendants. DEANGELO DANIELS, individually, and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act; Plaintifi', vs. GARUDA LABS, INC. DBA INSTAWORK, an unknown business entity; and DOES l through 100, inclusive; Defendants. DANIEL LLAMAS, on behalf of himself and all other aggrieved employees; Plaintiff, VS. Judicial C:oun?rgg No.: DECLARATION OF OVSANNA TAKVOROYAN IN SUPPORT 0F PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY (CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 404) Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara, Case No. 21CV379147 Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara, Case No. 21CV383683 Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-21-589650 Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-20-586542 Superior Court of California for the County ofAlameda, Case No. R620061241 Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda, Case No. R620067292 DECLARATION OF OVSANNA TAKVOROYAN IN SUPPORT 0F PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ADVANTAGE WORKFORCE SERVICES, LLC, a California corporation; INSTAWORK, a business entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive; Defendants. ISHAN BASU-KESSELMAN, on behalf of the State 0f California, as a private attorney general; Plaintiff, vs. GARUDA LABS, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive; Defendants. TAI TRAN, individually and on behalf 0f all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, vs. GARUDA LABS, INC., DBA INSTAWORK; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive; Defendants. TAI TRAN, 0n behalf of himself and all other aggrieved employees ; Plaintiff, vs. GARUDA LABS, INC., DBA INSTAWORK; and DOES 1-10, inclusive; Defendants. 1 DECLARATION OF OVSANNA TAKVOROYAN IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF OVSANNA TAKVORYAN I, Ovsanna Takvoryan, hereby declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney licensed t0 practice law in the State of California. I am an attorney with Lawyers for Justice, PC, attorneys of record for Plaintiff Deangelo Daniels (“Petitioner- Plaintiff’) in two ofthe included actions, namely, the Daniels Class Action and the Daniels PAGA Action. This declaration is made in support of Petitioner-Plaintiff’ s Petition for Coordination and Motion for Stay. The facts set forth in this declaration are within my personal knowledge 0r based 0n information and belief, and if called as a Witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. REQUIRED INFORMATION REGARDING INCLUDED ACTIONS 2. Information regarding the actions which Plaintiff-Petitioner seeks to have coordinated, including the complete title 0f each action, the title of the court, the case number, the names 0f all parties, and the name and address 0f all attorneys 0f record for all parties, is as follows: a. Daniels Class Action i. Case Title: DEANGELO DANIELS, individually, and 0n behalf 0f other members 0f the general public Similarly Situated; Plaintiffl vs. GARUDA LABS, INC. DBA INSTA WORK, an unknown business entity; and DOES I through 100, inclusive; Defendants ii. w: Superior Court of the State 0f California, County 0f Santa Clara iii. Case Number: 2 1CV379 147 iV. Name of Parties: 1. Plaintiff(s): Deangelo Daniels 2. Defendant(s): Garuda Labs, Inc. dba Instawork V. Names and Addresses 0f Attorneys: 1. Attorneys for Plaintiff Deangelo Daniels: Edwin Aiwazian (CA State Bar N0. 232943), Arby Aiwazian (CA State Bar No. 269827), Joanna Ghosh (CA State Bar N0. 272479), LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC, 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203, Glendale, 2 DECLARATION OF OVSANNA TAKVOROYAN IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 California 91203, Telephone: (818) 265-1020, Fax: (818) 265-1021 2. Attorneys for Defendant Garuda Labs, Inc. dba Instawork: a. Andrew M. Spurchise (CA State Bar N0. 245998), LITTLER MENDELSON P.C., 900 3rd Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10022-3298, Telephone: (212) 583-9600, Fax: (212) 832-2719 b. Elisa Nadeau (CA State Bar No. 199000), Linda Nguyen Bollinger (CA State Bar N0. 289515), LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., 50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor, San Jose, CA 951 13-2431, Telephone: (408) 998-4150, Fax: (408) 288-5686 b. Daniels PAGA Action i. Case Title: DEANGELO DANIELS, individually, and 0n behalf 0f other aggrieved employees pursuant t0 the California Private Attorneys General Act; Plaintifif vs. GARUDA LABS, INC. DBA INSTA WORK, an unknown business entity; andDOES I through 100, inclusive; Defendants ii. w: Superior Court of the State of California, County 0f Santa Clara iii. Case Number: 21CV383683 iV. Name 0f Parties: 1. Plaintiff(s): Deangelo Daniels 2. Defendant(s): Garuda Labs, Inc. dba Instawork V. Names and Addresses 0f Attorneys: 1. Attorneys for Plaintiff Deangelo Daniels: Edwin Aiwazian (CA State Bar No. 232943), Arby Aiwazian (CA State Bar N0. 269827), Joanna Ghosh (CA State Bar N0. 272479), LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC, 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203, Glendale, California 91203, Telephone: (818) 265-1020, Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 3 DECLARATION OF OVSANNA TAKVOROYAN IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 c. Llamas PAGA Action i. ii. iii. iV. 2. Attorneys for Defendant Garuda Labs, Inc. dba Instawork: a. Andrew M. Spurchise (CA State Bar N0. 245998), LITTLER MENDELSON P.C., 900 3rd Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10022-3298, Telephone: (212) 583-9600, Fax: (212) 832-2719 . Elisa Nadeau (CA State Bar No. 199000), Linda Nguyen Bollinger (CA State Bar No. 289515), LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., 50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor, San Jose, CA 95113-2431, Telephone: (408) 998-4150, Facsimile: (408) 288-5686 Case Title: DANIEL LLAMAS, 0n behalfofhimselfand all other aggrieved employees; Plaintiflf vs. ADVANTAGE WORKFORCE SER VICES, LLC, a California corporation; INSTA WORK, a business entity ofunknown form; andDOES 1 through 50, inclusive; Defendants Court: Superior Court of the State 0f California, County 0f San Francisco Case Number: CGC-2 1 -589650 Name of Parties: 1. Plaintiff(s): Daniel Llamas 2. Defendant(s): Advantage Workforce Services, LLC and Instawork Names and Addresses 0f Attorneys: 1. Attorneys for Plaintiff Daniel Llamas: Shaun Setareh (CA State Bar N0. 2045 14), David Keledjian (CA State Bar No. 309135), ETAREH LAW GROUP, 9665 Wilshire B1Vd., Suite 430, Beverly Hills, California 90212, Telephone (3 10) 888-7771, Facsimile (3 10) 888-0 1 09 Attorneys for Defendants Advantage Workforce Services, LLC and Instawork: 4 DECLARATION OF OVSANNA TAKVOROYAN IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a. Andrew M. Spurchise (CA State Bar N0. 245998), LITTLER MENDELSON P.C., 900 3rd Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10022-3298, Telephone: (212) 583-9600, Fax: (212) 832-2719 Elisa Nadeau (CA State Bar N0. 199000), Linda Nguyen Bollinger (CA State Bar N0. 289515), LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., 50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor, San Jose, CA 95113-2431, Telephone: (408) 998-4150, Fax: (408) 288-5686 d. Basu-Kesselman PAGA Action i. ii. iii. iV. Case Title: ISHAN BASU-KESSELMAN, 0n behalf 0f the State 0f California, as a private attorney general; Plaintiffi vs. GARUDA LABS, INC, a corporation; andDOES I through 50, inclusive; Defendants Court: Superior Court of the State of California, County 0f San Francisco Case Number: CGC-20-586542 Name 0f Parties: 1. Plaintiff(s): Ishan Basu-Kesselman 2. Defendant(s): Garuda Labs, Inc. Names and Addresses 0f Attorneys: 1. Attorneys for Plaintiff Ishan Basu-Kesselman: Norman B. Blumenthal (CA State Bar N0. 068687), Kyle R. Nordrehaug (CA State Bar No. 205975), Aparajit Bhowmik (CA State Bar No. 248066), Nicholas J. De Blouw (CA State Bar N0. 280922), BLUMENTHALNORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP, 2255 Calle Clara, La Jolla, CA 92037, Telephone: (858) 551-1223, Facsimile: (858) 551- 1232 2. Attorneys for Defendant Garuda Labs, Inc.: a. Andrew M. Spurchise (CA State Bar N0. 245998), 5 DECLARATION OF OVSANNA TAKVOROYAN IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C., 900 3rd Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10022-3298, Telephone: (212) 583-9600, Fax: (212) 832-2719 . Elisa Nadeau (CA State Bar No. 199000), Linda Nguyen Bollinger (CA State Bar N0. 289515), LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., 50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor, San Jose, CA 95113-2431, Telephone: (408) 998-4150, Fax: (408) 288-5686 Tai Tran Class Action i. ii. iii. iV. Case Title: TAI TRAN, individually and 0n behalf 0f all others Similarly situated; Plaintifif vs. GARUDA LABS, INC, DBA INSTA WORK; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive; Defendants Court: Superior Court of the State 0f California, County 0f Alameda Case Number: RG2006 1241 Name of Parties: 1. Plaintiff(s): Tai Tran 2. Defendant(s): Garuda Labs, Inc. dba Instawork Names and Addresses 0f Attorneys: 1. Attorneys for Plaintiff Tai Tran: a. Jonathan M. Lebe (CA State Bar N0. 284605), Zachary Gershman (CA State Bar N0. 328004), LEBE LAW, APLC, 777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90021, Telephone: (213) 358-7046 . Isam Khoury (CA State Bar N0. 58759), Michael D. Singer (CA State Bar N0. 115301), Kristina Alicia De La Rosa (CA State Bar No. 279821), COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER, 605 C Street, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92101, Telephone: (619) 595-3001, Facsimile: (619) 595-3000 6 DECLARATION OF OVSANNA TAKVOROYAN IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. Attorneys for Defendant Garuda Labs, Inc. dba Instawork: a. Andrew M. Spurchise (CA State Bar N0. 245998), LITTLER MENDELSON P.C., 900 3rd Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10022-3298, Telephone: (212) 583-9600, Fax: (212) 832-2719 b. Elisa Nadeau (CA State Bar No. 199000), Linda Nguyen Bollinger (CA State Bar No. 289515), LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., 50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor, San Jose, CA 95113-2431, Telephone: (408) 998-4150, Fax: (408) 288-5686 f. Tai Tran PAGA Action i. ii. iii. iV. Case Title: TAI TRAN, 0n behalf 0f himself and all other aggrieved employees; Plaintiflf vs. GARUDA LABS, INC, DBA INSTA WORK; and DOES I through 10, inclusive; Defendants w: Superior Court of the State 0f California, County of Alameda Case Number: RG20067292 Name 0f Parties: 1. Plaintiff(s): Tai Tran 2. Defendant(s): Garuda Labs, Inc. dba Instawork Names and Addresses of Attorneys: 1. Attorneys for Plaintiff Tai Tran: a. Jonathan M. Lebe (CA State Bar N0. 284605), Zachary Gershman (CA State Bar No. 328004), LEBE LAW, APLC, 777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90021, Telephone: (213) 358-7046 b. Isam Khoury (CA State Bar N0. 58759), Michael D. Singer (CA State Bar N0. 115301), Kristina Alicia De La Rosa (CA State Bar N0. 279821), COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER, 7 DECLARATION OF OVSANNA TAKVOROYAN IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 605 C Street, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92101, Telephone: (619) 595-3001, Facsimile: (619) 595-3000 2. Attorneys for Defendant Garuda Labs, Inc. dba Instawork: a. Andrew M. Spurchise (CA State Bar N0. 245998), LITTLER MENDELSON P.C., 900 3rd Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10022-3298, Telephone: (212) 583-9600, Fax: (212) 832-2719 b. Elisa Nadeau (CA State Bar N0. 199000), Linda Nguyen Bollinger (CA State Bar N0. 289515), LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., 50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor, San Jose, CA 951 13-2431, Telephone: (408) 998-4150, Fax: (408) 288-5686 THE TRAN CLASSACTION 3. On May 11, 2020, Tai Tran (“Tran”) filed his putative class action complaint in the Alameda Superior Court against Instawork asserting wage and hour claims against Instawork and thereby commenced the Tran Class Action. 4. The Tran Class Action seeks recovery for the following alleged Labor Code Violations: (1) Failure t0 Pay Minimum Wages (Cal. Labor Code §§ 1182. 12, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1199, and the IWC Wage Order); (2) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages (Cal. Labor Code §§ 510, 1194, 1198, and the IWC Wage Order); (3) Failure t0 Timely Pay A11 Earned Wages (Cal. Labor Code §§ 204, 210 and the IWC Wage Order); (4) Failure to Provide Meal Periods (Cal. Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512, and the IWC Wage Order); (5) Failure to Provide Rest Breaks (Cal. Labor Code § 226.7 and the IWC Wage Order); (6) Failure t0 Pay Wages Upon Separation of Employment and Within the Required Time (Cal. Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, and the IWC Wage Orders); (7) Failure t0 Furnish Accurate and Itemized Wage Statements (Cal. Labor Code § 226, and the IWC Wage Order); (8) Failure t0 Reimburse A11 Business Expenses (Cal. Labor Code § 2802, and the IWC Wage Order); and (9) Violation of California Business Professions 8 DECLARATION OF OVSANNA TAKVOROYAN IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Code § 17200, et seq. A true and correct copy 0f Plaintiff Tran’s complaint initiating the Tran Class Action is attached hereto as “Exhibit A”. 5. An Order Deeming Case Complex was entered 0n August 25, 2020. (the “Order Deeming Tran Class Action Complex”). A true and correct copy of the Order Deeming Tran Class Action Complex is attached hereto as “Exhibit B”. 6. On December 10, 2020, the Alameda Superior Court granted in part Instawork’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case. A Case Management Conference is set in the Tran Class Action for September 28, 2021. THE TRANPAGA ACTION 7. On July 9, 2020, Tran filed his Compliant for Recovery 0f Civil Penalties Pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) (the “Tran PAGA Complaint”) in the same Alameda Superior Court against Instawork alleging wage and hour Violations, commencing the Tran PAGA Action. 8. The Tran PAGA Action alleges Violation of the following wage and hour laws: (1) PAGA Civil Penalties for Violations of Labor Code §§ 226.8 for Willful Misclassification; (2) PAGA Civil Penalties for Violations 0f Labor Code §§ 1194, 1197.1, and the Applicable Wage Order for Failure t0 Pay A11 Minimum Wages; (3) PAGA Civil Penalties for Violations of Labor Code §§ 510, 1194, 1198 and the Applicable Wage Order for Failure t0 Pay A11 Overtime Wages; (4) PAGA Civil Penalties for Violations 0f Labor Code §§ 204, 210 and the Applicable Wage Order for Failure to Pay A11 Wages; (5) PAGA Civil Penalties for Violations 0f Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512, and the Applicable Wage Order for Failure t0 Provide Timely and Compliant Meal Periods; (6) PAGA Civil Penalties for Violations ofLabor Code § 226.7, and the Applicable Wage Order for Failure t0 Provide Timely and Compliant Rest Periods; (7) PAGA Civil Penalties for Violations 0fLabor Code §§ 246 et seq. for Failure t0 Provide Sick Pay; (8) PAGA Civil Penalties for Violations 0f Labor Code §§ 221 (Unlawful Deduction of Wages); (9) PAGA Civil Penalties for Violations of Labor Code §§ 226(a), 226.3 and the Applicable Wage Order for Failure to Provide Accurate and Itemized Wage Statements; (10) PAGA Civil Penalties for Violations of Labor Code §§ 201-203 for Failure t0 Timely Pay A11 Wages Due to Terminated/Separated 9 DECLARATION OF OVSANNA TAKVOROYAN IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Employees; and (11) PAGA Civil Penalties for Violations 0f Labor Code §§ 2802 and the Applicable Wage Order for Failure t0 Reimburse A11 Reasonable and Necessary Business Expenses. 9. A Demurrer to the Tran PAGA Complaint was filed by defendant, Instawork, on November 2, 2020. Thereafter, on 0r about November 9, 2020, Tran filed a First Amended Complaint for the Recovery 0f Civil Penalties (the “Operative Complaint”). A true and correct copy of Plaintiff Tran’s Operative Complaint in the Tran PAGA Action is attached hereto as “Exhibit C”. 10. Based 0n a status report filed in the case, the parties were unable t0 come t0 a resolution at a mediation held 0n March 9, 2021 with the Hon. Michael Latin (Ret). Based 0n a status report filed in the case, the parties participated in a second mediation With mediator Mark Rudy on July 22, 2021 but were again unable to come t0 a resolution. 1 1. The Tran PAGA Action is pending before the Alameda Superior Court, with a Case Management Conference scheduled for September 17, 2021. THE BASU-KESSELMANPAGA ACTION 12. On September 3, 2020, Ishan Basu-Kesselman (“Basu-Kesselman”) filed a Representative Action Complaint in San Francisco Superior Court “0n behalf of the people 0f the State 0f California and as an ‘aggrieved employee’ acting as a private attorney general under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act 0f 2004, § 2699, et seq. only, ...” against Garuda Labs, Inc. alleging wage and hour Violations and thereby commencing the Basu-Kesselman PAGA Action. 13. Basu-Kesselman is seeking “Civil Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code § 2699, et seq, for Violations of Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204 et seq., 210, 226(a), 226.7, 351, 510, 512, 558(a)(1)(2), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2892, California Code 0f Regulations, Title 8, Section 11040, Subdivision 5(A)-(B), and the applicable Wage Order(s).” A true and correct copy of Plaintiff Basu-Kesselman’s complaint initiating the Basu-Kesselman PAGA Action is attached hereto as “Exhibit D”. 10 DECLARATION OF OVSANNA TAKVOROYAN IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14. A Demurrer To Abate, Or, In The Alternative, Motion For Stay (the “Basu- Kesselman Demurrer”) was filed by defendant, Garuda Labs, 1110., on November 30, 2020. The Basu-Kesselman Demurrer was brought pursuant t0 California Code 0f Civil Procedure section 430.10(c) 0n the ground that the Basu-Kesselman PAGA Action is “between the same parties 0n the same causes 0f action as the previously-filed and pending actions [the Tran Class Action and the Tran PAGA Action] ... .” A true and correct copy 0f the Basu-Kesselman Demurrer is attached hereto as “Exhibit E”. 15. On December 21, 2020, the parties in the Basu-Kesselman PAGA Action entered into a joint stipulation to: (1) continue the hearing on the Basu-Kesselman Demurrer, (2) stay formal discovery pending mediation, and (3) extend plaintiff” s five-year statute of limitations (the “Basu-Kesselman Stipulation”). On December 29, 2020, an order was entered 0n the Basu- Kesselman Stipulation continuing the hearing on the Basu-Kesselman Demurrer t0 July 26, 2021, and staying formal discovery pending mediation. 16. On August 9, 2021, the Court entered the Order Granting Defendant Garuda Labs, Inc. ’s Demurrer t0 Abate, 0r, In The Alternative, Motion for Stay (the “Demurrer Order”). A true and correct copy 0f the Demurrer Order is attached hereto as “Exhibit F”. The Court found that a stay is appropriate as it “Will prevent duplicative discovery and conflicting rulings. A stay Will also conserve judicial resources.” See Exhibit F, p.3, lines 20-21. The Demurrer Order specifically provides that “[i]f the actions are coordinated, of course, the coordination court may lift the stay.” See Exhibit F, p.3, lines 14-15. 17. A Case Management Conference is set in the Basu-Kesselman PAGA Action for September 15, 2021. THE LLAMAS PAGA ACTION 18. On February 5, 2021, Daniel Llamas (“Llamas”) filed his Complaint for Civil Penalties (Lab. Code §§ 2698 et seq.) in the San Francisco Superior Court commencing the Llamas PAGA Action. Llamas alleges, “on behalf of himself, all other aggrieved employees, the State of California, and the general public” that defendants “Advantage Workforce Services, LLC, a California corporation” (“Advantage”) and Instawork: (1) failed to provide Plaintiff and all other 11 DECLARATION OF OVSANNA TAKVOROYAN IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 aggrieved employees with meal periods; (2) failed t0 provide them with rest periods; (3) failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods; (4) failed t0 properly record their meal and rest breaks; (5) failed t0 provide them With accurate written wage statements; (6) failed t0 reimburse them for necessary business expenditures incurred; and (7) failed t0 pay them all of their final wages following separation 0f employment (the “Llamas Complaint”). A true and correct copy of the Llamas Complaint is attached hereto as “Exhibit G”. 19. On April 15, 2021, plaintiff in the Llamas PAGA Action filed a Notice of Submission of Petition for Coordination and Request t0 Stay Cases, requesting assignment 0f a judge to determine whether it is appropriate t0 coordinate the Llamas PAGA Action, the Basu- Kesselman PAGA Action, the Tran Class Action, and the Tran PAGA Action (the “Notice 0f Llamas Petition for Coordination”). A true and correct copy of the Notice 0f Llamas Petition for Coordination is attached hereto as “Exhibit H”. 20. On April 15, 2021, plaintiff in the Llamas PAGA Action filed a Notice of Submission 0f the Llamas Petition for Coordination in the Basu-Kesselman PAGA Action, in the Tran Class Action, and in the Tran PAGA Action. 21. On April 29, 2021, A Demurrer To Abate, Or, In The Alternative, Motion For Stay (the “Llamas Demurrer”) was filed by defendants in the Llamas PAGA Action, Instawork and Advantage Workforce, 0n April 29, 2021. The Llamas Demurrer is brought pursuant to California Code 0f Civil Procedure section 430. 1 O(c) on the ground that the Llamas PAGA Action is “between the same parties on the same causes 0f action as the previously-filed and pending actions [the Tran Class Action; the Tran PAGA Action; and the Basu-Kesselman PAGA Action] .” A true and correct copy ofthe Llamas Demurrer is attached hereto as “Exhibit I”. The hearing on the Llamas Demurrer has been continued from time to time and is currently scheduled t0 be heard 0n August 27, 202 1. 22. A Case Management Conference is set in the Llamas PAGA Action for October 6, 202 1 . /// /// 12 DECLARATION OF OVSANNA TAKVOROYAN IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THE DANIELS CLASSACTION 23. On April 5, 2021, Plaintiff-Petitioner filed her Class Action Complaint for Damages in the Santa Clara Superior Court commencing the Daniels Class Action. 24. The Daniels Class Action seeks recovery for the following: (1) Violation of California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198 (Unpaid Overtime); (2) Violation of California Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512(a) (Unpaid Meal Period Premiums); (3) Violation 0f California Labor Code § 226.7 (Unpaid Rest Period Premiums); (4) Violation 0f California Labor Code §§ 1194, 1197, and 1197.1 (Unpaid Minimum Wages); (5) Violation of California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202 (Final Wages Not Timely Paid); (6) Violation of California Labor Code § 204 (Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment); (7) Violation of California Labor Code § 226(a) (Non- Compliant Wage Statements); (8) Violation of California Labor Code § 1174(d) (Failure To Keep Requisite Payroll Records); (9) Violation 0f California Labor Code §§ 2800 and 2802 (Unreimbursed Business Expenses); (10) Violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. (the “Daniels Class Action Complaint”). A true and correct copy 0f the Daniels Class Action Complaint is attached hereto as “Exhibit J”. 25. An Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline was entered on April 6, 2021 (the “Order Deeming Daniels Class Action Complex”). A true and correct copy of the Order Deeming Daniels Class Action Complex is attached hereto as “Exhibit K”. 26. A Case Management Conference was set in the Daniels Class Action for November 10, 2021. THE DANIELS PAGA ACTION 27. On June 25, 2021, Plaintiff-Petitioner filed her Complaint for Enforcement Under The Private Attorneys General Act, California Labor Code § 2698, et seq. in the Santa Clara Superior Court commencing the Daniels PAGA Action. 28. The Daniels PAGA Action seeks civil penalties pursuant to California Labor Code sections 2699(a), (f) and (g), costs/expenses, and attorneys’ fees for Violation Of California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 226(a), 226.7, 510, 512(a), 1174(d), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 13 DECLARATION OF OVSANNA TAKVOROYAN IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY OOOQQM§WN~ NNNNNNNNN~--~H~H-~_ WQQMkWN-OWWQaM-hWN-o 2800 and 2802. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff-Petitioner’s complaint initiating the Daniels PAGA Action is attached hereto as “Exhibit L”. 29. An Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline was entered on June 28, 2021. (the “Order Deeming Daniels PAGA Action Complex”). A true and correct copy of the Order Deeming Daniels PAGA Action Complex is attached hereto as “Exhibit M”. 30. An Order and Notice of Reassignment of Case was entered on July 2, 2021 , deeming the Daniels PAGA Action to be related to the Daniels Class Action, and ordering the reassignment of the Daniels PAGA Action to Department 3, the Honorable Patricia M. Lucas presiding (where the Daniels Class Action is pending) (the “Daniels Reassignment Order”). A true and correct copy ofthe Daniels Reassignment Order is attached hereto as “Exhibit N”. 3 1. A Case Management Conference was set in the Daniels PAGA Action for November 10, 2021. 32. I am not aware ofany other pending class action sharing a common question of fact or law with the included Actions. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true correct. Executed this 16‘“ day ofAugust 2021, at Glendale, California. ®anna Takvoryan l4 DECLARATION 0F OVSANNA TAKVOROYAN IN SUPPORT 0F PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY EXHIBIT A FAXED 22 23 24 LEBE LAW, APLC Jonathan M. Lebe (SBN 284605) jon@lebelaw.com Zachary Gershman (SBN. 328004) zacha1y@lebelaw.com 777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 9002l Telephone: (213) 358-7046 COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER lsam Khouny (SBN 58759) ikhoury@ckslaw.com Michael D. Singer (SBN ll530l) msinger@ckslaw.com Kristina Alicia De La Rosa (SBN 27982l) kdelarosa@cks|aw.com “ 605 C Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92l0| Telephone: (619) 595-3001 Facsimile: (619) 595-3000 Attorneys for PlaintiffTai Tran, . H||HH|||IllllHllfllliNlmI‘llllfilllllllllll22708433 ‘ FILED ALAMEDA COUNTY MAYll CLERK OF TH ‘ 'I " Individually and 0n behalfofall others similarly situated SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA CaseNo. RGZOO612€51 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR: TAI TRAN, individually and on behalf‘of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, VS. GARUDA LABS. INC. DBA INSTAWORK; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants. l. Failure to Pay Minimum Wages. (Cal. Labor Code §§ ll82.12, |I94, ll94.2, H97, I I99, and the IWC Wage Order); Failure to Pay Overtime Wages (Cal. Labor Code §§ 510, H94, ||98, and the IWC Wage Order); Failure to Timely Pay All Earned Wages (Cal. Labor Code §§ 204, 2 l O and the IWC Wage Order); Failure to Provide Meal Periods (Cal. Labor Code §§ 226.7: 512: and the IWC Wage Order): Failure to Provide Rest Breaks (Cal. Labor Code § 226.7, and the IWC Wage Order.); Failure t0 Pay Wages Upon Separation of Employment and Within the Required Time (Cal. Labor Code § 20], 202. 203 and lhe IWC Wage Order); CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT I 7. Failure to Furnish Accurate and Itemized Wage Statements (Cal. Labor Code § 226, and the IWC Wage Order): 8. Failure Io Reimburse All Business Expenses (Cal. Labor Code § 2802, and the IWC Wage Order); and 9. Violation ofCalifornia Business Professions Code § l7200, et seq. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff Tai Tran (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleges as follows: NATURE OF ACTION AND INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT l. Plaintiff is an individual who worked as a temporary worker for Defendant Garuda Labs, Inc. dba Instawork (“Defendant Instawork”), and Does l through 10. inclusive ("Defendants"). He brings this action to recover lost wages; reimbursement of expenses. and other relief from Defendants: willful decision t0 misclassify him as an independent contractor. 2. Defendants are in the business 0f providing temporaly workers to businesses and restaurants throughout California. 3. Through this action, Plaintiffis alleging that Defendants have engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code ("Labor Code”), all 0f which contribute t0 Defendants’ deliberate unfair competition. 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges. during the relevant time period, Defendants had a consistent policy ofviolating state wage and hour laws by, among other things: (a) Misclassifying Plaintiff and other restaurant workers as independent contractors; (b) Failing t0 pay all wages for all hours worked, including minimum and overtime wages; (c) Failing to timely pay all wages earned by Plaintiff and other restaurant workers; 2 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (d) Failing to authorize or permit rest breaks or provide compensation in lieu thereof; (e) Failing to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; (f) Willfully failing Io provide accurate semi-monthly itemized wage statements; (g) Failing to pay all wages due upon separation ofemployment; and (h) Failing to reimburse all business expenses incurred by restaurant workers in direct consequence ofthe discharge ofhis or her duties. 5. Plaintiffbrings this lawsuit seeking monetary relief against Defendants 0n behalfof himselfand all others similarly lo recover. among other things. unpaid wages and benefits: interest, attorney’s fees, costs and expenses and penalties pursuant to Labor Code §§ 201-204, 210, 226, 226.7, 5l0, 5|2, ll82.|2. ll94, ll94.2. |l97._| I98, 2800, and 2802. 6. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all class members, pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections 17200: el seq, also seeks injunctive relief and restitution for the unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent practices alleged in this Complaint. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. The monetary damages and restitution sought by Plaintiff exceeds the minimal jurisdictional limits ofthe Superior Court and will be established according to proof at trial. 8. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant t0 the California Constitution, Article Vl,§ IO, which grants the Superior Court originaljurisdiction in all cases except those given by statutes to other courts. The statutes under which this action is brought do not specify any other basis forjurisdiction. 9. This Court hasjurisdiction over all Defendants because, upon information and belief, Defendants have sufficient minimum contacts in Califomia or othelwise intentionally avail themselves of the California market so as lo render the exercise ofjurisdiction over them by the California courts consistent with traditional notions offair play and substantial justice. l0. Venue is proper in this Coun because, upon information and belief, Plaintiff worked for Defendants in this county; Defendants transact business in this county, and acts and omissions alleged herein took place in this county. 3 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT [\J La) O O THE PARTIES I l. Plaintiffis a citizen ofCaIifornia. Plaintiffworked for Defendant from approximately October of20 | 9 to November of2019. Details regarding Plaintiff‘s precise hours, pay, and revenue generated for Defendant are available by reference to Defendant’s records. 12. Defendants were and are, upon information and belief, a Delaware corporation doing business throughout the State ofCalifornia, and at all times hereinafter mentioned. an employer as defined in and subject to the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Orders. whose employees are and were engaged throughout this county and the State 0f Culii'bmia. l3. The _true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise; ofthe Defendants sued herein as Does l t0 l0, inclusive, are currently unknown to Plaintiff. who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names under California Code of Civil Procedure y §474. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each of the Defendants designated herein as a Doe is legally responsible in some manner for the unlawful acts referred to herein. Plaintiff will seek leave 0f court t0 amend this Complaint to reflect the true names and capacities ofthe Defendants designated hereinafter as DOES when such identities become known. l4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each Defendant acted in all respects pertinent t0 this action as the agent ofthe other Defendants, carried out a joint scheme, business plan or policy in all respects pertinent hereto, and the acts of each Defendants are legally attributable to the other Defendants. Furthermore, Defendants in all respects acted as the employers and/orjoint employers ofP|aintiffand the class members. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS I5. Plaintiff brings this action under Code ofCivil Procedure § 382 on behalfofhimself and all other members of the general public similarly situated who were affected by Defendanls’ , Labor Code, Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 and IWC Wage Order violations. l6. All claims alleged herein arise under California law for which Plaintiff seeks relief authorized by California law. l7. Plaintiff‘s proposed Class consists ofand is defined as Follows: 4 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Class All individuals who performed work for Defendants in the Slate of California who were classified as independent contractors from April 6: 20l6 to the date the class is certified.‘ 18. Plaintiffalso seeks to certify the following Subclass: Waiting Time Subclass All members of the Class who separated their working relationship from Defendants within three years prior to April 6, 2020, pursuant t0 Cal. Rules 0f Court, Appendix l, Emergency Rule N0. 9. l0 Ihe dale the Subclass is certified. l9. Members ofthe Class and Subclass described above will collectively be referred t0 as “class members.” Plaintiffreserves the right to establish other or additional subclasses: or modify " any Class or Subclass definition, as appropriate based 0n investigation. discovery and specific ‘ theories ofliability. 20. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action under the California Code ofCivil Procedure § 382 because there are common questions oflaw and fact as to the Class that predominate over questions affecting only individual members including, but not limited to: a. Whether Defendants miscla'ssified .Plaintiffand class members as independent contractors rather than non-exempt employees; b. Whether Defendants failed to pay at least minimum wage for all hours worked by Plaintiff and class members; c. Whether Defendants failed to pay ovenime wages earned by Plaintiff and class members; ' The statute oflimitations for this matter was tolled pursuant to Cal. Rules ofCourt, Appendix l, I Emergency Rule No. 9. 5 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT ascertainable. (IQ m. Whether Defendants failed to timely pay all wages earned by Plaintiff and class members; Whether Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffand class members with meal periods; Whether Defendants deprived Plaintiffand class members of paid rest breaks or required Plaintiff and class members t0 work through rest breaks without compensation; Whether Defendants failed t0 timely pay Plaintiff and class members all earned wages during their employment; Whether Defendants failed to timely pay Plaintiff and fcl)rmer class members all wages due upon termination or within 72 hours of resignation; Whether Defendants failed to furnish Plaintiff and class members with accurate itemized wage statements; Whether Defendants required Plaintiffand class members to use their personal cellular devices t0 for work-related purposes, without paying a reasonable percentage oftheir cell phone bills; Whether Defendants required Plaintiffand class members t0 use their personal automobiles 0r other forms of transportation and then failed t0 adequately reimburse Plaintiff and class members for gas mileage and wear and tear on the car Or other transportation costs; Whether Defendants’ conduct was willful or reckless; and Whether Defendants engaged in unfair business practices in violation of Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, e! seq. There is a welI-defined community ofinterest in the litigation and [he Class is readiiy (a) Numerositx: The members 0f Ihe Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. Although the members ofthe Class are unknown to Plaintiff at this time, 0n information and belief. the Class is estimated t0 be 6 ' CLAss ACTION COMPLAINT (b) (C) (d) (e) greater than l00 individuals. The identities ofthe class members are readily ascertainable by inspection oFDefendants‘ employment and payroll records. Typicalitv: The claims (or defenses, if any) of Plaintiff are typical of the claims (or defenses, if‘any) ofthe Class because Defendants’ failure t0 comply with the provisions of California wage and hour laws entitled each class member t0 similar pay, benefits and other relief. The injuries sustained by Plaintiff are also typical ofthe injuries sustained by [he Class because they arise out 0f and are caused by Defendants’ common course of conduct as alleged herein. Adeguacx: Plaintiff is qualified to and will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests ofall members 0fthe Class because it is in his best interests to prosecute the claims alleged herein to obtain full compensation and penalties due him and the Class. Plaintiff's attorneys, as proposed class counsel, are competent and experienced in litigating large employment class actions and are versed in the rules governing class action discovery, cenification and settlement. Plaintiff has incurred and, throughout the duration of [his action, will continue to incur attorneys’ fees and costs that have been and will be necessarily expended for the prosecution ofthis action for the substantial benefit of each class member. Superiority: The nature of this action makes the use of class action adjudication superior to other methods. A class action will achieve economies oftime, effort and expense as compared with separate lawsuits, and will avoid inconsistent outcomes because the same issues can be adjudicated in the same manner and at the same time for each Class. Ifappropriate this Court can, and is empowered to, fashion methods t0 efficiently manage this case as a class and/or collective action. Public Policy Considerations: Employers in the Stale of California and other states violate employment and labor laws every day. Current employees are 7 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT often afraid t0 assert their rights out of fear of direct or indirect retaliation. Former employees are fearful of bringing actions because they believe their former employers might damage their future endeavors through negative references and/or other means. Class actions provide the class members who are not named in the complaint with a type of anonymity that allows for the vindication of their rights at the same time as affording them privacy protections. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS A. PlaintiffSatisfies the Legal Test for Emplovcc Status 22. Defendant lnstawork is a mobile phone application-based staffing company for restaurants that has been in use in California since 20I5. 23. Defendants' business. Defendants are a staffing company providing restaurants and other businesses with temporary workers (“lnstawork workers”) using Defendants’ mobile phone application (the "Instawork App"). 24. The Instawork workers work for the business for a set shift and records his or her hours worked using the Instawork App. 25. Defendants receives information from the restaurants it staffs regarding jobs for lnstawork workers and, using on this information, Defendants set the hourly rate to be paid t0 the lnstawork workers for thosejobs via the Instawork App. 26. The work that Defendants’ workers perform is the usual course 0f Defendants’ business - indeed, providing workers to its clients as a staffing company is Defendants’ business. 27. The lnstawork workers, including Plaintiffl provide [he service which Defendants sell to businesses throughout California. 28. Defendants earn money by providing its business customers with Instawork workers and receiving a booking fee for each shift which is worked by an lnstawork worker, a service that is wholly dependent 0n lnstawork workers, like Plaintiff. 29. Defendants are not merely a platform or uninterested bystander between lnstawork workers and the businesses to which it sells services too. Rather, Defendants perform background 8 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT checks 0n its Instawork workers before allowing them to connect with businesses, and Defendants handle the billing and facilitation oflaxes 0f Inslawork workers. Defendants are a staffing industry for restaurants and other similar businesses. 30. Defendants can also terminate lnstawork workers right to provide temporary work t0 companies for violating one or more ofthe rules which Instawork imposes by contract, or with no cause at all. 3 l. lnstawork workers lack business autonomy. lnstawork workers are each not engaged in an independentIy-established business. They cannot provide temporary services to businesses without the Inslawork App; lnslawork \xrorkcrs are dependent 0n Defendants to identify businesses for them to work at, and they do not need to possess any particular or special skills other than those required t0 work, for exampIe, as a server, bartender, cook, or general laborer. 32. By working for Defendants. lnstawork workers have not independently made the decision Io go into business for themselves. Instead; Defendants have unilaterally determined that Plaintiff and lnstawork workers are independent contractors while precluding them from taking the usual steps towardslpromoting and establishing an independent business, 33. Defendants also prohibit Plaintiff and lnstawork workers from setting their rates of pay for their own services, and instead, Plaintiff and Instawork workers agree to a set payment for a service to a business through the lnstawork App, presented to them by Defendants. 34. Defendants are responsible for paying Plaintiff and Instawork workers based on the rate of pay which is set for each job that an lnstawork worker completes, and the number of hours which an lnstawork worker records into the Instawork App. 35. Defendants also provide lnstawork workers with Occupational Accident Insurance while they work for Defendants by deducting $0.38 dollars an hour from their wages t0 pay for this insurance. 36. Defendants control the terms ofemployment. Defendants maintain uniform policies and terms of service which all lnstawork workers, including Plaintiff, must comply with. Once Plaintiff passed Defendants’ initial background checks, he was able to work for Defendants for an 9 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT indefinite period oftime. However, Defendants could shut down Plaintiff‘s access to the Instawork " App For any reason. thus preventing him from obtaining and responding t0 work requests. 37. Plaintiff and lnstawork workers perform work for Defendants by logging into the lnstawork App and acceptingjob requests from businesses which Defendants work with which are visible to all lnstawork App users, which benefits Defendants. 38. Plaintiff and Instawork worker's hours worked are recorded by the lnstawork App, and the time spent on the lnstawork App is not their own, but rather time spent working. B. Defendant Instawork’s Misclassification of Plaintiff and Instawork Workers Violatcs Their Rights Under California Law 39. Plaintiff performed services for Defendants as a {restaurant worker during the relevant time period. During the relevant time period, Plaintiff was classified by Defendants as an independent contractor. 40. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times mentioned herein, Defendants were advised by skilled lawyers, employees and other professionals who were knowledgeable about California wage and hour law, employment and personnel practices and the requirements ofCalifornia. 41. Through this action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have engaged in a systematic pattern ofWage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and [WC Wage Orders, all of which contribute to Defendants’ deliberate unfair competition. 42. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew 0r should have known that Plaintiff and class members were entitled to receive wages for all time worked (including minimum and overtime wages) and that they were not receiving all wages earned for work that was required t0 be performed. In violation ofthe Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, Plaintiff and class members were not paid wages (including minimum and overtime wages) for all ' hours worked when Defendants failed to pay or underpaid Plaintiffand class members for all hours I_ worked: and failed lo pay for time spent in rest breaks, among other things. 43. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or ‘ r? should have known that Plaintiff and class m'embers were entitled to receive all rest breaks or i IO CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT payment ofone (l) additional hour of pay at Plaintiffand class members’ regular rate ofpay when a rest break was missed, and were entitled to payment of wages for lime spent when rest breaks were taken. ln violation 0fthe Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, Plaintiff and class members did not receive paid rest breaks 0r payment ofone (l) additional hour of pay at Plaintif'fand class members’ regular rate of pay when a rest break was missed. 44. Plaintiffs is informed and believes, and thereon alleges. that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and class members were entitled to receive all meal periods or payment ofone (l) additional h0ur ofpay at Plaintiff’s and class members’ regular rate of pay when they did not receive a timely, uninterrupted meal period. ln violation ol‘lhe Labor Code and IWC ‘ Wage Orders, Plaintiff and class members did not receive all meal periods or payment of one (l) additional hour ofpay at Plaintiff’s and class members’ regular rate ofpay when they did not receive a timely, uninterrupted meal period. 45. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew 0r should have known that Plaintiffand class members were entitled to timely payment ofwages during their employment. In violation ofthe California Labor Code, Plaintiffand class members did not receive payment ofall wages within permissible time periods. 46. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew 0r should have known that Plaintiff and Wai‘ting Time class members were entitled to timely payment 0f wages upon separation of employment. In violation ofthe California Labor Code, Plaintiff and Waiting Time class members did not receive payment of all wages including, but not limited to, unpaid wages within permissible time periods. 47. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and class members were entitled t0 receive complete and accurate wage statements in accordance with California law. In violation of the California Labor Code: Plaintiffand class members were not furnished with complete and accurate wage statements showing their total hours worked, number ofhours worked at each hourly rate and gross and net wages. among other things. I I CLASS ACTION COMPLA INT 48. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew 0r should have known that Plaintiffand class members were entitled t0 reimbursement for necessary . expenditures incurred in connection with the performance and execution 0f their job duties. In violation of the California Labor Code, Plaintiff and class members did not receive adequate reimbursement for necessary business expenses, including but not limited to reimbursement for use oftheir personal cell phones and personal autdmobiles 0r other transportation expenses. 49. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times mentioned herein, Defendants knew or should have known that it had a duty to compensate Plaintiffand class members, and that Defendants had the financial ability 10 pay such compensation but willfully. ' knowingly and intentionally failed to do so, all in order to increase Defendants’ profits. 50. Therefore, Plaintiff brings this lawsuit seeking monetary and injunctive reliefagainst Defendants on behalfofhimselfand all class members t0 recover: among other things, unpaid wages, interest, attorneys’ fees, penalties; reimbursements. costs and expenses. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES (Violation ofLabor Code §§ 1182.12, 1194, 1194.2, and 1197; Violation 0f IWC Wage Order) 5|. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein. 52. Labor Code §§ H94 and H97 provide that the minimum wage for employees fixed by the IWC is the minimum wage to be paid Io employees, and the payment ofa lesser wage than the minimum so fixed is unlawful. 53. During the relevant time period: failed to pay Plaintiff and class members all minimum wages owed when Defendants did not pay for all hours worked, such as for compensable travel time incurred when Plaintiffand class members traveled from one workplace to another in the same day, among other reasons. Plaintiffand class members were not being paid at least minimum wage for their work. 54. During the relevant time period, Defendants regularly failed t0 pay at least minimum 3 wage t0 Plaintiffand class members for all hours worked pursuant (0 Labor Code §§ I I94 and I I97. l7 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT s I g 55. Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffand class members the minimum wage as required ‘ violates Labor Code §§ 1194 and H97. Pursuant to these sections, Plaintiff and class members are I entitled to recover the unpaid balance oftheir minimum wage compensation as well as interest, costs and attorney’s fees. 56. Pursuant to Labor C0de§ 1194.2, Plaintiffand class members are entitled lo recover liquidated damages in an amount equal to the wages unlawfully unpaid and interest thereon. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES (Violation of Labor Code §§ 510, 1194, and 1198; Violation OfIWC Wage Order) 57. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein. 58. Labor Code § ll98 and the applicable IWC Wage Order provide that it is unlawful to employ persons without compensating them at a rate 0f pay either one and one-half (I '/z) or two (2) times the person’s regular rate of pay, depending on the number of hours or days worked by the person on a daily or weekly basis. 59. Specifically, the applicable [WC Wage Orders provide that Defendants are and were required to pay overtime compensation to Plaintiffand Class Members at the rate ofone and one-halftimes (l V2) their regular rate of pay when working and for all hours worked in excess 0f eight (8) hours in a day or more than forty (40) hours in a workweek and for the first eight (8) hours ofwork on the seventh day of work in a workweek. 60. The applicable [WC Wage Orders further provide that Defendants are and were required lo pay overtime compensation to Plaintiffand Class Members at a rate oftwo times their regular rate of pay when working and for all hours worked in excess oftwelve (l2) hours in a day or in excess ofeighl (8) hours on the seventh day ofwork in a workweek. 6 l. California Labor Code § 5 l 0 codifies the right t0 overtime compensation at one and 0ne-half( I V2) times the regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess ofeight (8) hours in a day or forty (40) hours in a week and for the first eight (8) hours worked on Ihe seventh consecutive 28 i; day ofwork. and overtime compensation at twice the regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess l3 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT oftwelve (l2) hours in a day or in excess ofeight (8) hours in a day 0n the seventh day ofwork in a workweek. 62. Labor Code § 5 l 0 and the applicable IWC Wage Orders provide (hat employment of more than six days in a workweek is only permissible if the employer pays proper ovenime compensation as set forth herein. 63. Plaintiffand Class Members were non-exempt employees entitled to the protections ofCalifornia Labor Code §§ 5 I 0 and 1194. 64. During the relevant time period; Defendants failed t0 pay Plaintiff and Class Members overtime wages l'br all overtime hours workéd when Plaintiff and Class Members worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a day, forty (40) hours in a week and/or for a seventh V consecutive day of work in a workweek, or when Plaintiff and Class Members worked in excess oftwelve (l2) hours in a day and/or in excess ofeight (8) hours on the seventh day of work in a work week. 65. In violation of state law, Defendants knowingly and willfully refused to perform their obligations and compensate Plaintiff and Class Members for all wages earned and all hours worked. 66. Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and Class Members the unpaid balance of overtime and double time compensation, as required by California law, violates the provisions of Labor Code §§ 510 and H98, and is therefore unlawful. 67. Pursuant to Labor Code§ l I94, Plaintiffand Class Members are entitled to recover their unpaid overtime and double time compensation as well as interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY ALL EARNED WAGES (Violation 0f Labor Code §§ 204 and 210; Violation of IWC Wage Order) 68. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as though fully set fonh herein. 69. Labor Code § 204 provides that all wages earned by an employee are due and payable twice during each calendar month. l4 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 70. Defendants failed t0 timely pay Class Members all Oftheir earned wages as required by Labor Code Section 204. 7]. Class Members have been deprived 0ftheir rightfully earned wages as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ failure to pay said compensation. Class Members are entitled t0 recover such amounts: plus interest thereon, attorney’s fees and costs. 72. In addition, Class Members are entitled to penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 210 as follows: (l) for Defendants’ initial violation, $100 for each failure to pay each Class Member; and (2) for each 0f Defendants” subsequent violations, or any willful or intentional violation, $200 for " each failure 10 pay each Class Member, plus 25 percent ofthe amount unlawfully held. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIODS (Violation 0f Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512; Violation ofIWC Wage Order) 73. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein. 74. Labor Code § 226.7 provides that no employer shall require an employee to work during any meal period mandated by the IWC Wage Orders. 75. Section l l ofthe applicabl: IWC Wage Order states, “[n]o employer shall employ any person for a work period ofmore than five (5) hours without a meal period ofnot less than 30 minutes, except that when a work period 0f not more than six (6) hours will complete the day’s work the meal period may be waived by mutual consent ofthe employer and the employee.” 76. Labor Code § 5l2(a) provides that an employer may not require, cause, or permit an employee to work for a period 0f more than five (5) hours per day without providing the employee with an uninterrupted meal period of not less than thirty (30) minutes, except that ifthe total work period per day oflhe employee is not more than six (6) hours, the meal period may be waived by mutual consent ofboth the employer and the employee. 77. Labor Code § 512(3) also provides that an employer may not employ an employee for a work period ofmore than ten (10) hours per day without providing the employee with a second meal period 0f not less than thirty (30) minutes. except that ifthe total hours worked is no more l5 CLASS ACTION COMPLAlNT DJ \IQ than twelve (I2) hours, the second meal period may be waived by mutual consent ofthe employer and the employee only iflhe first meal period was not waived. 78. During the relevant time period, Plaintiff and Class Members did not receive compliant meal periods for working more than five (5) and/or ten (IO) hours per day because their meal periods were missed, late, short, interrupted, and/or they were not permitted to take a second meal period. 79. Labor Code § 226.7(b) and section ll 0fthe applicable IWC Wage Order requires an employer to pay an employee one (l) additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday that a compliant meal period is not provided. 80. At all relevant times, Defendants failed t0 pay Plaintiff and Class Members meal period premiums for missed, late, short, and/or interrupted meal periods pursuant to Labor Code § I 226.7(b) and section l I ofthe applicable IWC Wage Order. é 8 l. As a result of Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and Class Members an additional hour of pay for each day a compliant meal period was not provided, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered and continue t0 suffer a loss ofwages and compensation. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE T0 PROVIDE REST BREAKS (Violation 0f Labor Code § 226.7; Violation ofIWC Wage Order) 82. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein. 83. Labor Code § 226.7(a) provides that no employer shall require an employee to work during any rest period mandated by the IWC Wage Orders. 84. Section l2 ofthe applicable IWC Wage Order states “every employer shall authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods, which insofar as practicable shall be in the middle of i each work period” and the “authorized rest period time shall be based on the total hours worked daily I at the rate often (IO) minutes net rest time per four (4) hours 0r major fraction thereof" unless the = I | total daily work time is less than three and one-half(3'/2) hours. i i l 6 f CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 22 23 24 85. Labor Code 226.7(d) provides that a rest period mandated by state law or IWC Wage Order “shall be counted as hours worked: for which there shall be no deduction from wages.” 86. During the relevant time period, Plaintiffand class members did not receive a ten (10) minute net rest period for every four (4) hours or major fraction thereof worked because they were required to work through their daily rest periods and/or were not authorized to take their rest periods. 87. Labor Code § 226.7(b) and section l2 ofthe applicable IWC Wage Order requires an employer t0 pay an employee one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday that the rest period is not provided. 88. At all relevant times, Defendants failed 10 pay PIaimil't‘und class members the full ‘ rest period premium for missed or interrupted rest periods pursuant Io Labor Code § 226.7(b) and section 12 ofthe applicable IWC Wage Order. 89. As a result of Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and class members an additional hour 0f pay for each day a rest period was not provided, Plainlil’fand class members suffered and continue to suffer a loss ofwages and compensation. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PAY WAGES UPON SEPARATION OF EMPLOYMENT AND WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME (Violations 0f Labor Code §§ 20], 202, 203 and 210; Violation of IWC Wage Order) 90. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference the previous paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein. 9|. California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202 provide that if an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the time ofdischarge are due and payable immediately, and that ifan employee voluntarily leaves his or her employment, his or her wages shall become due and payable not later than seventy-two (72) hours thereafter, unless the employee has given seventy- two (72) hours previous notice ofhis or her intention to quit: in which case the employee is entitled t0 his 0r her wages at the time ofquitting. 92. During the relevant time period, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and Waiting Time Subclass Members all their earned wages upon termination including. but not limited l7 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT to, minimum wages, either at the time ofdischarge 0r within seventy-two (72) hours oftheir leaving Defendants’ employ. 93. Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and Waiting Time Subclass Members all their ‘ earned wages at the time or discharge or within seventy-two (72) hours oftheir leaving Defendants’ employ, is in violation OfCalifornia Labor Code §§ 20] and 202. 94. California Labor Code § 203 provides that ifan employer willfully fails to pay wages owed promptly upon discharge or resignation as required under California Labor Code l§§ 20] and 202, then the wages ofthe employee shall continue as a penalty from the due date, and at the same ‘ rate until paid or until an action is commenced; buI the wages shall not continue for more than thirty ' (30) days. 95. Defendants willfully failed t0 pay Plaintiff and Waiting Time Subclass Members all I wages due and, as a result, owe Plaintiffand Waiting Time Subclass Members regular daily wages for each day they were not paid, al their regular rates ofpay up to a thirty (30) day maximum pursuant to California Labor Code § 203 all in an amount t0 be shown according to proofat trial. 96. Based 0n these violations, Plaintiff and the Waiting Time Subclass he seeks to represent request relief as described herein and below. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO FURNISH ACCURATE ITEMIZED WAGE STATEMENTS (Violation of Labor C?de § 226; Violation of IWC Wage Order) 97. Plaintiffhereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference the previous paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein. 98. California Labor Code § 226(a) requires employers to furnish their employees with > an accurate itemized writing that shows gross wages earned, total hours worked, all deductions, net wages earned, the inclusive dates of [he period for which [he employee is paid, the name of the employee and the portion 0f his or her social security number as required by law, the name and z address ofthe legal entity that is the employer and all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number ofhours worked at each hourly rate by the employee. I8 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT l 99. In addition, pursuant to Labor Code § 226.2(a)(2), the itemized statements of 2 j employees paid 0n a piece-rate basis shall also state (l) the total hours 0F compensable rest and . 3 recovery periods, the rate of compensation, and the gross wages paid for those periods during the 4 pay period; and (2) the total hours of other nonproductive time, the rate ofcompensation. and the 5 gross wages paid for that time during the pay period. 6 IOO. Defendants have intentionally and willfully failed to provide Plaintiff and class 7 members with complete and accurate wage statements. The deficiencies include. among other things, 8 the failure t0 list the gross wages earned, net wages earned, hours worked, and all applicable hourly 9 V rates in el‘l‘ecl (luring the pay period. IO lOl. As a result of Qefendants’ violation ofCalifornia Labor Code § 226(21): Plaintiffand l l class members have suffered injury and damage t0 their statutorily protected rights. Specifically, l2 Plaintiff and class members have been injured by Defendants’ intentional violation 0f California I3 1‘ Labor Code § 226(a) because they were denied both their legal right to receive. and their protected ‘ l4 interest in receiving, accurate itemized wage statements under California Labor Code § 226(a). In 15 addition, because Defendants failed to provide the accurate rates 0f pay on wage statements, l6 Defendants have prevented Plaintiff and class members from determining ifall hours worked were l7 paid at the appropriate rate and the extent 0fthe underpayment. Plaintiffhas had to file this lawsuit I8 in order t0 analyze whether in fact Plaintiffwas paid correctly and the extent 0fthe underpayment, I9 thereby causing Plaintiffto incur expenses and lost time. Plaintiffwould not have had t0 engage in 20 these efforts and incur these costs had Defendants provided the accurate rate ofpay. This has also 2| delayed Plaintiff’s ability to demand and recover the underpayment ofwages from Defendants. 22 l02. California Labor Code § 226(a) requires an employer Io pay the greater ofall actual 23 damages or fifty dollars ($50.00) for the initial pay period in which a violation occurred, and one 24 hundred dollars ($l00.00) per employee for each violation in subsequent pay periods, plus attorney’s fees and costs t0 each employee who was injured by the employer s failure to comply with Calitox nia25i§ 1 -6i,LLabor Code § 226(a). 9: [IN 7 ‘ |O3. Defendants’ violations of California Labor Code § 226(a) prevented Plaintiff and , . . . . . . I 28y class members from knowmg. understanding and disputing the wages paid t0 them, and resulted In i l. E: l9 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT an unjustified economic enrichment t0 Defendants. As a result 0f Defendants’ knowing and u intentional failure [0 comply with California Labor Code § 226(3). Plaintiffand class members have suffered an injury, the exact amount of damages and/or penalties is all in an amount to be shown according t0 proofat trial. l04. Plaintiff and class members are also entitled to injunctive relief under California Labor Code § 226(g) compelling Defendants to comply with California Labor Code § 226 and seek the recovery 0f attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in obtaining this injunctive relief. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO REIMBURSE ALL BUSINESS EXPENSES (Violation 0f Labor Code §§ 2800, 2802; Violation 0f IWC Wage Order) ' l05. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein. 106. Labor Code § 2800 states that an employer shall in all cases indemnify his employee for losses. l07. Labor Code § 2802 requires employers to indemnify their employees for all necessary expenditures 0r losses incurred by employees in direct consequence ofthe discharge 0f their duties. 108. Section 9 of the applicable IWC Wage Order states that when tools 0r equipment are required by the employer 0r are necessary to [he performance ofajob, such tools and equipment shall be provided and maintained by the employer. 109. During the relevant time period, Defendants required Plaintiffand class members to download an app onto their personal cellular devices in order Io view, accept and processjobs, click in and out ofwork, and t0 view their pay statement, without paying Plaintiffand class members for a reasonable percentage oftheir cell phone bills. I IO. During the relevant time period, Defendants required Plaintiffand class members to ' use their own automobiles or other transponation t0 travel from one worksite t0 another during the same day, without properly compensating them for gas mileage and wear and tear on their vehicles, l or other transportation costs. 20 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Ill. In violation of Labor Code §§ 2800 and 2802, Defendants failed to indemnify Plaintiffand class members for these expenses. I l2. In committing the violations as herein alleged, Defendants have intentionally and willfully failed to fully reimburse Plaintiffand class members for necessary business-related costs and expenses. As a direct result: Plaintiff and class members have suffered and continue to suffer substantial losses relating to the use and enjoyment of such compensation, wages, expenses, and attorney’s fees. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE §§ 17200, ETSEQ. l I3. Plaintiffhereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference the previous paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein. H4. California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, e1 seq, prohibits acts ofunfair competition, which includes any "unlawful. unfair or fraudulent business act or practice . . . ." l l5. A violation 0f California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, e! seq. may be predicated on the violation ofany state or federal law. In the instant case, Defendants’ policies and practices have violated state law causing Plaintiffand class members to suffer and continue to suffer injuries in fact. As alleged herein, Defendants systematically engaged in unlawful conduct in violation of the California Labor Code and lWC Wage Orders, such as failing to pay minimum wages, failing to pay overtime wages, failing to timely pay all earned wages, failing to authorize 0r permit paid rest breaks, failing t0 provide meal periods, failing to pay all wages due and owing upon separation of employment and in a timely manner, failing t0 furnish accurate wage statements, and failing to reimburse business expenses, all in order to decrease their costs 0f doing business and increase their profits. 116. At all times relevant herein, Defendants intentionally avoided paying Plaintiff and class members wages and monies, thereby creating for Defendants an artificially lower cost ofdoing business in order Io undercut their competitors and establish and/or gain a greater foothold in the marketplace. 21 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT |l7. AI the time Plaintiff and class members were hired, Defendants knowingly: intentionally and wrongfully misrepresented to each ofthem [heir conformance with the California I Labor Code and [WC Wage Orders including proper payments required by law. l l8. At all relevant times herein, Defendants held themselves out to Plaintiff and class members as being knowledgeable concerning the labor laws ofCalifornia. ll9. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff and class members relied on and believed Defendants’ representations concerning their conformance with California’s wage and hour laws all 10 their detriment. I20. As a result of' Defendants’ intentional, willful: purposeful and \.\/r0ngl‘ul misrepresentation of their conformance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, Plaintiff and class members suffered a loss 0f wages and monies, all in an amount Io be shown according to proof at trial. By violating the foregoing statutes and regulations as herein alleged: Defendants’ acts constitute unfair and unlawful business practices under California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. I2 l. Defendants’ violations ofthe California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders and their scheme to lower their payroll costs as alleged herein, constitute unlawful business practices because they were done in a systematic manner over a period oftime to the detriment of Plaintiff and class members. 122. As a result ofthe unfair business practices of Defendants, as alleged herein, Plaintiff and class members are entitled to injunctive relief, disgorgement and restitution in an amount Io be shown according to proofat trial. I23. Plaintiff seeks to enforce important rights affecting the public interest within [he meaning ofCalifornia Code ofCivil Procedure§ 102 l .5. Defendants’ conduct. as alleged herein, has been, and continues t0 be, unfair, unlawful and harmful to Plaintiff, class members and to the general public. Based on Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiffand class members are entitled to an award ofattorneys’ fees pursuant to California Code OfCivil Procedure § 102 I .5. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 22 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 22 23 24 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalfofall others similarly situated, prays forjudgment against Defendants as follows: l. For certification 0f the proposed Class and Waiting Time Subclass and any other appropriate subclasses under California Code ofCivil Procedure § 382; 2. For appointment of Tai Tran as the class representative; 3. For appointment 0f Lebe Law, APLC and Cohelan Khoury & Singer as class counsel for all purposes; 4. For general damages; 5. For special damages; 6. For liquidated damages pursuant to California Labor Code § | 194.2; 7. For statutory penalties t0 the extent permitted by law, including those pursuant to the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders; 8. For injunctive relief as provided by the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, e1 seq; 9. For restitution as provided by California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, er seq; IO. For an order requiring Defendants to restore and disgorge all funds to each employee acquired by means of any act 0r practice declared by this Court to be unlawful, unfair or fraudulent and, therefore, constituting unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq; l l. For an award of damages in the amount of unpaid compensation including, but not limited to, unpaid wages, benefits and penalties according l0 proof, including interest thereon; 12. For pre-judgment interest; I3. For reasonable attorney’s fees and costs 0f suit to the extent permitted by law, including pursuant t0 California Code of Civil Procedure § |02|.5 and California Labor Code ' §§ 226(6), l I94 and 2802(c); and /// /// 23 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT l4. For such other reliefas the Court deemsjust and proper. Dated: May 4, 2020 Dated: May 4, 2020 LEBE LAW, APLC By: Jonatfia‘hkm. Lebe Attorney for PlaintiffTai Tran COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER By:*L/flw& -%De-.-_* Michucl l) Attorney for Plaintiff Tai Tran DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plainlifl‘hereby demands ajury trial with respect t0 all issues triable ol’right byjury.~ Dated: May 4, 2020 Dated: May 4, 2020 LEBE LAW, APLC By: W JonathfiJnLK/l. Lebe Attorney for PlaintiffTai Tran COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER Wm MichaEl-D: Zinger Attorney for PlaintiffTai Tran 24 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT EXHIBIT B COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER 605 C Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 9210] FAXE! A OOOONQM 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LEBE LAW, APLC Jonathan M. Lebe (SBN 284605) jon@lebelaw.com Zachary Gershman (SBN 328004) zachary@lebelaw.c0m 777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90021 \ Telephone: (21 3) 358-7046 COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER Isam C. Khoury (SBN 58759) ikhouzy@ckslaw.com Michael D. Singer (SBN 115301) msin ger@cksl aw.c0m Kristina De La Rosa (SBN 279821) kdelm‘osa@ckslaw.com 605 C Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595-3001 Facsimile: (619) 595-3000 Attorneys for Plaintiff Tai Tran, individually and on behalf 0f all others similarly situated SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE. OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA TAI TRAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GARUDA LABS, INC, DBA INSTAWORK; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive Defendants. //I//////I/////////I//I/I;///////////I//}///I//II/ ALAMEQ mum; SEP ; 52020 CLERKOF Cup ,fi By Jgig scum? U L.,‘;m/ Case No. RG2006 1 241 CLASS ACTION NOTICE OF ORDER DEEMING CASE COMPLEX AND INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER Complaint filed: May 11, 2020 Trial date: Not set Notice 0f Order Deeming Case Complex and Initial CMC Order Case No. RG2006] 241 COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER 605 C Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 QUIA N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 25, 2020', the Court deemed this case complex and assigned the matter to Judge Brad Seligman in Department 23 for all pulposes. ‘Attached hereto as Exhibit A are true and con‘ect copies of the August 25, 2020 order and notice of assignment. On August 26, 2020, the Coult issued the Initial Case Management Order in this matter. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a tme and correct copy of the August 26, 2020 order. LEBE LAW, APLC COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER Dated: September 3, 2020 By:____ .__ _ Isam L. Khoury Michael D. Singer Kristina De La Rosa Attomeys for Plaintiff Tai Tran, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated -1- Notice 0f Order Deeming Case Complex and Initial CMC Order Case No. RG20061241 EXHIBIT A Cohelan & Khomy Gamda Labs, Inc Attn: Singer, Michae] D. 605 C Street Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101-5305 Superior Court of California, County of Alameda Rene C. Davidson Alameda County Courthouse Tran N0. RG2006 l 241 1’Iuintifi‘lPetitioner(s) Order VS. Complaint - Other Employment Gm‘uda Labs, Inc Dcfendant/Respondent(s) (Abbreviated Title) The Complex Determination Hearing was set for hearing on 08/25/2020 at 03:00 PM in Department 23 before the Honorable Brad Seligman. The Tentative Ruling was published and has not been contested. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The tentative ruling J's affmned as follows: COMPLEX DETERMINATION The Court designates this case us complex pursuant to Rule 3.400 st seq. of the California Rules of Court. Counsel are advised to be familiar with the Alameda County Local Rules concerning complex litigation, including Rule 3.250 0t seq. An order assigning the case to one of the three complex judges and an initial case management order will be issued. ' COMPLEX CASE FEES Pursuant to Government Code section 70616, any non-exempt party who has appeared in the action but has not paid the complex case fee is required to pay the fee within ten days ofthe filing ofthis order. The complex case fee is $1 ,000 for each plaintiff or group ofplahltiffs appearing together and $1,000 PER PARTY for each defendant, intervenor, respondent or other adverse party, whether filing separately or jointly, up 11) a maximum of $1 8,000 for all adverse parties. All payments must identify on whose behalf the fee is submitted. Please submit payment to the atmntion of the Complex Litigation Clerk located in the Civil Division at the Rene C. Davidson Coulthousc, 1225 Fallon Street, Oakland, CA 946 12. Please make cheCk(s) payable to the Clerk of the Superior Court. Documents may cominue to be filed as allowed under Local Rule 1.9. Note that for those admitted pro has vice, there is also 2m annual fee. (Gov't Code section 7061 7.) PROCEDURES Calendar infonnation, filings, and tentative rulings are available to the public at http://www.alameda.courts.ca.gov/domainweb/. All counsel m’e expected to be familiar and to comply with pertinent provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, the California Rules of Court, 'thc Alameda County Superior Court Local Rules and the procedures outlined on the domain web page of 1116 assigned department. SERVICE OF THIS ORDER Order Counsel for plaintiffls) shall have a continuing obligation to serve a copy of this order on newly joined pmfles defendant not listed on 1116 proof of sewicc of this order and file proof of service. Each patty defendant joining any third party cross-dofendant shall have a continuingduty to serve a copy of this order on newlyjoined cross-dcfendants and to file proof of service. fatslmlb Dated: 03/25/2020 f: 72,7942; Judge Brad Sellgmzm Order Superior‘ Court of California, County of Alameda Rene C. Davidson Alameda County Courthouse Case Number: R62006f241 Order After Hearing Re: of 08/25/2020 DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL I certify thatl am not a party to this cause and that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was mailed first class, postage prepaid, in a sealed envelope, addressed as shown on the foregoing document or on the attached, and that the mailing of the foregoing and execution of this certificate occurred at 1225 Fallon Street, Oakland, California. Executed on 08/27/2020. Chad Finke Executive Officer / Clerk of the Superior Court By Cjénflpa05L d lgltal Deputy Clerk w-vt", ,.. .. F. 7..__f ‘ ‘ .,;'.i‘ I~2"‘-'.-"«‘) .' »;‘.:\ti,l.' v ‘ «V‘ 3 m: m 2020 ' Lie, uni; I! n w H H W." t m,” “A ‘5» 3:9. J‘HU n‘ym‘waflh 7H,w--x:;:- “q Superior Court of Cah’fomia, County ofAlameda Notice ofAssignment of Judge for All Purposes Case NumberzRG20061241 Case Title: Tran VS Garuda Labs, Inc Date of Filing: 05/11/2020 ‘ TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Pursuant to Rule 3.734 of the California Rules of Court and Title 3 Chapter 2 of the Local Rules of the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, this action is hereby assigned by the Presiding Judge for all purposes to: Judge: Brad Seligman ‘ Department: 23 Address: Administration Building 1221 Oak Street Oakland CA 94612 Phone Number: (51 0) 267-6939 Fax Number: 0 Email Address: Dept.23@alameda.courts.ca.gov Under direct calendaring, this case is assigned to a single judge for all purposes including trial. Please note: In this case, any challenge pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 must be exercised within the tlme period provided by law. (See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 170.6, subd. (a)(2) and 1013.) NOTICE 0F NONAVAILABILITY 0F COURT REPORTERS: Effective June 4. 2012. the court will not provide a court reporterfor civil law and motion hearings, any other hearing or trial in clvil departments, or any afternoon hearing in Department 201 (probate). Parties may arrange and pay for the attendance of a certified shorthand reporter. In limited jurisdiction cases, partles may request electronic recording. Amended Local Rule 3.95 states: "Except as otherwise required by law, in general civil case and probate departments, the services of an official court reporter are not normally available. For civil trials, each party must serve and file a statement before the trial date indicating whether the party requests the presence'of an official court reporter." IT IS THE DUTY OF EACH PLAINTIFF AND CROSS COMPLAINANT TO SERVE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL RULES. Page1 of4 General Prgcedures Following assignment of a civil case to a specific department, all pleadings, papers, forms, documents and writings can be submitted for filing at either Civil Clerk's Office. located at the René C. Davidson Courthouse, Room 109, 1225 Fallon Street, Oakland, California. 94612, and the Hayward Hall of Justice, 24405 Amador Street, Hayward, California, 94544. All documents, with the exception of the original summons and the original civil complaint, shall have clearly typed on the face page of each document, under the case number, the following: ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO JUDGE Brad Seligman DEPARTMENT 23 All parties are expected to know and comply with the Local Rules of this Court, which are available on the court's website at: nugllwwwalamedacourts.ca.gov/Pages.aspx/Local- Rules“) and with the California Rules of Court, which are available at www.courtinfo.ca.gov. Pariies must meet and confer to discuss the effective use of mediation or other alternative dispute processes (ADR) prior to the Initial Case Management Conference. The court encourages parties to fite a "Stipulation to Attend ADR and Delay Initial Case Management Conference for 90 Days”. Plaintiff received that form in the ADR information package at the time the complaint was filed. The court’s website also contains this form and other ADR Information. If the parties do not stipulate to attend ADR, the parties must be prepared to discuss referral to ADR at the Initial Case Management Conference. You may schedule case management hearings. law & motion hearings and other calendar events with Department 23 by EMAIL ONLY. The use of email is not a substitute for fiiing pleadings or filing other documents. You must provide copies of all email communications to each party (or the party‘s attorney If the party Is represented) at the same time that you send the email to the Court and you must show that you have done so in your email. Courtesy copies of all moving, opposition and reply papers should be delivered directly to Dept. 23 in the Administration Building 1221 Oak St. 4th Floor Oakland, CA 94612. Schedule for Department 23 The following scheduling information is subject to change at any time, without notice. Please contact the department at the phone number or email address noted above if you have questions. o Trials generally are held: Mondays through Thursdays from 9:00 am - 1:30 pm. o Case Management Conferences are held: Tuesdays beginning at 3:00 pm. and Fn'days 9:15 am o Law and Motion matters are heard: Tuesdays beginning at 3:00 pm. and Fridays 9:30 am; in exceptional circumstances, motions may be set at other times. - Settlement Conferences are heard: N/A o Ex Parte matters are heard: Tuesdays at 3:00 pm. and Fridays 9:00 am o Reservations by email only. The court conducts discovery conferences pursuant to Local Rule 3.31 as described in the Initial Case Management Order issued in each case. No discovery motions will be scheduled prior to conference with the court. Email to schedule a conference. The email should briefly state the manner in which the parties have met and conferred. Page 2 of 4 Law and Motion Procedures To obtain a hearing date for a Law and Motion or ex parte matter, parties. must contact the department as follows: o Motion Reservations Email: Dept23@alameda.courts.ca.gov Reservations by email only. (See Special Motion above) v Ex Paris Matters Email: Dept23@alameda.courts.ca.gov Reservations by email only. Tentative Rulings The court may issue tentative rulings in accordance with the Local Rules. Tentative rulings will become the Court’s order unless contested in accordance With the Local Rules. Tentative rulings will be available at: o Website: www.alameda.coutfs.ca.gov/domainweb, Calendar Information for Dept. 28 o Phone: 1-866-223-2244 Dated: 08/25/2020 /;-9/ - -"- Facslmlle Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Alameda CLERK'S CERTIFICATE 0F MAILING l certify that the following is true and correct: l am the clerk of the above-named court and noi a party to this cause. | served this Notice by placing copies in envelopes addressed as attached hereto and then by sealing and placing them for collection, stamping or metering with prepaid postage, and mailing on the date stated below, in the United States mail at Alameda County, California. following standard court practices. Executed on 08/26/2020 _ ~ dlnflal By 046%, wmwow» Deputy Clerk Page 3 of 4 SHORT TITLE: ' Tran VS Garuda Labs, Inc CASE NUMBER: RG20061241 ADDITIONAL ADDRESSEES \ Cohelan & Khoury Attn: Singer, Michael D. 605 C Street Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101-5305 Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT B = "9.22.32° SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA ALAMEDA COUNTYCOUNTY OF ALAMEDA W AUG 2 a 2020 smssummoncomTRAN, 2:5“ HALISA CASTANEDA J, Case No. RG2006124] aw Plaintiffs ' INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDERGARUDA LABS, INC, ASSIGNED FOR ALL PRETRIAL Defendants PURPOSES To: IUDGE BRAD SELIGMAN, DEPARTMENT 23 The following order shall apply t0 all parties in this action: l. CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCES At Case Management. Conferences the Court will address discovery issues, schedules, and other subjects pfirsuant to CRC 3.750. Counsel thoroughly familiar with the case shall attend the Case Management Conferences. See LRC, Rule 3.290. At the Initial CCMC, the parties must be prepared to discuss at length the nature of the case, both factually and legally, as well as the projected management ofthe case at each stage. This is not a perfunctory exercise. The primary objective of the CCMC 1’s t0 develop a comprehensive plan for a just, speedy and economical determination 0f the litigation. Courtesy copies of statements must be delivered directly t0 Dept. 23. The filing and delivery date is not later than five court days before the conference. The Conn strongly prefers joint CCMC statements prepared in narrative form, and not using Form CM-l 1 0, after counsel have met and conferred as required by CRC 3.724. CCMC statements must address the following issues when applicable: A. A brief factual summary to assist the Court in understanding the background 0f the case, a statement of the issues presented, including each theory of liability and defense and a summary 0f the facts supporting each position taken, and the relief sought, including an estimate 0f damages. B. The number ofparties and their posture, including a proposed structure of representation, (e.g., liaison/Iead counsel or by commitiee) if applicable; C. Deadlines and limits on joinder of parties and amended 0r additional pleadings; D. Class discovery and class certification, if applicable; E. A proposed schedule for the conduct ofthe litigation including, but not limited to, a discovery plan, a plan for hearing remaining law and motion, and a projected trial date; F. An identification of all potential evidentiary issues involving confidentiality or protected evidence; G. A detailed description of the procedural posture of the case, describing any outstanding procedural problems, including, but not limited to: (1) unsewed parties and the reasons for the failure to serve; (2) unserved and/or Imfiled cross-complaints; (3) related actions pending in any jurisdiction and the potential for coordination or consolidation; (4) any possible jm'isdictional or venue issues that may arise; (5) the status of discovery, including a description 0f all anticipated discovery and incomplete 01' disputed discovery issues; (6) unresolved law and motion matters; (7) requests for, or opposition to, any ADR proceedings, including but not. limited t0 mediation, judicial or contractual arbitration; (8) severance of issues for trial; and (9) calendar conflicts for any attorney, witness, or party, and any other matter which may affect the setting of a trial date. H. ‘Counsel may make suggestions for streamlining the litigation, including, but not limited to, a master file system, designation of lead counsel [for plaintiff(s) and/or defendant(s)] to streamline service of process and/or management 0f discovery, the use of e-filing, and the use of a web-page maintained by lead counsel for the purpose of posting the litigation schedule and agenda. Counsel may also address ways of structuring the trial of the action such as bi'filrcation, severance, bell-weather trials, use of special masters, use of expedited jury procedures and/or waiver ofjury. Parties are advised t0 check the court’s register of action before appearing at any case management conference, including the Initial Case Management, at least one day before any scheduled appearance to determine if the count has issued a tentative case management order. If published, this tentative case management order will become the order of the Court unless counsel or self represented pafiy notifies the Court and opposing counsel/self-represented party by email not less than one court day prior to the CMC that s/he intends to appear in person at the CMC to discuss some aspect of the order, and specifies the nature of the party's concem. (Please note that the Tentative Rulings posted 011 the website are for tentative mlings on law and motion matters and will not display tentative Case Management Orders. The tentative Case Management Orders are found 1'1} the Register of Action); Department 23 may be reached at Dept.23@alameda.com'ts.ca.gov. 2. NOTICE OF FEE CHANGES - JURY TRIAL FEE Effective July 2, 2012, the advance jury fee is fixed at $150.00, and is no longer refundable. With certain exceptions, the jury trial fee 1's due on or before the date scheduled for the initial case management conference. See, C.C.P. 631(b). 3. DISCOVERY Discovery Conference: Motions related to discovery (Le. motions to compel, protective orderg etc.) may not be filed without leave of the court until after an informal discovery conference pursuant t0 revised Local Rule 3.31 (January 1, 2019) except a party may requést a discovery conference in a Case Management Conference Statement. The discovery conference is not a pro forma step before a motion. Requests for a discovery conference may be made, after meaningful meet and confer, by sending an email to the department clerk, copied to all counsel. The court will provide proposed dates. Parties are to meet and confer as to availability for the proposed dates. If one or more parties are not available on the proposed date(s), additional dates may be requested. Upon request, the court will consider telephonic appearances as well as calls fi‘om depositions in progress. ' 4. EMAILS T0 COURT Emails to the court are not pam ofthe court record ’m this case and may be deleted without notice. Email is not a substitute for required filings. Any emails should be copied t0 all counsel. The Department 23 email may only be used for the following purposes: to seek a reservation to schedule a proceeding on the court’s calendar, to give notice that a hearing has been dropped or a settlement reached, to request a discovery conference, emergency scheduling issues (1.6. numing late to a hearing), to give notice that a litigant intends to appear to contest a tentative ruling, t0 reply t0 ari inquiry from the 9161K or research attorney of Departm ent 23, to communicate with the courtroom clerk regarding department 23 procedures, 01' other matters that the court has expressly authorized in this case. 5. Pro Huc Vice Process Applications for Pro I-Iac Vice must be submitted by noticed motion on regular time, or, if it is a time sensitive matter, a request for an order shortening time must Be submjtted. Applications will not be considered on an ex pane basis. CRC 9.40. 6. NOTICE Parties are advised that CASE MANAGEMENT ORDERS, including trial setting orders, and FINAL RULINGS ON LAW AND MOTION ‘lhat are issued by Dept. 23 will be published in the Court’s website in the Register ofAction for this case. The clerk of the court WILL NOT serve each party a copy offuture orders. Instead, unless otherwise ordered, counsel shall obtain copies of all future orders from the Register of Action in this case. SERVICE 0F THIS ORDER Counsel for p1aintiff(s) shall have a continuing obligation to sewe a copy of this order on newly joined parties defendant not listed on the proof of sewice of this order and file proof 0f service. Each party defendant joining any third party cross-defendant shall have a continuing duty to sewe a copy of this order on newlyjoinc-d cross~defbndants and to file proof of service. The clerk is directed to serve a copy 0f this CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER upon counsel for Plaintiffls). 5 DATED: August 2'6, 2020 BRAD SELIGMAN BRAD SELIGMAN, JUDGE CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I am not a party to this cause and that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was mailed first class, postage prepaid, in a sealed envelope, addresses shoWn below, and that the mailing of the foregoing and execution of this certificate occurred at 1225 Fallon Street, Oakland, California. Executed: August 7.6, 2020 QAMM ge¢fimM Courtroom Clerk, Dept. 23 LEBE LAW, APLC Jonathan M. Lebo Zachary Gershnmn 777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90021 ion@lebelaw.com zachag@lebelgw.com A(torneysfbr PlainlijfTal flan, Individually and on behalfofa/l others similarly situated COI-IELANKHOURY & SINGER 13am Khoury Michael D. Singer Kristina Alicia De La Rosa 605 C. Street, Suite 200 Sun Diego, CA 92101 ikhoury@ckslnfl.com msingcr@ckslaw.com kdelarosa@ckslaw.com Altorneysfor PlaintiffTai Tran, Individually and on behalfof'all others similarly situated Jhxmw._.. g1 ggu E“; "ff 15 5:? i "'. ‘I‘-:\a‘.."»‘..(h‘1 ">” V4315" I A‘U‘ {Z jI ZUZJ ia I ‘21.”!!! " r ' 1U. v. mu. r FI. . - I . u A - ‘ sI i #1.“. « V "'- mguuunwwuumnumufi \OOOflQM-hwwh-I NNNNNNNNN~H~H~H-HH ooqomawm~oxooouoxmnwmwo Elisa Nadeau, Esq. Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. . Linda Nguyen Bollinger, Esq. Zachary Gelshman, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. LEBE LAW, APC 50 West San Fernando Street, 7th Floor 777 South Alameda Street, Second Floor San Jose, CA 951 13-2434 Los Angeles. CA 90021 Telephone: (408) 998-41 50 Telephone: (213) 358-7046 PROOF OF SERVICE Tran v. Garuda Labs, Inc. dba Instaworlc Alameda Supen'or Court Case No. RGZOO61241 I, Melissa Gonzalez, declare as follows: I am employed in the County 0f San Diego, State of California. I am over the age 0f 18 and not a pany to this action. My business address is 605 “C” Street, Suite 200, San Diego, California 921 01. On September 3, 2020, I instituted service of the forgoing document described as: NOTICE 0F ORDER DEEMING CASE COMPLEX AND INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER on the following interested parties: Counsel for Defendant Co-Counsel for Plaintiff Andrew M. Spurchise, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 900 3rd Avenue, 8th Floor New York, NY 10022-3298 Telephone: (212) 583-9600 I then caused service of each document in the manner described below: [XX] BY MAIL: I placed each for deposit in the United States Postal Service this same day, at my business address shown above, following ordinary business practices. [XX] STATE: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State 0f California that the foregoing 1's tme and correct. Executed September 3, 2020, at San Diego, Califomia. /% émflf Melissa Gonzalez EXHIBIT C .3 FAKE!- \IQMA OO 10 11 12 13 l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 v27 28 O O _HllfllfllllfllzilIMIllllfHINIIIIIHIIHHHIII 2691 015 ,, l LEBE LAW, APLC Jonathan M. Lebe (SBN 284605) jon@lebelaw.com Zachary Gershman (SBN. 328004) zacha1y@lebelaw.com 777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor Michael D. Singer (SBN 115301) msinger@ckslaw.com Kristina Alicia De La Rosa (SBN 279821) fl FlLEDLos Angeles, CA 90021 - ~ Telephone: (213) 358-7046 ALAMEDA COUNTY COHELAN KHOURY &‘ SINGER NOV 0 92020 lsam Khoury (SBN 58759) ’TLEHK THE SUflHIO COURT ikhoury@ckslaw.com ~ __ fl _/ p@1 9 kdelarosa@ckslaw.com 605 C Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595-3001 Facsimile: (619) 595-3000 Attorneys for Plaintiff Tai Tran, on behalf of himself and all other aggrieved employees SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA TAI TRAN, on behalf 0f himself and all other ' CASE NO.: RGZOO67292 aggrieved employees, AMENDED AS A MATTER OF Plaintiff, RIGHT PURSUANT TO CAL. LABOR CODE § 2699.3(a)(2)(c) vs. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR RECOVERY OF CIVIL GARUDA LABS,INC.DBA INSTAWORK; PENALTIES PURSUANT TO THE and DOES 1-10, inclusive, PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT (“PAGA”) ‘ Defendants. (1) PAGA Civil Penalties for Violations of Labor Code §§ 226.8 for Willful Misclassification; (2) PAGA Civil Penalties for Violations of Labor Code §§ 1194, 1197.1 and the Applicable Wage Order for Failure to Pay All Minimum Wages; 1 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES PURSUANT ' TO PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT F A \D 10 11 12 l3 l4 15 l6 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OOQQQJI 2 (3) PAGA Civil Penalties for Violations of Labor Code §§ 510, 1194, 1198 and the Applicable Wage Order for Failure t0 Pay All Overtime Wages; (4) PAGA Civil Penalties for Violations of Labor Code §§ 204, 210 and the Applicable Wage Order for Failure t0 Pay All Wages; (5) PAGA Civil Penalties for Violations of Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512 and the Applicable Wage Order for Failure to Provide Timely and Compliant Meal Periods; (6) PAGA Civil Penalties for Violations of Labor Code § 226.7, and the Applicable Wage Order for Failure to Provide Timely and Compliant Rest Periods; (7) PAGA Civil Penalties for Violations of Labor Code §§ 246 et seq. for Failure to Provide Sick Pay; (8) PAGA Civil Penalties for Violations of Labor Code §§ 221 (Unlawful Deduction of Wages); (9) PAGA Civil Penalties for Violations 0f Labor Code §§ 226(a), 226.3 and the Applicable Wage Order for Failure to Provide Accurate and Itemized Wage Statements; (l 0) PAGA Civil Penalties for Violations ofLabor Code §§ 201-203 for Failure to Timely Pay All Wages Due to Terminated/Separated Employees; and (11) PAGA Civil Penalties for Violations of Labor Code §§ 2802 and the Applicable Wage Order for Failure to Reimburse All Reasonable and Necessary Business Expenses. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT A \OOOQQLJI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 is 26 27 28 Plaintiff Tai Tran (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of himself and a1] others similarly aggrieved alleges as follows: INTRODUCTION l. Plaintiff is an individual who worked as a temporary worker for Defendant Garuda Labs, Inc. dba Instawork (“Defendant Instawork”), and Does 1 through 10, inclusive ("Defendants"). Plaintiff seek to recover civil penalties for all Califomia-based “aggrieved employees” during the “Relevant Time Period” (defined as April 1, 2019 up to and including the date of commencement of trial) who incurred wage and hour violations and losses as hereinafter descn'bed. 2. On April 1, 2020, Plaintiff gave notice of these claims to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) and to the agent for service 0f process for each Defendant. On July 8, 2020, Plaintiff gave an amended notice 0f these claims to the LWDA, and to the agent for service of process for each Defendant. Sixty-five days have elapsed since the service and submission of these notices and Plaintiff has not received any response fiom the LWDA indicating that it intends to investigate these claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff has exhausted all notice requirements under the PAGA. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. The relief sought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the aggrieved employees below exceeds the minimal jurisdictional limits of the Superior Court and will be established according to proof at trial. The Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the parties because they are either citizens of this State, doing business in this State or otherwise have minimum contacts with this State. 4. Based on information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that this entire action arises solely under the laws ofthe State of California and applicable regulations ofthe health, safety and wages 0f the employees residing in the State 0f California. Plaintiff alleges, on information and belief, that no federal question is raised. Moreover, PAGA civil penalty actions are not subject to federal jurisdiction. 3 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT OKOOOVON 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 '28 5. Venue is proper in this Court because, upon information and belief, Plaintiff worked for Defendants in this county, Defendants transact business or have offices in this county, and the acts and omissions alleged herein took place in this county. PARTIES ‘ Plaintiff 6. Plaintiff Tai Tran is a citizen of California who worked for Defendants from approximately October of 201 9 t0 November of20] 9. Details regarding Plaintiff’s precise hours, pay, and revenue generated for Defendant are available by reference to Defendant’s records. Throughout Plaintiff‘s employment, he and his co-workers were subjected to wage thefi. Defendants 7. Defendant Instawork is a corporation organized under the laws 0f the state of Delaware. Defendant Instawork is headquarted in San Francisco, California. \ 8. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names or capacities of the defendants sued herein under the fictitious names DOES 1 through 10 but will seek leave of this Court to amend this Complaint and serve such fictitiouély named defendants once their names and capacities become known. 9. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each defendant acted in all respects pertinent to this action as the agent of the other defendant, carried out a joint sche‘me, business plan 0r policy in all respects pertinent hereto, and the acts of each defendant are legally attributable to the other defendant. Furthermore, defendants in all respects acted as the employer and/or joint employer of Plaintiff and the class members. I 10. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each and all of the acts and omissions alleged herein were performed by, or are attributable t0, Defendants and/or DOES 1 through 10, acting as the agent or alter ego for the other, with legal authority to act on the other’s behalf. The acts of any and all Defendants were in accordance with, and represent, the official policy of Defendants. 1 1. At all relevant times, Defendants, and each ofthem, acted within the scope of such agency or employment, or ratified each and every act 0r omission complained of herein. At all 4 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT .b \OOOQQUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 relevant times, Defendants, and each of them, aided and abetted the acts and omissions of each and all the other Defendants in proximately causing the damages herein alleged. 12. Plaintiffis informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of said Defendants is in some manner intentionally, negligently or otherwise responsible for the acts, omissions, occurrences and transactions alleged herein. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS A. Plaintiff Satisfies the Legal Test for Employee Status 13. Defendant Instawork is a mobile phone application-based staffing company for restaurants that has been in use in Califomia since 201 5. 14. Defendants' business. Defendants are a staffing company providing restaurants and other businesses with temporary workers (“Instawork workers”) using Defendants’ mobile phone application (the “Instawork App”). 15. The Instawork workers work for the business for a set shift and records his or her hours worked using the Instawork App. 16. Defendants receives information from the restaurants it staffs regarding jobs for Instawork workers and, using on this information, Defendants set the hourly rate to be paid to the Instawork workers for those jobs via the Instawork App. l7. The work that Defendants’ workers perform is the usual course of Defendants’ business - indeed, providing workers to its clients as a staffing company is Defendants’ business. 18. The Instawork workers, including Plaintiff, provide the service which Defendants sell to businesses throughout California. 19. Defendants earn money by providing its business customers with Instawork workers and receiving a booking fee for each shift which is worked by an Instawork worker, a service that is wholly dependent on Instawork workers, like Plaintiff. 20. Defendants are not merely a platform 0r uninterested bystander between Instawork workers and the businesses to which it sells services too. Rather, Defendants perform background checks 0n its Instawork workers before allowing them to connect with businesses, and Defendants 5 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT A \OOOVOUI 10 11 12 l3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 handle the billing and facilitation oftaxes oflnstawork workers. Defendants are a staffing industry for restaurants and other similar businesses. 21. Defendants can also terminate Instawork workers right to provide temporary work to companies for violating one or more of the rules which Instawork imposes by contract, or with no cause at all. 22. Instawork workers lack business autonomy. Instawork workers are each not engaged in an independently-established business. They cannot provide temporary services to businesses without the Instawork App. Instawork workers are dependent on Defendants to identify businesses for them to work at, and they do not need to possess any particular or special skills other than those required to work, for example, as a server, bartender, cook, or general laborer. 23. By working for Defendants, Instawork workers have not independently made the decision to go into business for themselves. Instead, Defendants have unilaterally determined that Plaintiff and Instawork workers are independent contractors while precluding them from taking the usual steps towards promoting and establishing an independent business, 24. Defendants also prohibit Plaintiff and Instawork workers from setting their rates of pay for their own services, and instead, Plaintiff and Instawork workers agree to a set payment for a service t0 a business through the Instawork App, presented to them by Defendants. 25. Defendants are responsible for paying Plaintiffand Instawork workers based on the rate ofpay which is set for each job that an Instawork worker completes, and the number of hours which an Instawork worker records into the Instawork App. 26. Defendants also provide Instawork workers with Occupational Accident Insurance while they Work for Defendants by deducting $0.38 dollars an hour from their wages to pay for this insurance. 27. Defendants control the terms of employment. Defendants maintain uniform policies and terms of service which all Instawork workers, including Plaintiff, must comply with. Once Plaintiff passed Defendants’ initial background checks, he was able to work for Defendants for an indefinite period of time. However, Defendants could shut down Plaintiff's access to the 6 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT \OOO\!O\ 10 11 _ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Instawork App for any reason, thus preventing him from obtaining and responding to work requests. 28. Plaintiff and Instawork workers perfom1 work for Defendants by logging into the Instawork App and acceptingjob requests from businesses which Defendants work with which are visible to all Instawork App users, which benefits Defendants. 29. Plaintiff and Instawork worker's hours-worked are recorded by the Instawork App, and the time spent on the Instawork App is not their own, but rather time spent working. B. Defendant Instawork’s Misclassification ofPlaintiffand Instawork Workers Violates Their Rights Under California Law 30. Plaintiff performed services for Defendants as a restaurant worker during the relevant time period. During the relevant time period, Plaintiffwas classified by Defendants as an independent contractor. 31. Plaintiff is informed and believes, afid thereon alleges, that at all times mentioned herein, Defendants were advised by skilled lawyers, employees and other professionals who were knowledgeable about California wage and hour law, employment and personnel practices and the requirements of California. 32. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees should not have been classified as independent contractors. In violation of the Labor Code, Plaintiff, and other aggrieved employees were classified as independent contractors in a pattern and practice of willful misclassification. 33. Plaintiff is informed and beiieves, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees were entitled to receive wages for all time worked (including minimum and overtime wages) and that they were not receiving all wages earned for work that was required to be performed. In violation of the Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees were not paid wages (including minimum and overtime wages) for a1] hours worked when Defendants failed to pay or underpaid Plaintiff 7 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT A \OOO\lO\U1 10 11 12 l3 I4 15 16 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and other aggrieved employees for all hours worked, failed to pay for time spent in rest breaks, and unlawfully deducted their wages for Occupational Accident Insurance, among other things. 34. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew 0r should have known that Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees were entitled to receive all rest breaks or payment of one (1) additional hour 0f pay at Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees’ regular rate of pay when a rest break was missed, and were entitled to payment of wages for time spent when rest breaks were taken. In Violation ofthe Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees did not receive paid rest breaks or payment of one (1) additional hour of pay at Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees’ regular rate of pay when a rest break was missed. 35. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees were entitled to receive all meal periods 0r payment of one (1) additional hour ofpay at Plaintiff‘s and class members’ regular rate of pay when they did not receive a timely, uninterrupted meal period. In violation of the Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees did not receive all meal periods 0r payment of one (1) additional hour of pay at Plaintiff‘s and class members’ regular rate 0f pay when they did not receive a timely, uninterrupted meal period. 36. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should have known that they were prohibited from withholding amounts from the wages of Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees, aside for certain statutory exceptions. In violation of the Labor Code, Defendants made unlawful deductions from Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees’ wages for Occupational Accident Insurance by deducting $0.38 dollars an hour from Plaintiff and aggrieved employees’ wages t0 pay for this insurance. 37. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, thth Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees were entitled to timely payment of wages during their employment. In Violation ofthe California Labor Code, Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees did not receive payment of all wages within permissible time periods. 8 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT g OWOOQQUI 11 12 13 14 15 l6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 , ' C Q 38. Plaintiff is infonned and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees were entitled to sick leave, and notice on their wage statements or other separate written statements that listed the balance of paid sick leave that they should have been accruing. In violation ofthe California Labor Code, Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees did not receive sick leave and notice 0n their wage statements or other separate written statements that listed the balance of paid sick leave that they should have been accruing. 39. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees were entitled to receive complete and accurate wage statements in accordance with California law. In violation of the California Labor Code, Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees were not furnished with complete and accurate wage statements showing their total hours worked, number of hours worked at each hourly rate, gross and net wages, and all applicable deductions among other things. 40. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiffand Waiting Time class members were entitled to timely payment 0f wages upon separation of employment. In violation ofthe California Labor Code, Plaintiff and Waiting Time class members did not receive payment of all wages including, but not limited to, unpaid wages within permissible time periods. 41. Plaintiff is infomed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees were entitled t0 reimbursement for necessary expenditures incurred in connection with the performance and execution of their job duties. In violation of the California Labor Code, Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees did not receive adequate reimbursement for necessary business expenses, including but not limited to reimbursement for use of their personal cell phones, personal automobiles or other transportation expenses, and the cost of Occupational Accident Insurance 42. Plaintiff suffered losses as detailed above as a result of these practices and is therefore an aggrieved employee under Labor Code section 2699(0). Plaintiff is informed and believe that because the Defendants used identical procedures for all employees, there are many 9 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT OKOOOQO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ; . . other aggrieved employees who suffered the above violations including underpayment of wages, non-compliant meal periods and rest breaks, failure to provide sick leave, failure to reimburse all reasonable and necessary business expenses, and derivative violations for inaccurate pay and wage statements, ahd failure to timely pay all wages due to employees who were separated or were terminated from employment during the applicable limitations period, and for which recovery under PAGA is owed. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION PAGA CIVIL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF LABOR CODE § 226.8 FOR WILLFUL MISCLASSIFICATION (By Plaintiff 0n behalf of all similarly aggrieved employees against each Defendant) 43. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint expressly herein by this reference as if all prior paragraphs were set forth in full, including the Notice t0 the LWDA dated April 1, 2020, and the Amended Notice dated July 8, 2020. 44. Labor Code section 226.8 provides that it is unlawful for any person or employer t0 willfully misclassify an individual as an independent contrac'tor. 45. Here, based on the foregoing, and in willful violation of California law and public policy, Defendants intentionally misclassified Plaintiff and similarly aggrieved employees as independent contractors in violation of Labor Code section 226.8(a). This was part of a pattern and practice of willful misclassification. Consequently, Plaintiff, on behalf ofhimself and other aggrieved employees, intends to seek civil penalties pursuant to the PAGA for the alleged violations. 46. Labor Code section 226.8(c) provides: “If the Labor and Workforce Development Agency or a court issues a determination that a person or employer has engaged in any of the enumerated violations of subdivision (a) and the person or employer has engaged in or is engaging in a pattern 0r practice of these violations, the person or employer shall be subject to a civil penalty 0f not less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) and not more than twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for each violation, in addition to any other penalties or fines permitted by law.” 47. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other 10 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT A \OOOflaLII 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 aggrieved employees, seeks to recover civil penalties pursuant to the PAGA for the alleged willful misclassification, in an amount according to proof and subject to Court approval. 48. Plaintiffwill also seek recovery of attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses pursuant to Labor Code section 2699(g) and/or Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 to the extent enforcement of California labor laws and applicable regulations is determined to be in the public interest and consistent with the Legislative intent stated in Labor Code section 90.5, in an amount according to proof and subject to Court approval. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION PAGA CIVIL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF LABOR CODE §§ 1194, 1197.1 AND THE APPLICABLE WAGE ORDER FOR FAILURE TO PAY ALL MINIMUM WAGES (By Plaintiff on behalf of all similarly aggrieved employees against each Defendant) 49. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint expressly herein by this reference as if all prior paragraphs were set forth in full, including the Notice to the LWDA dated April 1, 2020, and the Amended Notice dated July 8, 2020. 50. The Labor Code and the Wage Order provide that in the State of California an employer must pay a minimum wage to an employee, which is eight dollars ($8.00) per hour for all hours worked effective January 1, 2008, nine dollars ($9.00) per hour for all hours worked effective July 1, 2014, ten dollars ($1 0.00) per hour for all hours worked effective January 1, 201 6, ten dollars and fifty cents ($10.50) per hour for all hours worked effective January 1, 2017, eleven dollars ($1 1.00) per hour for all hours worked effective January'l, 2018, twelve dollars ($12.00) per hour for all hours worked effective January 1, 2019, and thirteen dollars ($13.00) per hour for all hours worked effective January 1, 2020. 51. Labor Code section 1194 states: “Notwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage, any employee receiving less than the legal minimum wage or the legal overtime compensation applicable to the employee is entitled to recover in a civil action the unpaid balance 0f the full amount of this minimum wage 0r overtime compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.” 1 1 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT .b OKOOONOUI 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 52. Here, based on the foregoing, Defendants deprived Plaintiffand similarly aggrieved employees of their rightfully earned minimum wage compensation, including overtime compensation at the minimum wage rate, as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ failure to pay said compensation. Consequently, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees, intends to seek civil penalties pursuant t0 the PAGA for the alleged violations. 53. Labor Code section 1197.1(a)(1) provides that: “For any initial Violation that is intentionally committed, one hundred dollars ($100) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee is underpaid. This amount shall be in addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages, liquidated damages pursuant to Section 1194.2, and any applicable penalties imposed pursuant to Section 203.” 54. Labor Code section 1 191 .1 (a)(2) provides that: “For ea'ch subsequent violation for the same specific offense, two hundred fifty dollars ($250) for each underpaid employee for each pay pen'od for which the employee is underpaid regardless of whether the initial violation is intentionally committed. This amount shall be in addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages, liquidated damages pursuant to Section 1194.2, and any applicable penalties imposed pursuant to Section 203. 55. Violations ofthe Wage Orders are governed by the civil penalty provisions ofLabor Code section 558: “(a) Any Employers or other person acting on behalf 0f an Employers who violates, 0r causes to be violated, a section of this chapter or any provision regulating hours and days of work in any order of the Industrial Welfare Commission shall be subject to a civil penalty as follows: (1) For any initial violation, fifty dollars ($50) for each underpaid employee for each pay pen'od for which the employee was underpaid; (2) For each subsequent Violation, one hundred dollars ($100) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid.” 56. Accordingly, the Defendants are subject to assessment of civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code section 1197.1(a) for violations of statutes and subject to civil penalties for violations ofthe applicable Wage Order as provided by Labbr Code section 558(a) in an amount according to proof. 12 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT A ©00\]O\L11 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 57. Plaintiff will seek recovery of attomeys’ fees pursuant t0 Labor Code section 2699(g) and/or Code 0f Civil Procedure section 1021.5 to the extent enforcement of California labor laws and applicable regulations is determined to be in the public interest and consistent with the Legislative intent stated in Labor Code section 90.5, in an amount according to proof and subject to Court approval. ' THIRD CAUSE 0F ACTION PAGA CIVIL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF LABOR CODE §§ 510, 1194, 1198 AND THE APPLICABLE WAGE ORDER FOR FAILURE TO PAY ALL OVERTIME WAGES (By Plaintiff 0n behalf 0f all similarly aggrieved employees against each Defendant) 58. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint expressly herein by this reference as if all prior paragraphs were set forth in full, including the Notice to the LWDA dated April 1, 2020, and the Amended Notice dated July 8, 2020. 59. Labor Code section 510(a) states in pertinent part that: “Eight hours of labor constitutes a day’s work. Any work in excess ofeight hours in one workday and any work in excess of 4O hours in any one workweek and the first eight hours worked on the seventh day of work in any one workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for an employee. Any work in excess of 12 hours in one day shall be compensated at the rate 0f no less than twice the regular rate ofpay for an employee.” 60. Labor Code section 1194 states: “Notwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage, any employee receiving less than the legal minimum wage or the legal overtime compensation applicable to the employee is entitled to recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount of this minimum wage or overtime compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable attomey’s fees, and costs of suit.” 61. Each of these statutes is listed in Labor Code section 2699.5 as a statute for which violation ofhas been established to be subject to the default civil penalty provisions in Labor Code section 2699(f)(2). That section provides: “(fl For all provisions of this code except those for which a civil penalty is specifically provided, there is established a civil penalty for a violation of 13 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT 4; \OOOQOKII 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 these provisions, as follows: (2) If, at the time ofthe alleged violation, the person employs one or more employees, the civil penalty is one hundred dollars ($100) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial violation and two hundred dollars ($200) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each subsequent violation.” 62. Here, based on the foregoing, Defendants deprived Plaintiffand similarly aggrieved employees of their rightfully earned overtime compensation as a direct and proximate result 0f Defendants’ failure t0 pay said compensation. Consequently, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees, intends t0 seek civil penalties pursuant to the PAGA for the alleged violations. 63. Violations ofthe Wage Orders are governed by the civil penalty provisions ofLabor Code section 558: “(a) Any Employers or other person acting on behalf of an Employers who violates, or causes to be violated, a section of this chapter or any provision regulating hours and days 0fwork in any order of the Industrial Welfare Commission shall be subject to a civil penalty as follows: (1) For any initial violation, fifty dollars ($50) for each underpaid employee for each pay pen'od for which the employee was underpaid; (2) For each subsequent violation, one hundred dollars ($100) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid.” 64. Accordingly, the Defendants are subject to assessment of civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code section 2699.5 for violations of statutes and subject to civil penalties for violations of the applicable Wage Order as provided by Labor Code section 558(a) in an amount according to proof. 65. Plaintiff will seek recovery of attomeys’ fees pursuant t0 Labor Code section 2699(g) and/or Code of Civil Procedure section 102] .5 to the extent enforcement of California labor laws and applicable regulations is determined to be in the public interest and consistent with the Legislative intent stated in Labor Code section 90.5, in an amount according t0 proof and subject to Coun approval. /// /// 14 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION PAGA CIVIL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF LABOR CODE § 204, 210 AND THE APPLICABLE WAGE ORDER FOR FAILURE TO PAY ALL WAGES (By Plaintiff on behalf of all similarly aggrieved employees against each Defendant) 66. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint expressly herein by this reference as if all prior paragraphs were set forth in full, including the Notice to the LWDA dated April l, 2020, and the Amended Notice dated July 8, 2020. 67. Labor Code section 204(a) provides: “All wages, other than those mentioned in Section 201, 201.3, 202, 204.1, or 204.2, earned by any person in any employment are due and payable twice during each calendar month, on days designated in advance by the Employers as the regular paydays. Labor performed between the lst and 15th days, inclusive, of any calendar month shall be paid for between the 16th and the 26th day of the month during which the labor was performed, and labor performed between the 16th and the last day, inclusive, of any calendar month, shall be paid for between the lst and 10th day of the following month.” 68. Labor Code section 210(a) provides: “(a) In addition t0, and entirely independent and apart from, any other penalty provided in this article, every person who fails to pay the wages of each employee as provided in Sections 201.3, 204, 204b, 204.1, 204.2, 205, 205.5, and 11975, shall be subject to a civil penalty as follows: (1) For any initial violation, one hundred dollars ($100) for each failure to pay each employee. (2) For each subsequent violation, or any willful or intentional violation, two hundred dollars ($200) for each failure to pay each employee, plus 25 percent of the amount finlawfully withheld.” [Emphasis added.] 69. This statute is listed in Labor Code section 2699.5 as a statute for which violation ofhas been established to be subject t0 the default civil penalty provisions in Labor Code section 2699(f)(2). That section provides: “(1) For all provisions ofthis code except those for which a civil penalty is specifically provided, there is established a civil penalty for a violation of these provisions, as follows: (2) If, at the time of the alleged violation, the person employs one or more employees, the civil penalty is one hundred dollars ($100) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial violation and two hundred dollars ($200) for each aggrieved employee 15 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT \OOOVON 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 o o per pay period for each subsequent violation.” 70. Here, based 0n the foregoing, Defendants deprived Plaintiffand similarly aggrieved employees of their rightfully earned compensation, including overtime compensation and hours at the minimum wage rate, as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ failure to pay said compensation. Consequently, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees, intends to seek civil penalties pursuant to the PAGA for the alleged violations. 71. Violations ofthe Wage Orders are governed by the civil penalty provisions ofLabor Code section 558: “(a) Any Employers or other person acting on behalf 0f an Employers who violates, or causes to be violated, a section of this chapter or any provision regulating hours and days 0fwork in any order of the Industrial Welfare Commission shall be subject to a civil penalty as follows: (1) For any initial violation, fifty dollars ($50) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid; (2) For each subsequent violation, one hundred dollars ($100) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid.” 72. Accordingly, the Defendants are subject to assessment of civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code section 26995 for violations of statutes and subject to civil penalties for violations of the applicable Wage Order as provided by Labor Code section 558(a) in an amount according to proof. 73. Plaintiff will seek recovery 0f attorneys’ fees pursuant to Labor Code section 2699(g) and/or Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 to the extent enforcement of California labor laws and applicable regulations is determined to be in the public interest and consistent with the Legislative intent stated in Labor Code section 90.5, in an amount according to proof and subject to Court approval. /// /// /// /// /// 1 6 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT A NONL/I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION PAGA CIVIL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF LABOR CODE §§ 226.7, 512 AND THE APPLICABLE WAGE ORDER FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE TIMELY AND COMPLIANT MEAL PERIODS (By Plaintiff on behalf 0f all similarly aggrieved employees against each Defendant) 74. Plaintiff incorporates the‘preceding paragraphs of this Complaint expressly herein by this reference as ifall prior paragraphs were set forth in full, including the Notice to the LWDA dated April 1, 2020, and the Amended Notice dated July 8, 2020. 75. Because Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees should have been classified as non-exempt employees, the Defendants were required to comply with Labor Code sections 226.7 and 5 1 2, and the applicable Wage Order. 76. Labor Code section 226.7(b) providesz‘ “An Employers shall not require an employee to work during a meal or rest or recovery period mandated pursuant t0 an applicable statute, or applicable regulation, standard, 0r order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, or the Division of Occupational Safety and Health.” 77. Labor Code section 226.7(c) provides: “If an Employers fails to provide an employee a meal or rest or recovery period in accordance with a state law, including, but not limited to, an applicable statute 0r applicable regulation, standard, 0r order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, or the Division of Occupational Safety and Health, the Employers shall pa‘y the employee one additional hour ofpay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal or rest 0r recovery period is not provided.” 78. Labor Code section 512(a) provides: “(3) An Employers shall not employ an employee for a work period of more than five hours per day without providing the employee with a meal period of not less than 30 minutes, except that if the total work period per day of the employee is no more than six hours, the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of both the Employers and employee. An Employers shall not employ an employee for a work period ofmore 17 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT A \OOOQQUI 10 11 12 .13 l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 than 10 hours per day without providing the employee with a second meal period of not less than 30 minutes, except that ifthe total hours worked is no more than 12 hours, the second meal period may be waived by mutual consent ofthe Employers and the employee only ifthe first meal period was not waived.” 79. Here, based on the foregoing, Defendants employed Plaintiff and aggrieved employees for work periods of more than five hours without a timely meal pefiod of not less than thirty minutes, where they were free from employer control, and failed to compensate them for such meal periods, as required by Labor Code § 226.7 and the applicable Wage Order. 80. Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512 are statutes specifically listed in Labor Code section 2699.5 as statutes for which violations of have been established to be subject to the default civil penalty provisions in Labor Code section 2699(f)(2). That section provides: “(fl For a1] provisions of this code except those for which a civil penalty is specifically provided, there is established a civil penalty for a violation of these provisions, as follows: (2) If, at the time of the alleged violation, the person employs one or more employees, the civil penalty is one hundred dollars ($ 1 00) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial violation and two hundred dollars ($200) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each subsequent violation.” 81. Violations of the Wage Orders are governed by the civil penalty provisions ofLabor Code section 558: “(a) Any Employers or other person acting on behalf of an Employers who violates, or causes to be violated, a section ofthis chapter or any provision regulating hours and days of work in any order of the Industrial Welfare Commission shall be subject to a civil penalty as follows: (1) For any initial violation, fifty dollars ($50) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid; (2) For each subsequent violation, one hundred dollars ($100) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employeé was undemaid.” 82. Accordingly, the Defendants are subject t0 assessment of civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code section 2699(f)(2) for Violations of statutes and subject to civil penalties for violations ofthe applicable Wage Order as provided by Labor Code section 558(a) in an amount according to proof. 18 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT A \OOOVONKJ‘I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 83. Plaintiff will seek recovery of attorneys’ fees pursuant to Labor Code section 2699(g) and/or Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 to the extent enforcement of Califomia labor laws and applicable regulations is determined to be in the public interest and consistent with the Legislative intent stated in Labor Code section 90.5, in an amount according to proof and subject to Court approval. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION PAGA CIVIL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF LABOR CODE § 226.7 AND THE APPLICABLE WAGE ORDER, FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE TIMELY AND COMPLIANT REST PERIODS (By Plaintiff on behalf of all similarly aggrieved employees against each Defendant) 84. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint expressly herein by this reference as if all prior paragraphs were set forth in full, including the Notice to the LWDA dated April 1, 2020, and the Amended Notice dated July 8, 2020. 85. Because Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees should have been classified as non-exempt employees, the Defendants were required to comply with Labor Code section 226.7, and the applicable Wage Order. 86. Labor Code section 226.7(b) provides: “An Employers shall not require an employee to work during a meal or rest or recovery period mandated pursuant to an applicable statute, or applicable regulation, standard, or order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, or the Division of Occupational Safety and Health.” 87. Labor Code section 226.7(0) provides: “If an Employers fails to provide an employee a meal or rest or recovery period in accordance with a state law, including, but not limited to, an applicable statute or applicable regulation, standard, or order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, or the Division of Occupational Safety and Health, the Employers shall pay the employee one additional hour ofpay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal or rest or recovery period is not provided.” l9 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT \OOO\)® 10 11 12 13 l4 15 16 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 88. Here, based 0n the foregoing, Defendants employed Plaintiff and aggrieved employees for work periods of four hours or major fraction thereof without timely rest periods of ten minutes where they were free 0f employer control, and failed to compensate them for such rest periods, as required by Labor Code section 226.7 and the applicable Wage Order. 89. Labor Code sections 226.7 is a statute specifically listed in Labor Code section 2699.5 as statutes for which violations of have been established to be subject to the default civil penalty provisions in Labor Code section 2699(f)(2). That section provides: “(fl For all provisions 0fthis code except those for which a civil penalty is specifically provided, there is established a civil penalty for a violation of these provisions, as follows: (2) If, at the time of the alleged violation, the person employs one or more employees, the civil penalty is one hundred dollars ($ l 00) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial violation and two hundred dollars ($200) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each subsequent violation.” 90. Violations of the Wage Orders are governed by the civil penalty provisions ofLabor Code section 558: “(a) Any Employers or other person acting on behalf of an Employers who violates, 0r causes to be violated, a section of this chapter or any provision regulating hours and days of work in any order ofthe Industrial Welfare Commission shall be subject to a civil penalty as follows: (1) For any initial violation, fifty dollars ($50) for each underpaid employee for each pay pen'od for which the employee was underpaid; (2) For each subsequent violation, one hundred dollars ($100) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid.” 91. Accordingly, Defendants are subject to assessment 0f civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code section 2699(f)(2) for violations of statutes and subject to civil penalties for violations of the applicable Wage Order as provided by Labor Code section 558(a) in an amount according to proof. 92. Plaintiff will seek recovery of attomeys’ fees pursuant t0 Labor Code section 2699(g) and/or Code of Civil Procedure section 1021 .5 t0 the extent enforcement 0f California labor laws and applicable regulations is detennined to be in the public interest and consistent with the Legislative intent stated in Labor Code section 90.5, in an amount according to proof and 20 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT A \OOOQQUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Subject to Court approval. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION PAGA CIVIL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF LABOR CODE §§ 246 ET SEQ. FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SICK PAY (By Plaintiffon behalf of all similarly aggrieved employees and against each Defendant) 93. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint expressly herein by this reference as ifall prior paragraphs were set forth in full, including the Notice to the LWDA dated April 1, 2020, and the Amended Notice dated July 8, 2020. 94. California s Healthy Workplaces Healthy Families Act 0f 2014 was enacted to provide employees who have worked in California for 30 0r more days from the commencement of employment with paid sick days to be accrued at least one hour for every 30 hours worked. 95. Pursuant to Labor Code § 246 (b)(4) employers must provide no less than 24 hours or three 3 days 0f paid sick leave or equivalent paid leave or paid time 0f in each year of the employee’s employment. 96. Labor Code § 246 (i) provides that an employer must provide an employee'with written notice that sets forth the amount of paid sick leave available or paid time off that an employer provides in lieu of sick leave for use on either the employee’s itemized wage statement or in a separate written statement provided on the designated pay date with the employee s wages. 97. Here, based on the foregoing, Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees did not receive sick leave and notice 0n their wage statements or other separate written statements that listed the balance of paid sick leave that they should have been accruing, in violation 0f Labor Code §§ 246 et seq. 98. Consequently, Plaintiff, on behalfofhimselfand other aggrieved employees, seeks to recover civil penalties pursuant to the PAGA for the alleged violations in an amount according t0 proof and subject to Court approval. 99. Plaintiff will seek recovery of attomeys’ fees pursuant to Labor Code section 2699(g) and/or Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 t0 the extent enforcement of California labor laws and applicable regulations is determined to be in the public interest and consistent with 21 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT .1; \OOOVQU‘I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 l . . the Legislative intent stated in Labor Code section 90.5, in an amount according to proof and subject to Court approval. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION PAGA CIVIL PENALTIES FOR LABOR CODE §§ 221 FOR THE UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION OF WAGES (By Plaintiff on behalf of all similarly aggrieved employees against each Defendant) 100. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint expressly herein by this reference as ifall prior paragraphs were set forth in full, including the Notice to the LWDA dated April 1, 2020, and the Amended Notice dated July 8, 2020. 101. Labor Code § 221 provides, in pertinent part, “[i]t shall be unlawful for any employer to collect or receive from an employee any part of wages theretofore paid by said employer to said employee.” 102. This statute is listed in Labor Code section 2699.5 as a statute for which violation of has been established to be subject to the default civil penalty provisions in Labor Code section 2699(t)(2). That section provides: “(1) For all provisions 0fthis code except those for which a civil penalty is specifically provided, there is established a civil penalty for a violation of these provisions, as follows: (2) If, at the time of the alleged violation, the person employs one or more employees, the civil penalty is one hundred dollars ($100) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial violation and two hundred dollars ($200) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each subsequent violation.” 103. In addition, Labor Code section 225.5 provides an independent and separate penalty for “violation of Section 212, 216, 221, 222, or 223” 0f the Labor Code of $100 for any initial violation for each failure to an employee, and $200 for any subsequent violation for each failure to pay an employee. 104. Here, during Plaintiff and aggrieved employees’ employment with Defendants, Defendants made unlawful deductions from Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees wages by deducting from those wages amounts, for example, for the cost of Occupational Accident Insurance. 22 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT A flaw 10 11 12 13 .14 15 16 17 l8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 t C O .105. Accordingly, the Defendants are subject to assessment of civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code sections 225.5, and 2699.5 for violations ofLabor Code Section 221. 106. Plaintiff will seek recovely of attorneys’ fees pursuant t0 Labor Code section 2699(g) and/or Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 to the extent enforcement of California labor laws and applicable regulations is determined to be in the public interest and consistent with the Legislative intent stated in Labor Code section 90.5, in an amount according to proof and subject to Court approval. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION PAGA CIVIL PENALTIES FOR LABOR CODE §§ 226(3), 226.3 AND THE APPLICABLE WAGE ORDER FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE AND ITEMIZED WAGE STATEMENTS (By Plaintiff 0n behalf of all similarly aggrieved employees and against each Defendant) 107. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint expressly herein by this reference as if all prior paragraphs were set forth in full, including the Notice to the LWDA dated April 1, 2020, and the Amended Notice dated July 8, 2020. 108. Labor Code section 226(a) provides in pertinent part: “(a) An employer, semimonthly or at the time of each payment of wages, shall fumish to his. or her employee, either as a detachable part of the check, draft, 0r voucher paying the employee’s wages, or separately if wages are paid by personal check or cash, 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 ifthe employee is paid on a piece-rate basis, (4) all deductions, provided that all deductions made on written orders ofthe employee may be aggregated and shown as one item, (5) net wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates ofthe period for which the employee is paid, . . . (8) the name and address ofthe 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. . .” 109. Labor Code section 226.3 provides in pertinent part: “Any employer who violates subdivision (a) ofSection 226 shall be subject to a civil penalty in the amount oftwo hundred fifty 23 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT 4:. \OOONONUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ' . . dollars ($250) per employee per violation in an initial citation and one thousand dollars ($1,000) per employee for each violation in a subsequent citation, for which the employer fails to provide the employee a wage deduction statement or fails to keep the records required in subdivision (a) of Section 226. The civil penalties provided for in this section are in addition t0 any other penalty provided by law. . .” 110. Here, during Plaintiff and aggrieved employees’ employment with Defendants, Defendants intentionally and knowingly failed t0 providé Plaintiff and aggrieved employees with timely and accurate wage and hour statements showing, among other things, gross and net wages earned, total hours worked, all hours worked at the applicable hourly rate, and all applicable hourly rates in effect during each pay period and the corresponding number 0f hours worked at each hourly rate. 111. Defendants systemically failed to provide such wage statements with accurate information and engaged in a policy of failing to pay for all hours actually worked. 112. The aforementioned conduct violated Labor Code section 226(a). 1t also violated the applicable Wage Order on required recordkeeping. Finally, the practices described herein violate Labor Code‘section 226.3, which assigns a specific civil penalty scheme for enforcement actions by the Department of Labor Standards and Enforcement (“DLSE”) 0r the LWDA. 1 13. Labor Code section 226(a) is a statute listed under Labor Code section 2699.5 for which civil penalties may be recovered under the default civil penalty scheme outlined in Labor Code section 2699(f)(2), cited above. 114. Labor Code section 226.3 provides an additional recoverable penalty “in the amount of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) per employee per violation in an initial citation and one thousand dollars ($1,000) per employee for each violation in a subsequent citation...” The civil penalty assessments under Section 226.3 “are in addition to any other penalty provided by law.” [Emphasis added] 1 15. Consequently, Plaintiff, 0n behalfofhimselfand other aggrieved employees, seeks to recover civil penalties pursuant to the PAGA for the alleged violations in an amount according to proof and subject to Court approval. 24 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT A \OOOQQU‘I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 . . l‘ 1 .1 6. Plaintiff will also seek recovery of attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses pursuant t0 Labor Code section 2699(g) and/or Code of Civil Procedure section 1021 .5 to the extent enforcement of California labor laws and applicable regulations is detemlined to be in the public interest and consistent with the Legislative intent stated in Labor Code section 90.5, in an amount according to proof and subject to Court approval. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION PAGA CIVIL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF LABOR CODE §§ 201-203 FOR FAILURE T0 TIMELY PAY ALL WAGES DUE TO TERMINATED/SEPARATED EMPLOYEES (By Plaintiff ohn behalf of all similarly aggrieved employees against each Defendant) 1 17. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint expressly herein by this reference as if all prior paragraphs were set fonh in full, including the Notice to the LWDA dated April 1, 2020, and the Amended Notice dated July 8, 2020. 118. Labor Code section 201 provides in part: “If an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge are due and payable immediately.” 119. Labor Code section 202 provides in part: “ If an employee not having a written contract for a definite period quits his or her employment, his or her wages shall become due and payable not later than 72 hours thereafter, unless the employee has given 72 hours previous notice ofhis or her intention to quit, in which case the employee is entitled to his or her wages at the time of quitting. 120. Labor Code section 203 provides: “If an employer willfully fails to pay, without abatement or reduction, in accordance with Sections 201, 201 .3, 201 .5, 201 .9, 202, and 205.5, any wages 0f an employee who is discharged or who quits, the wages ofthe employee shall continue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or until an action therefor is commenced; but the wages shall not continue for more than 30 days. An employee who secretes or absents themselves or themselves t0 avoid payment to him or her, or who refuses to receive the payment when fully tendered to him or her, including any penalty then accrued under this section, is not entitled to any benefit under this section for the time during which he or she so avoids 25 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT QO‘xUl-b 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 payment.” 121. Labor Code section 203 is a statute listed under Labor Code section 2699.5 for which civil penalties may be recovered under the default civil penalty scheme outlined in Labor Code section 2699(f)(2), cited above. 122. Here, Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees who were separated or were terminated from their employment within the applicable limitations period were not paid all wages due in a timely manner including as detailed above. 123. Consequently, Plaintiff, on behalfofhimselfand other aggrieved employees, seeks to recover civil penalties pursuant to the PAGA for the alleged violations per. pay period in an amount according to proof and subject to Court approval. 124. Plaintiff will also seek recovery of attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses pursuant to Labor Code section 2699(g) and/or Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 to the extent enforcement of California labor laws and applicable regulations is determined to be in the public interest and consistent with the Legislative intent stated in Labor Code section 90.5, in an amount according to proof and subject to Court approval. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION PAGA CIVIL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF LABOR CODE §§ 2800, 2802 AND THE APPLICABLE WAGE ORDER FOR FAILURE TO REIMBURSE ALL REASONABLE AND NECESSARY BUSINESS EXPENSES (By Plaintiff 0n behalf ofall similarly aggrieved employees against each Defendant) 125. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint expressly herein by this reference as if all prior paragraphs were set forth in full, including the Notice to the LWDA dated April 1, 2020, and the Amended Notice dated July 8, 2020. 126. California Labor Code section 2802(a) provides: “An employer shall indemnify his 0r her employee for all necessary expenditures 0r losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence ofthe discharge ofhis or her duties, or ofhis or her obedience to the directions ofthe employer, even though unlawful, unless the employee, at the time of obeying the directions, believed them to be unlawful.” 26 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT 4; OOOOQONUI 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 127. California Labor Code section 2802(b) provides: “All awards made by a coun or by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement for reimbursement of necessary expenditures under this section shall carry interest at the same rate as judgments in civil actions. Interest shall accrue from the date on which the employee incurred the necessary expenditure or loss.” 128. California Labor Code sectidn 2802(c) provides: “For purposes of this section, the term ‘necessary expenditures or losses shall include all reasonable costs, including, but not limited to, attorney’s fees incurred by the employee enforcing the rights granted by this section.” 129. California Labor Code section 2802(d) provides: “In addition to recovery 0f penalties under this section in a court action or proceedings pursuant to Section 98, the commissioner may issue a citation against an employer 0r other person acting 0n behalf of the employer who violates reimbursement obligations for an amount determined to be due to an employee under this section. The procedures for issuing, contesting, and enforcing judgments for citations or civil penalties issued by the commissioner shall be the same as those set forth in Section 1197. l. Amounts recovered pursuant to this section shall be paid to the affected employee.” 130. Califomia Labor Code section 1197.1 provides: “(1) For any initial violation that is intentionally committed, one hundred dollars ($100) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee is underpaid. This amount shall be in addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages, liquidated damages pursuant to Section 1194.2, and any applicable penalties imposed pursuant to Section 203. (2) For each subsequent violation for the same specific offense, two hundred fifty dollars ($250) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee is underpaid regardless of whether the initial violation is intentionally committed. This amount shall be in addition to liquidated damages pursuant to Section 1 194.2, and any applicable penalties imposed pursuant to Section 203. 131. Business expenses incurred by employees for work are not waivable, and Defendants are liable if the expenses were required in order t0 perform work. Here, Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees did not receive adequate reimbursement for' necessary business expenses, including but not limited to reimbursement for use of their persona] cell phones and personal automobiles or other transportation expenses. 27 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT \OOO\IO\ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 132. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees, seeks to recover civil penalties pursuant to the PAGA for the alleged failure to pay business-related expenses, in an amount according t0 proof and subject to Court approval. 133. Plaintiff will also seek recovery 0f attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses pursuant to Labor Code section 2699(g) and/or Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 to the extent enforcement of California labor laws and applicable regulations is detemlined to be in the public interest and consistent with the Legislative intent stated in Labor Code section 90.5, in an amount according to proof and subject to Court approval. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffprays for relief as follows: 1. On the First Cause of Action, Plaintiffindividually and on behalf of all aggrieved employees against all Defendants, Plaintiff seeks: a. Civil Penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 226.8(c): i. $10,000 for each aggrieved employee for the initial violation; and ii. $25,000 for each aggrieved employee for each subsequent violation. 2. On the Second Cause ofAction, Plaintiff individually and on behalfofall aggrieved employees against all Defendants, Plaintiff seeks: a. Civil Penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 1 197.1: i. $100 for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial violation; and ii. $250 for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each subsequent violation; and b. Civil Penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 558: i. $50 for each underpaid employee for each pay period; and ii. $100 per employee per pay period for subsequent violations. 3. On the Third Cause of Action, by Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all aggrieved employees against all Defendants, Plaintiff seeks: a. Civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 2699(f): ‘ 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT .p \lONL/l 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 i. $100 for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial viblation; and ii. $200 for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each subsequent violation; and b. Civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 558: i. $50 for each underpaid employee for each pay period; and ii'. $ I 00 per employée per pay period for subsequent violations. On the Fourth Cause of Action, by Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all aggrieved employees against all Defendants, Plaintiff seeks: a. Civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 2699(1): i. $100 for‘ each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial violation; and ii. $200 for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each subsequent violation; and b. Civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 558: i. $50 for each underpaid employee for each pay period; and ii. $100 per employee per pay period for subsequent violations. On the Fifth Cause of Action, by Plaintiff individually and 0n behalf of all aggrieved employees against all Defendants, Plaintiff seeks: a. Civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 2699(0: i. $100 for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial violation; and ii. $200 for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each subsequent violation; and b. Civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 558: i. $50 for each underpaid employee for each pay period; 'and ii. $100 per employee per pay period for subsequent violations. 29 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT A \OOO\)O\UI 10 11 12 13 l4 15 16 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On the Sixth Cause of Action, by Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all aggrieved employees against all Defendants, Plaintiff seeks: a. Civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 2699(0: i. $100 for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial violation and $200 for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each subsequent violation; and b. Civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 558: i. $50 for each underpaid employee for each pay period; and ii. $ 1 00 per employee per pay period for subsequent violations. On the Seventh Cause of Action, by Plaintiff individually and 0n behalf 0f all aggrieved employees against all Defendants, Plaintiff seeks: a. Civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 2699(f): i. $100 for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial violation; and ii. $200 for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each subsequent violation; and/or b. Civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 248.5. On the Eighth Cause of Action, by Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all aggrieved employees against all Defendants, Plaintiff seeks: ’ a. Civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 2699(f): i. $100 for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial violation; and $200 for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each subsequent violation; and b. Civil penalties pursuant t0 Labor Code §225.5: ‘ i. $100 for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial violation; and 3O FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT A \D 00 \l ON'M 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10. 11. ii. $200 for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each subsequent violation. On the Ninth Cause of Action, by Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all aggrieved employees against all Defendants, Plaintiff seeks: a. Civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 226:. i. $50 per employee per vi‘olation for an initial citation and $100 per employee for each violation for subsequent citations, not to exceed $4,000 per employee; and b. Civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 226.3: i. $250 per employee per violation for an initial citation; and ii. $1 ,000 per employee for each-violation for subsequent citation; On the Tenth Cause of Action, by Plaintiff individually and ,on behalf of all aggrieved employees against all Defendants, Plaintiff seeks: a. Civil penalties pursuant t0 Labor Code § 2699(1): i. $100 for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial violation; and ii. $200 for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each subsequent violation. On the Eleventh Cause of Action, by Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all aggrieved employees against all Defendants, Plaintiff seeks: a. Civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 1 197.1: i. $100 for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial violation; and ii. $250 for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each subsequent violation; and b. Civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 2699(1‘): i. $100 for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial violation; and 31 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT A \OOOQONKII 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 o c h ii. $200 for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each subsequent violation. l2. For reasonable attorneys’ fees under the California Labor Code and any other statutes, including California Labor Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and/or California Labor Code § 2699(g); ' 13. For costs of the suit incurred herein; 14. For pre- and post-judgment interest at the prevailing statutory rate; 15. For civil penalties as described above pursuant to PAGA, 75% of which will be paid to the Labor Workforce Development Agency and 25% of which will be distributed t0 the aggrieved employees; 16. For such equitable relief as the Court may deem just and proper; and 17. For such other relief as the Court may deem proper. DATED: November 6, 2020 LEBE LAW, APLC Joxméfla‘HM. Lebe Attorney for Plaintiff Tai Tran, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated DATED: November 6, 2020 COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER AttQmey for Plaintiff Tai Tran, individually and 0n behalf of all others similarly situated 32 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT \OOOVON 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffdemands a trial by jury on all claims so triable. DATED: November 6, 2020 DATED: November 6, 2020 LEBE LAW, APLC By: Joné-Eh‘é-n’M. Lebe Attorney for Plaintiff Tai Tran, individually and on behalfof all others similarly situated COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER __MlchaelD " r "i By: Attorney for Plaintiff Tai Tran, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated 33 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PENALTIES PURSUANT TO PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT \OOO\IONUI&WN>-' NNNNNNNNNHb-Ir-‘Hh-ih-dh-dr-‘y-nt-I WNONMAWNHOCOONQMQWNHO PROOF OF SERVICE Tran v. Garuda Labs, Inc. (Iba Instawork Alameda Superior Court Case No. RGZOO67292 l, Karla Sousa, declare as follows: I am employed in the County 0f San Diego, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action. My business address is 605 “C” Street, Suite 200, San Diego, California 92101. On November 9, 2020, I instituted service of the forgoing document described as: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the following interested panics: Counsel for Defendant Co-Counse] for Plaintiff Elisa Nadeau, Esq. Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. Linda Nguyen Bollinger, Esq. Zachary Gershman, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PHC LEBE LAW, APC 50 West San Fernando Street, 7th Floor 777 SOuth Alameda Street, second FIOOI‘ San Jose, CA 951 13-2434 Los Angeles, CA 90021 enadeau@littler.com MW LBolh'n er 1itt1er.com Wm I then caused service of each document in the manner described below: [XX] BY EMAIL: Pursuant to Emergency Rules Related to COVID-19, Judicial Council Rule 12(b)(1), I transmitted the foregoing document(s) electronically via the email addresses listed above. [XX] STATE: I declare under penalty ofpeljury under the laws of the State 0f California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed November 6, 2020, at San Diego, California. KJt‘Qa Sousa EXHIBIT D l\_) LaJ U1 6 {\J Ix.) NO SUMMONS ISSUED BLDV’IENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUVV LL? Nonnan B. Blumenthal (State B211 #068687) E %'§Kvle R Neldmhaug (State Bax #2059 /5) - rt 0f Cahfomia Apamjit Bhowmik (State Ba1 #248066) Sggfirr'g gfé‘an Francisco Nicholas J De Blouw (State Ba1 #280922) 2255 Calla Clala La 3011a, CA 92037 ‘ URTTele )hone: (858)551-1223 HE CO Facsllmile: (858) 551-1232 BYCLERw Website: wwxxabamlawca.00111 Deputy Clerk"' ' " " A(EfiCA SUNGA Attorneys for Plaintiff SUPERHOR COURT 0F THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA 1N AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SA’\ FRANCISCO ISHAN BASU-KESSELMAN 0n behalfof Case No. 39-20-586 542 the State 0f Califomia, as apliV ate attomey genel a1 REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT FOR: Plaintiff, 1. Civil Penalties Pursuant t0 Labor Code § vs. 2699, ez’ sec]. f01 Violations of Labor Code §§ 201 202 203. 204 etseq. , 210, 226(a) 2267,351 510 512, 558(3)(1)(2), 1194 GARUDA LABS,INC.; aCorporation; and 1 197, I 197.}, Ii 198, 2802, Califomia Code DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 0f Regulationx Title 8, Section 11040, Subdivision 5(.A')-(B), and the- applicable Wage Order(s). Defendants. BY FAX 1 REPRESENTA'I‘J VE ACTION CC):\'H’.§../‘\£Nl' 16 Plaintifflshan Basu-Kesselmzm (”PLAINTIFF”), on behalfof the people Ofthe State of California and as an “aggfieved employee” acting as aprivate attorney general under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004, § 2699, ez‘ seq. (“PAGA”) only: alleges on information and belief, except fdr his own acts and knowledge- which are based 0n personal knowledge, the following: INTRODUCTION 1. PLAINTIFF brings this action against Defendant Garuda Labs, Inc. (referred t0 as “DEFENDANT”) seeking only t0 recover PAGA civil Qenalties for himself, and 0n behalf 0f all current and former aggrieved employees that worked for DEFENDANT. PLAINTIFF does not seek t0 recover anvthing other than penalties as permitted bv California Labor Code 8 2699. T0 the extent that statutory Violations are mentioned forwage violations, PLAINTIFF does not seek underlying general and/or special damages for those violations, but simply the civil penalties permitted by California Labor Code. § 2699. 2. California has enacted the PAGA to permit an individual t0 bring an action 0n behalfofhimselfand 0n behalf 0f others forPAGA penalties only, which is the Qrecise and sole nature 0f this action. 3. Accordingly, PLAINTIFF seeks to obtain all applicable reiieffor DEFENDANTS Violations under PAGA and solely for the relief as permitted by PAGA ~ that is, penalties and any other relief the Court deems proper pursuant t0 the PAGA. Nothing in this complaint should be construed as attempting t0 Obtain any reliefthat wouid not be available in a PAGA-only action. ‘ 4. Defendant Garuda Labs, Inc, known t0 the genera! public as “Instawork”, (“DEFENDANT”) in order t0 sewice customers hires workers t0 aid DEFENDANT in providing manual labor sewices t0 their clients. The. cost, as proscribed by law; 0f the personnel hired t0 work for DEFENDANT, includes not only the pay of these employees but the cost 0ftbe employer's share oftax payments t0 the federal and state govemments for income taxes, social security taxes, medicare insurance, unemployment inSurzmce and payments for ,3 A. REPRES EN’I"/\"|‘1V E A C"HON COM PLAJ \ i" k.) Lb.) U1 O‘GWNON workers' compensation insurance. T0 avoid the payment. of‘these legaliy proscribed expenses t0 the fullest extent possible, DEFENDANT devised a scheme t0 piace the responsibifity for the payment 0f these costs and expenses 0fDEFENDANT on the shoulders 0f PLAINTIFF and other employees. As employer, DEFENDANT is legally responsible for the payment 0f ali these expenses. THE PARTIES 5. DEFENDANT at all relevant times mentioned herein conducted and continues t0 conduct substantial and regular business in the State ofCaliform'a. 6. DEFENDANT is a startup that connects gig economy workers Withjobs in select markets. DEFENDANT’S workers are composed 0f independent comractors and employees. 7. PLAINTIFF worked forDEFENDANT as an independent contractor performing “gigs” working manual labor from August 0f 2018 t0 Jan'ualy 0f 2020 and 8330 worked for DEFENDANT from January 0f 2020 t0 March of 202.0 perfonning the same “gigs” and was recmssified as an employee during this time period. During his employment With DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF accepted work “gigs” via DEFENDANT’S application he was required to download 0n his personal cell phone. These “gigs” PLAINTIFF accepted Via DEFENDANT’S appiication, were jobs, including but not iimited t0: working as a prep 000k, line cook, event server and waiter at various places, such as, goif courses, hotels, restaurants, Sporting venues, beach events, and award ceremonies including the Emmy’s. 8. Caiifbmia Labor Code- Section 226.8 provides that “[i.]t is unlawful for any person 01' employer to engage in . . . [w]fllful misclassification 0f an individual as an independent contractor.” The penalty forwiilful misclassification ofemployees is a “civii penaity ofnot less than five thousand dollars ($5,000) and not more than fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for each Violation, in addition t0 any other penaEties 01' fines permitted by law.” It is further provided that, in the event that 2m employer is found t0 have engaged in “a panem 01‘ practice of these Vioiations,” the penalties increase to “not less than ten thougand dollars ($1 0,000) and not more than twentyfive thousand dollars ($251000) for each violation, in additicm to any other q R.EPRES EN’I‘INE‘VI VE A("HON COM PJ__,1\,IN'I“ Ix.) {ALLA} 16 penalties 0r fines permitted by law.” Cal. Labor Code § 226.8. 9. Here, DEFENDANT has willfully misclassified PLAINTIFF and other workers who accepted “Gigs” Via Defendant’s application as described in Cal. Labor Code § 226.8, and further, that DEFENDANT has engaged in a “pattern 0r practice” 0f such Violations as coniemplated by the California Labor Code. 10. Upon hire, the. position was represented byDEFENDANT t0 PLAINTIFF and the other workers as an independent contractor position capable of paying an hourly rate for the time they spend. providing manual labor to DEFENDANT s third party customers. PLAINTIFF and other workers were not compensated overtime wages for any 0f their time spent working in excess of eight (8) hours in a workday, twelve (12) hours in a workday, and/or forty (40) hours in a workweek. _ PLAINTIFF and other workers were paid. the hourly rate to perform labor sewices on DEFENDANT’S behalf. PLAINTIFF and other workers were not compensated any other wages besides the nonmegotiable hourly rate- and they were not allowed t0 record their time While they waited for DEFENDANT t0 give them work. DEFENDANT did not pay PLAINTIFF and other AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES for the time spent driving t0 21nd fi‘omjobs, and all the other time they spent working for DEFENDANT outside offlle job assignment they were placed at With DEFENDANT’S third party customers. The finite set of tasks required t0 be performed by the workers is, when notified via cell phone, travel t0 DEFENDANT ’s customers t0 performjobs including butnot limited t0, restaurant service tasks, delivering goods, merchandising, custodial sewices, janitorial tasks, picking and packing goods warehousing tasks all in accordance with DEFENDANT’S business practices and. policies. 1 1. To perform their job duties, PLAINTIFF and the other workers perform work subject t0 the control 0f DEFENDANT in that DEFENDANT had the authority to exercise complete controi over the work performed and the manner and means in which the work was performed. DEFENDANT provided the customers and DEFENDANT prov ided the instructions as to how to perform their work. .1 2. California Labor C0de§ 3357 defines ”employee” as “awry person in the service ofzm employer under any appointment 0r contact thire 01‘ apprenticeship, express 01' implied, 4 REl’RESEN’lT/X’E‘JVE. AC'I'ION C(i):\'.‘ll’L/\..l \E 4>- LIJ Ix.) U1 6 oral 01‘ written, whether lawfully 0r unlawfully employec .” In addition t0 the Califomia Labor Code’s presumption that workers are employees, the Califomia Supreme Court has determined the most significant factor t0 be considered in distinguishing an independent contractor from an employee is Whether the employer orprincz'pal has control 0r the right t0 control the work both as t0 the workpeifformed and the manner and means in which the work is performed. DEFENDANT heavily controlled both the work performed and the. manner and means in which the PLAINTIFF and the other workers performed their work in that: (a) PLAINTIFF and other workers were not involved in a distinct business, but instead were provided with instructions as t0 how t0 perfonn their work and the manner and means in which the work was t0 be performed by means 0f DEFENDANT’S and DEFENDANT’S customers manuals and written instructions; (b) PLAINTIFF and other workers were continuously provided with training and supervision, including following DEFENDANT’S company documents and received training from DEFENDANT as to how and in what way t0 perform the sewices; (C) DEFENDANT set the requirements as t0 what policies and procedures all ()fthe workers were to fol low, including but not limited to, hourly rates, location ofassignment, where t0 park, and What to wear; (d) PLAINTIFF and other workers had n0 opportunity for profit 0r loss because DEFENDANT only paid these workers an hourly rate. DEFENDANT controlled and assigned the workers which tasks were t0 be performed; (e) PLAINTIFF and other workers performed manual labor services which are part of DEFENDANT’S principal business and is closely integrated with and essential to the employer's business 0f providing manual laborers to their customers; (f) PLAINTIFF and other workers performed the work themselves and did not hire others to perfonn their work for them; (g) PLAINTIFF and other workers did not have the authority t0 make employment-related personnel decisions; (h) PLAINTIFF and other workers performed their work in a particular order 3 REPRESEN'I‘A’HVii AC’HON CC)[\11.|’.L,/\l\l Ix.) {JJ U) 6 and sequence in accordance with DEFENDANT’S 21nd DEFENDANT’S customers company poiicies; and, (i) DEFENDANT had the “right” to controi even] critical aspect 0f DEFENDANT’S labor operations in thaiDEFENDANT provided the customer, assigned where the workers were t0 go, assigned the hourly rate, and step-by-step instmctions t0 PLAINTIFF and other werk‘ers as to the entire process ofworking at their assigned locations. PLAINTIFF and other workers providedmanual labor services ONLY fOI‘DEFENDANT’S customers, which DEFENDANT controlled Via the- company’s mobile application. 13. As a result stripped 0f all the legal fictions and artificiai barriers t0 an honest classification 0f the relationship between PLAINTIFF and all the other workers on the one hand, and DEFENDANT 011 the other hand, PLAINTIFF and all. the other workers are and were employees 0f DEFENDANT and not independent contractors 0f DEFENDANT and should therefore be properly classified as non-exempt, hourly employees. .1 4. PLAINTIFF, and such persons that may be added from time t0 time who satisfy the requirements and exhaus? the administrative procedures under the Private Attorney General Act, brings this Representative Action on behaif 0f the State 0f Caiif‘omia with respect t0 himself and all individuals Who are 0r previously were. employed by DEFENDANT in Caiiifomia and who were classified as independent contractors and/or non exempt employees (“AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES”) during the time period 0f May 7, 2019 untii a date. as determined by the Court (the ”PAGA PERIOD"). i5. PLAINTIFF, 0n behalfofhimseifand 211i AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES presently 0r formerly employed byDEFENDANT during the PAGA PERIOD, brings this representative action pursuant t0 Labor Code § 2699: etseq. seeking fixed civil penalties for DEFENDANT’S Violation ofCalifomia Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204 ez seq, 210, 226(3), 226.73 351, 5'10, 512, 558(a)(1)(2), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2802, California Code OfRegulations, Title 8, Section 11040, Subdivigion 5(A)-(B), 21nd the applicable Wage Ordmfs). Based upon the foregoing, PLAINTIFF and ail AGGRIEVED ER/IPLOYIEES are aggrieved employees within the meaning of’Labm Code S 2699, e: seq.u 6 RE l"RES EN! .I-\"i".l \I’E ACT]O\ COM P £.,.!-\,l \T ix.) UI-D-UJ 16 18 16. The tTue names and, capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate 0r othemlise 0f the Defendants sued here as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are presently unknown t0 PLAINTIFF Who therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names pursuant t0 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 474. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and based thereon: alleges that each 0f the Defendants designatedherein is legally responsible in some manner for the unlawful acts referred t0 herein. PLAINTIFF will seek léax’e ofCourt t0 amend this Complaint to reflect the tme names and capacities of the Defendants when they have been ascertained and become known. i 17. The agents, servants and/or employees 0fthe Defendants and each of them acting on behalf 0f the Defendants acted Within the course and scope 0f his, her 0r its authority as the agent, servant and/or employee of the Defendants, and personally participated in the conduct alleged herein 0n behalf of the Defendants With respect t0 the- conduc-t alleged herein. Consequently, the acts ofe-ach Defendant are legally attributable to the other Defendants and all Defendants are jointly and severally liable t0 the PLAINTIFF and the- other AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES, for the loss sustained as a proximate result 0f the conduct 0f the Defendants‘ agents, servants and/or employees. THE CONDUCT 18. The finite set 0f tasks required of PLAINTIFF and the other AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES as defined by DEFENDANT was executed by them through the performance 0f non-exempt labor. .1 9. Although PLAINTIFF and the other AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES performed non-axempt labor subject to DEFE‘NiDANT’S complete control over the manner and means 0f performance, DEFENDANT instituted a blanket classification policy, practice and procedure by which all of‘theSe AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES were clewsified as ”independent contractors” exempt from compensation for overtime worked, meal breaks and rest breaks, and reimbursement for business related. expenSes. By reason Ofthis uniform misciassification, the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES were also required to pay DEFENDANT ’s share Ofpayroll taxes 7 ,REPRESEN'I‘A'I‘JV E ACTION CC)2\/1.|’.I.,/\li\?']f U3 00 \I 0‘. and mandatory insurance premiumS. As a rejsuii 0f this uniform misciassification practice, policy: and procedure applicable t0 PLAINTl‘Eé-‘F and the other AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES who perfomned fhis work for DEFENDANT, ehgaged in a company-Wide policy, practice and procedure which failed t0 properly classify?! PLAINTIFF and the- other AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES as employees and thereby failed to pay them wages for all time worked, reimbursement of business related. expens‘es, féiled t0 provide them with meal and rest breaks, and faiied t0 reimburse these employees for the employer’ s share ofpayroll taxes and mandatory insurance. The proper classification offhese employees is DEFENDANT’S burden. As a result 0fDEFENDANT’S intentional disregard ofthe: obligation t0 meet this burden, DEFENDANT violated the California Labor Code and regulations promulgated thereunder as herein alieged. 20. As a result oftheir rigorous work Scheduies, PLAINTIFF and otherAGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES were from time to time unable jto take thirty (30) minute off duty meal breaks and were. not fully relieved 0f duty for theirmeai periods. PLAINTIFF and otherAGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES were required from time t0 timg to perform work as orderec} by DEFENDANT for more than five (5) hours during some shifts Without receiving a meal break. Further, DEFENDANT from time t0 time failed lto provide. PLAINTIFF and AGGRIEVED EMPLDYEES Wifh a second 0ff~duty meal peri‘bd fox some. workdays in which these employees were required by DEFENDANT t0 work teri (.10) hours 0f work. PLAINTIFF and othell members of the CALIFORNIA AGGRIEVED} EMPLOYEES therefore forfeited meal breaks without additional compensation and in acconiagnce with DEFENDANT’S $trict corporate policy and practice. ‘ 2 .i . During thePAGA PERIOD, PLAINTIFF and otherAGGRIEVEDEMPLOYEES were also required from time t0 time- to work infixcess offour (4) hours without being provided ten ( i 0) minute rest periods. Further} these emiployees were denied their first rest periods 0f at least ten (1 0) minutes for some Shifts worked (331? at least two (2) to four (4) hours from time i0 tima a first and second rest period 0f at lea$t ten (10) minutes for some shifts worked 0f between six {6) and eight (8) hours from time t0 time, and a first, second and third rest period ofat least ten {10) minutes for some shifts worked Often (10’) hours 01‘ more from time m time. '8 REPRESENTA'H VJ: AC'UO ?\l COM ,P,E__,/\i;\§ Ix.) J:- bJ ‘ U1 6 18 PLAINTIFF and other AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES were also not provided with one. hour wages in lieu thereof. As a result 0f their rigorous work schedules, PLAINTIFF and other AGGRIE‘VED EMPLOYEES were from timé t0 time denied their proper rest periods by DEFENDANT and DEFENDANT’S managers. 22. DEFENDANT, as a matter of la‘Iw, has the burden Ofp'roving that employees are properly. classified and that DEFENDANT otherwise complies with applicable laws. DEFENDANT, as a matter of corporate policy, erroneously and unilaterally classified all the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES as independent contractors. 23. During the PAGA PERIOD, DEFENDANT failed to accurately record and pay PLAINTIFF and other AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES for the actual amount of time these employees work. Pursuant t0 the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, DEFENDANT is required to pay PLAINTIFF and other AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES for all time worked, meaning the time during Which an employee was subject to the control 0f an employer, inciuding all the time the. employee was I permitted 0r suffered t0 permit this work. DEFENDANT required PLAINTIFF and AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES t0 work Off the clock without paying them for all the time they were under DEFENDANT’S control. As a result. of their rigorous work schedules, PLAINTIFF and otherAGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES were from time t0 time- not fuliy relieved 0f duty by DEFENDANT and DEFENDANT’S customers for their meal periods and would clock out 0f DEFENDA'NT’S timekeeping system but continue to work during what should have been their off~duty meal period. PLAINTIFF and other AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES also worked more than eight hours in a workday and/or forty hours in a workweek, but DEFENDANT failed t0 pay these employees overtime pay as DEFENDANT only paid a flat hourly rate for all time worked. Additionally, PLAINTIFF and AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES were not paid for the time they spent reviewing DEFENDANT ’ s application regarding ajob that was assigned, 0r the requirements for The. job and also for the time spent responding t0 calls and emails ,fi‘om‘DEFENDANT and DEFENDANT’S customers. PLAINTIFF and the AGGRI'EVED EMPLOYEES were only paid when the clocked in at DEFENDANT’S customers work. sites to perf’brm their manual labor. As a result, PLATNTIFF 9 RE 1"RES EN’I'A’ l Tl V E11 ACT lO\ COMPLA l N' E‘ 16 A‘ and other AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES forfeited minimum' wages and overtime. wage compensation by working without their time being correctly recorded and Without compensation at the. applicable rates. DEFENDANT’S policy and practice not t0 pay PLAINTIFF and other AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES for all time- worked, is evidenced by DEFENDANT’S business records. 24. DEFENDANT as a matter o‘f corporate policy, practice. and procedure, intentionally and knowingly failed t0 reimburse and indemnify PLAINTIFF and the other AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES forl‘equired business expenses incurred by PLAINTIFF and other AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES in direct consequence 0f discharging their duties 0n behalf 0f DEFENDANT. Under Califomia Labor Code Section 2802, employers are required t0 indemnify employees for all expenses incurred in the course. and scope 0ftheir employment. Cal. Lab. Code § 2802 expressly states that "an employer shall indemnify his 0r her employee for all necessary expenditures 0r losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence ofthe discharge ofhis 0r her duties, 0r ofhis Other obedience to the directions Ofthe employer, even though unlawful, unless the employee, at the time of obeying the directions, believed them t0 be unlawful.” 25. In the course of their employment PLAINTIFF and other AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES as a business expense, were required byDEFENDANT to use personal cellular phones and use their personal vehicles as a result 0f and in furtherance of their job duties as employees forDEFENDANT but were notreimbursed 01' indemnifiedbyDEFENDANT for the cost associated with the. use 0f the personal cellular phones and personal vehicles for DEFENDANFS benefit. In order t0 work for DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF and other AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES were required t0 use their personal vehicles t0 travel to different locations each work shift andwere also required t0 use DEFFNIDAN'FS mobile application and as such it is mandatory t0 have a cell phone that is compatible with DEFENDANT’S mobile application. As a result, in the course Oftheir employment with DEFENDANT PLAINTIFF and other AGGRIEVED EMPI‘fl'YEES incpl‘red unreimbursed business‘ expenses which included, but were not limited t0, costs related t0 the use. OFtheir personal cellular phones and 1 O REPRES 1:71 N'l"/\',lil VE ACT IO\ COM PLAJ \1 45 {)3 Ix.) U1 6 ail 0n behalf 0f zmd for the. benefit 0f DEFENDANT. Further, PLAINTIFF and other AGGRQIEVED EMPLOYEES were also not reimbursed 01' indemnified by DEFENDANT for the cost associated with using their personal' §ehic1€s while- performing for DEFENDANT. Moreover, PLAINTIFF and other AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES were 3130 required from time t0 time t0 pay for parking costs at certain shopping centers and delively iocations. As a result, in the course Oftheir employment with DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF and other AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES incurred um'eimbursed business expenses which included, but were not limited t0, costs related to travel 2111 0n behalf of and for the benefit 0fDEFENDANT. 26. Cal. Lab. Code § 226 provides that every employer shall furnish each ofhis 0r her employees with an accurate itemized wage statement in writing showing, among other things, gross wages earned and all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding amount 0f time worked at each hourly rate. From time t0 time, DEFENDANT violated Cal. Lab. Code § 226 by failing t0 provide wage statements that identified the correct gross and net wages earned. Aside- from the Violations listed above, DEFENDANT failed t0 issue to PLAINTIFF an itemized wage statement that lists 2111 the requirements under California Labmr Code 226 ez‘ seq. As a. result, fi‘om time t0 time DEFENDANT provided PLAINTIFF and the other AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES With wage statements which violated Cal. Lab. Code ‘27. By reason of this conduct applicable t0 PLAINTIFF and all the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES, DEFENDANT engaged in a company-wide policy; practice and procedure which failed to correctly classify PLAINTIFF and the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES as employees. The proper classification 0fthese employees is DEFENDANTS burden. As aresult M‘DEFENDANT'S intentional disregard 0f the (I)bligation t0 meet“ this burden, DEFENDANT failed to pay 2111 required wages for work performed by PLAINTIFF and other AGGRIEVED EMP'IJDYEES and violated the California Labor Code. and regulations promulgated thereunder 215 herein alleged. 28. Ail 0f the conduct and Violations alleged herein occurred during the PAGA PERIOD. To the extent that any 0f the conduct and violations alleged herein did 1101‘ affect 1.1 REPRESEN'J'A'I] VE. ACTION COM PLAIN'E' Ix.) L») 18 N {\J Ix.) PLAINTIFF during the PAGA PERIOD, PLAINTIFF seeks penalties for those Violations that affected other AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES pjursuant to Carringz‘on v. Starbucks Corp. 201 8 AJDAR 121 57 (Certified for Publication 12/19/1 8). JURISDICTION AND VENUE 29. This Court has jurisdiction over tfiis Action pursuant to California Code 0f Civil Procedure, Section 410.10. 30. Venue is proper in this Courtpursfiant t0 Cal. Code 0f Civ. Proc. Sections 395 and 395.5: because DEFENDANT (i) currently maintains and at all relevant times maintained its principal offices and facilities in this Count}; and/or conducts substantial business in this County, and (ii) committed the wrongful cdnduct herein alleged in this County against PLAINTIFF AND the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES. FIRST CAUSE 0F ACTEON For Violation 0f the Private Attorneys General Act [CaL Lab. C0de§§ 2698, et seq.} (By PLAINTEFE‘ and Against AH Defendants) 3 1. PLAINTIFF incorporates byl‘efefence the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-30, Supra, as though fully set fib'rth at this point. 32. PAGA is a mechanism by Which the State 0f California itself can enforce state labor laws through the employee suing under th‘e PAGA Who d0 so as the proxy 01‘ agent 0f the state’s labor iaw enforcement agencies. An aétion t0 recover civil penalties under PAGA is fundamentally a law enforcement action designéd t0 protect the public and not to benefit private parties. The purpose 0f the PAGA is not t0 fecover damages or restitution, but t0 create a means 0f ”deputizing" citizens as private attorneys general t0 enforce the Labor Code. In enacting PAGA, the California Legislature specified thaf "it was in the public interest t0 allow aggrieved employeeaacting as private attorneyg general t0 recover civil penalties {Tor Labor Code Violations ..." Stats. 2003, Ch. 90$, § 1. Accordingly, PAGA claims cannot be Subject {o arbitration. 12 REP’RESENIQ'X'I‘JV’EZ ACTION C(:):.\:1l’.U-XJN'I' Ix.) b.) l6 l 33. PLAINTIFF, and such pe-rsons that may be added from time t0 time who satisfy the requirements and exhaust the administrativé procedures under the Private Attorney General Act, brings this Representative Action 0n behalf 0f the State of California with respect to himself and all individuals who are 01‘ prefiously were employed by DEFENDANT in California and who were classified as indepenldent contractors and/or non exempt employees (“AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES”) during the :time period 0f May 7, 20.1 9 until a date as determined by the Court (the “PAGA PERIOD"). 34. On May 7, 2020, PLAINTIFF gays written notice by electronic mail t0 the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (the "Agiency") and by certified mail t0 the employer of the specific provisions 0f this code alleged t0 h;ave been violated as required by Labor Code- § 2699.3. See Exhibit #1, attached hereto amji incorporated by this reference herein. The statutOIy waiting period for PLAINTIFF t0 add these allegations t0 the Complaint has expired. As a result, pursuant t0 Section 2699.3, PLAINTIFF may now commence a representative civil action underPAGA pursuant to Section 2699 as: the proxy Ofthe State OfCalifornia with respect to all AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES as herein defined? 35. The. policies, acts and practices gleretofore described were and are 2m unlawful business act 0r practice because DEFENDANT (a) failed t0 provide PLAINTIFF and the other AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES accurate iteniizéd wage statements, (b) failed t0 properly record I and provide. legally required meal and rest peripds, (c) failed t0 pay minimum wages, (d) failed t0 pay overtime wages, (e) failed to pay wages \Lvhen due, and (f) failed to reimburse employees for required expenses, all in Violation 0f the Applicable Labor Code sections listed in Labor Code §§ 201 , 202, 203, 204 etseq., 21 0, 226(a),%226.7, 351, 5.10, 512, 558(a)(1)(2), 1194, 1197, 1 197.1, 1 I98, 2802, California Code ofRegulaltions, Title. 8, Section 1 1040, Subdivision 5(A)- (B), and the applicable Wage Order(s)_, and thFreby gives rise t0 civil penalties as a result 0f such conduct} PLAINTIFF hereby seeks recolvely ofonly civil penalties as prescribed by the Labor Code Private. Attorney General Act 6f 2004 as the rapresentati‘ve 0f the State 0f lPlaintiff specifically excludes and/or doeSQ'not allege any claims under Califomia Labor Code §558(a)(3). j 13 REPRESEN’I‘A'I] V E /i\C"[‘lON COM PLAHE \OWQONM-p‘vJNH NNNNNNNNNHr-Ar-ar-IHHI-tb-AL-IH OONONM-DWNHOKOOOQONUWJ>WNHO California for the illegal conduct perpetrated :on PLAINTIFF and the other AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES. ‘ PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment against each Defendant, jointly and severally, as follows: 1. 011 behalf 0f the State 0f Califomia and with respect to a1] AGGRIEVBD EMPLOYEES: A) Recovery of civil penalties as prescribed by the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004; and, B) An award 0f attorneys’ fe¢s and cost 0f suit, as allowable under the law, including, but not limited t0, pursuant to Labor Code §2699. Dated: August 21, 2020 ' BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP By: Norman B Emmenthal\ Attorneys for Plaintiff 14 REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT IQ b.) U1 6 M b.) Ix.) IQ h) U) J; (A 1x.) Ix) Ch 27 28 RE PRESEN'I‘AT IV E A.C"l‘iO\ COM PLAINT BLEWE‘NE‘EAL NORDREHAUG ?BHOVVMEK 9E BLOU‘W LL? 2255 CALLE CLAJRA LA 301 L X. CALIFORNEA 92037 Web Site: WWijmmi wxmun} San Diego | San Francisco I Sacramento ! Los Angelcs ! Riverside | Santa Clara I Orange I Chicago Phone: (858) 551-1223 Fax: (858) 55 3-] 232 WRITERS E~MA1Lt W'RITERS EXT: Nit @hamlmvca.com 1004 May 7, 2020 CA2 1 35 VEA ONLINE FRING- TO LWDA AND CERTEFIED MAE, T0 DEFENDANT Labo: and kafmce Davelopment Avency Gmuda Labs. Inc Oniine I iling Certified Mail ?‘70192280000075854 72 5 Sunm Meghani 340 Brannan St, Ste 302 San Erancisoo, CA 94:07 Re: Notice OfViolationS OfCalifomia Labor Code Sections §§ 20} , 202, 203, 204 er seq, 2 1 0, 226(21), 226.7, 35 l , 510, 5 12, 558(a)(l)(2), 1194, 1197; l i971, 1 198, 2802, California Code 0fRegixlations, Title 8, Section 11040, Subdivision 5(A)-(B)§ Calflbrnia Code 0fRegulations, Title 8, Section 1 .1 070(1 4) (Failure i0 Provide Seating), Violation 0f; Applicable Industrial \Velfare Commission Wage Ordefls), and Pursuant Tb California Labor Code Section 26995. ‘ Dear Sir/Madam: “Aggrieved Employees” refers “£0 all individuals who are 0r previously were employed by Defendant Gamda Labs, Inc. in Califomia and classifiéd as independent contractors audio: non- exempt employees during the time pen'od ofMay 7, 20119 until a date as determined bythe Court. Our offices representPiai mi'f‘I‘Tshan Baszesselman (“Plaintifi”), and other Aggrieved Employees- in a lawsuit against Defendant Garuda Labs, Inc. (“Defendant”). Plaintiffivas empioyed by Defendant in California as a independent contractor from August 01’201 8 'to Ja‘nuz-uy 0f2020. Thereafter, Plainti ITE‘was reclassified by Defendant and worked as an employee from January 0f 2020 1'0 March 01’2020. Ai a1} times, Plaintiffwas entitled t0 the legallyrequired meal and rest breaks and payment. for ail time worked under Defendant’s control. As independent contractors. t’hejob duties ofl’mntiff 21nd othewkggieved Employees did not entitie Defendant. i0 claim any exemption from minimum wages. ovemme waves mefil and rest periods and reimbursement 0f business expenses as to Plaimif f and olhel Agglim ed Employ ces Plaimi {f and Aggrieved Employees shouid have been Classihcd by Defendautjas 11011-exempi em'eploy es emiiled 10 the ieszaliv required meal and rest breaks and payment 0r ail time worked under Defendant ’S control Regan dless 01 Defendants Lisslhccmon 0t Piainti Hand Agg1 iex ed iimplm ees Delenda-mt umawfu'liy fai ied 10 record and pay Plaintiffand UtherAggrieved Employees for, including but not limiied t0, all oflheir time worked, includingminimum and oven'ime wages, for a1} oi'theirmissed meal and rest breaks, and for 811 of their time spent working 0 ff the Clock. Moreover, when Defendant required Plainfiffand Aggrieved Emphyees .to .l'eport for work, but “furnished less than haifsaid empbyea’s usual 01' scheduled day’s work,” Defendant violated C1211. Code Regs., tit. 8 § l 1 040, subd. 5 (A) by faiiing‘to pay Plaintiffand Aggrievad Empioyees for at least two (2) hours ’ worth Ofwork at their regular rate ofpay. In addition, when. Defendant required Plaintiffand Aggrieved Employees 10 respond to and engage in additional work, this resulted in a second reporting for work in a single workday, and Defendant failed to paythese employees reporting time pay as required by Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § l 1040; Subd. 5(8). Further, Defendant failed to advise Plaintifl‘and the oiherAggfieved Employees offlleirrightto take separately and hourlypaid duéy-fi‘ee ten (1 0) minute rest pefiods. See chquero v. Sfoneledge Fumifure, .LLC, 9 Cal. App. 5““ 98, I 1 0 (20 i 7). ‘I-‘xddi'tionaHy, pursuant t0 Labor Code § 204 etseq. , Defendant failed t0 timely proviée PlaintifiTand otherAggrieved Employees with their wages. Plaintiiffurther contends that Defendant failed t0 provide accurate wage statements t’p him, and otherAggrieved Employees, in violation 011‘Calif0mia Labor Code section 226(3). Additionally, Plaintiffcontends thatDelbndant failed t0 comply with Indusuial Wage Order 7(A)(3) inthat Defendant failed 10 keep time records showingwhen Plaintiffbegan and ended each shifi and meal period. Plaintiffand otherAggrieved Employees perform "tasks that reasonablypermit sitting, and a seatwould not interfere with Their performance Qf‘any 01f‘their tasks that may require them 10 stand. Defendant fails t0 provide Plaintiffand other Aggrieved Employees with suitable seats. Said conduct, in addition to the foregoing, as wail as the conduct alleged in the incorporated Complaint, violates Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204 er seq, '2 10, 226(a), 226.7, 35 l, 510, 5 12, 558(21)(1 )(2), 1194, 1197, l I97. 1 t I 198, 2802, Caiifomia Code ofRegulations, Title 8, Section 1 1040, Subdivision 5(A)- (B), Califibmia Code ofRegulafions, Title 8, Section 1 1 070(1 4) (Failure t0 Provide Seating), Violation 0f {he appiicable Industij a1 Welfare Commission Wage 01118113), and is therefore actionable under California Labor Code section 2699.3. A {me and correct copy 0fthe Compiaintby Plaintifl‘againsi Delbndam, which (i) identifies the aileged vi 0] aliens; (ii) detai ls the facts and theories which support the alleged violations, (iii) details the specific work performed by Plaintiff, (iii) sets forth the people/entities, dates, ciassifications, violations, events, and actions which are at issue to 'ihe extentknown t0 Plaintiff, and (iv) sets forth l’he illegal practices used byDefendzmt, is attachedhereto. This ilflbmlation provides notice- 1'0 the Labor and Worklbrce DevelopmentAgency oflhe facts and theories supporting the aflegfid vioiations for the agencfs 'l‘e'fbrence. Plainti fftherefore incorporates the allegafions 0 {the attached Complaint into this letter as if fully set forth herein. 1fthe agency needs any funher informatiom please do not hesitate to ask. This notice is- provided to enable Plaintimo proceed with the Compiaim against Defendant as authorized by California Labor Code secti0112699, er seq. The filing fee of$75 is being mailed lo me Depariment ofmdustrial Relations Accounting unit with an .identificai'ion of'the Plaintiff, the Defendant z-md the notice. The lawsuit consists OfotherAggrieved Employees. As counsel; our intention Is 10 vigorously prosecute the Claims as akleged in the Complainu and 10 procure civil penalties as provided by the Privatemtomey General Statue 0172004 0n behal {O.I‘Plaimiffaud all Aggrieved Employees. ' Your earliest response t0 this notice is appreciated. Ifyou have any questions Ofconce'ms, phase. d0 not hesitate t0 contact me at the above number and address. Respectthlly, /s/ Nic/zol'as J. De Blouw Nicholas J. De Biouw, Esq. JAUJN U! 6 BLEMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOVVMIK DE BLOUW’ LL!) Nm‘man 'B. 'Blumenthal (State Bar #068687) Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State. Bar #205975) Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066) Nicholas J. De Blouw (State Bar #280922) 2255 Calls Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858)551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 5514232 Website: \mxx'w.baml::1wca.com Attomeys for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE OF CALIFORNKA 1N AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ISHAN BASU-KESSELMAN, an individual, 0n behal‘fofhimself, 0n behalfofall persons similarly situated, Piziintiff, vs. GARUDA LABS, INC; a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. Case N0. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR: .1. UNFAIR COMPETITION IN VIOLATION OF CAL. BUS. & PROF, CODE §§ 17200, el seq; ‘2. FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES 1N VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 1 194, 1197 & 1197.1; 3. FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 5 1 0, 11 194 &. 1198, ct seq; 4. FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED MEAL PERIODS IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 226.7 & 512 AND THE APPLICABLE IWC WAGE ORDER; 5. FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED REST PERIODS 1N VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 226.7 & 5 i2 AND THE APPLICABLE IWC WAGE ORDER; 6. FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE ITEMI‘ZED STATEM ENTS IN V10LATIO’N OF CAL. LAB. CODE § 226; 7. FAILURE TO REIIM.B'U.RSE EMPLOYEES FOR REQUIRED EXPENSES 1N VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE § 2802; 8. FAILURE TO PROVIDE WAGES WHEN DUE 1N VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 201, 202 AND 203. DER’EAND FOR A JURY TRIAL 1 COMpLA J \I Ix.) Plaintifflshan Basu-Kesselman (”PLAINTIFF“), 2m individual, 011 behaifofhimselfand all other similarly situated current and fonner employees, alleges 0n information and belief? except his own acts and knowledge, ”the following: INTRODUCTION 1. Defendant Garuda Labs, Inc.. Known t0 the general public 21$ “Instawork” (“DEFENDANT”) in order t0 sewice customers hires workers t0 aidDEFENDANT in providing manual labor services to their clients. The- cost, as proscribed by law, ofthe personnel hired to work for DEFENDANT, includes not only the pay 0f these- employees but the- cost 0f the employer's share 0f tax payments to the federal and state govemments for income taxes, social security taxes, medicare insurance, unemployment insurance and payments for workers‘ compensation insurance. T0 avoid the payment 0fthese legally proscribed expenses t0 the fullest extent possible, DEFENDANT devised a scheme t0 place the responsibility for the payment of these costs and expenses ofDEFENDANT on the shoulders ofPLAINTIF-F and other employees. As employer, DEFENDANT is legally responsible for the payment 0f all these expenses. This lawsuit is brought in order to collect the wages due them as employees OfDEFENDANT, the cost of the employer‘s share 0fpayments t0 the federal and state governments for income taxes, social security taxes, medicare insurance, unemployment insurance and payments for workers‘ compensation insurance, plus penalties and interest. THE ?A‘RTIES '2. DEFENDANT at all ‘z'eievant timgs mentioned herein conducted and continues t0 conduct substantial and reguiar business in the State ofCaliibmia. 3. DEFENDANT is a startup that connects gig economy workers with jobs in select markers. DEFENDANT’S workers are composed 0f independent contractors and employees. 4. PLAINTIFF worked for DEFENDANT as an independent contractor performing “gigs” working manual labor from August of 2018 to J'anualy 0f 2020 and also worked for DEFENDANT from January 0f 2020 1'0 Marchof 2020 performing the same “gigs” and was 2 COMPm I \ r $93k; U1 6 reciassified as z-m empioyee during this time period. During his employment with DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF accepted work “gigs” Via DEFENDANT’S application he was required t0 download 0n his personal cell phone. These “gigs” PLAINTIFF accepted Via DEFENDANT’S appiication, were- jobs, including but not limited t0, working as- a prep cook, line cook, event server and. waiter at various places, such as, golf courses, hotels, restaurants, sporting venues, beach events, and award ceremonies ineluding the Emmy’s. S. Califomia Labor Code Section 226.8 provides that "‘[i]‘t is unlawful for any person 01‘ employer t0 engage in . . . [w]illful misclassification of an individual as an independent contractor.” The penalty for willful misclassification 0f employees is a “civil penaity of'not less than five thousand dollars ($5,000) andnot more than fifteen thousand dollars (S 1 5,000) for each violation, in addition t0 any other penalties 01‘ fines permitted by law.” It is further provided that! in the event that an empioyer is found t0 have engaged in “a pattern 01' practice 0f these Violations,” the penalties increase to “not less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) and not more than twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for each Violation, in addition t0 any other penalties or fines permitted by law.” Cal. Labor Code § 226.8. 6. Here; DEFENDANT has willfully misclassified PLAINTIFF z-md other workers who accepted “Gigs” via Defendant’ s application as described in Cal. Labor Code § 226. 8, and further, that DEFENDANT has engaged in a “pattem 01' practice” Ofsuch Violations as contemplated by the California Labor Code. 7. Upon hire, the position was represented byDEFENDANT t0 PLAINTIFF and the other workers as 2m independent contractor position capable ofpaying an hom’iy rate for the time they spend providing manual labor t0 DEFENDANT’S third party customers. PLAINTIFF and other workers were- not compensated overtime wages for any of their time spent working in excess 0f eight (8) hours in a workday, twelve (i2) hours in a workday, and/O'r forty (40) hours in a workweek. PLAINTIFF and other workers were paid the hourly rate t0 perform labor services 0n DEFENDANTS behaif. PLAINTIFF and other workers were not compensated any Other wages besides the non-negofiable houriy rat'le and they were not allowed t0 record their time while {hay waited For DEFENDANT t0 give t'hemwork. DEFENDANT did not pay PLAINTIFF 3 U1 .5 m k) 16 and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for the time Spent driving t0 and fromjobs, and ail the other time they spent working forDEFENDANT outside 0f thejob assignment they were placed at with DEFENIDANT’S third party customers. The finite set 0f tasks required to be performed by the workers is, when notified Via cell phone, travel t0 DEFENDANTS customers t0 perform jobs including but not limited to, restaurant sewice tasks, delivering goods, merchandising, custodial servicesJanitorial tasks, picking andpacking goods warehousing tasks all in accordance with DEFENDA'NT’S business practices and policies. 8. To perform their job duties, PLAINTIFF and the other workers perform work. subject t0 the control 0f DEFENDANT in that DEFENDANT had the authority t0 exercise complete control over the work performed and the manner and means in which the work was pertbrmed. DEFENDANT provided the customgrs andDEFENDANT provided the instructions as to 110W to perfonn their work. I 9. Califomia Labor Code § 3357 defines “employee” as “e'vely person in the service 0f an employer under any appointment 01‘ contact ofhire 0r apprenticeship, express 01' implied, oral 0r written, whether lawfully 01‘ unlawfully employed.” In addition t0 the California Labor Code’s presumption that workers are employees, the California Supreme Court has determined the most significant factor t0 be considered in distinguishing an independent contractor from an employee is whether the employer 0r principal has control 0r the right to control the work both as f0 the work peljbrmed and the manna]; and means in which the work is pezformea’. DEFENDANT heavily controlled both the work perfomled and themanner and means in which the PLAINTIFF and the other workers performed their work in that: (a) PI..,AINTIFF and other workers were not involved in a distinct business, but instead were pl‘ovided with instructions as t0 how t0 pérform theirwork and the manner 21nd means in which the work was t0 be performed by mcans of DEFENDANT’S and ZDEFIENIDANT’S customers manuals and written instmctions; (b) PLAINTIFF and other workers were continuously provided. with training and supewision, including fol lowing DEIFENDA'NT’S company documents and received training from DEFENDANT as {'0 how and in what way {'0 perform the services; 4 COMPMM ”VJ U: 6 (c) DEFENDANT set the requirements as t0 what policies and procedures all 0f the workers; \Kie‘i't: t0 follow, including but n0: limited t0: hourly rates, location 0f assignment, where t0 park: and What t0 wear; (d) PLAINTIFF and other workars hadn0 Opportunity fbrprofit 017 loss because DEFENDANT only paid these workers 2m hourly rate. DEFENDANT controlled and assigned the workem which tasks were t0 be performed; (e) PLAINTIFF and other workers perfonned manual labor sewices which are part 0f DEFENDANT’S principal business and is ciosely integrated with and essential t0 the employer's business ofproviding manual laborers t0 their customers; (f) PLAINTIFF and other workers pelformed the work themselves and did not hire others t0 perform their work for them; ‘ (g) PLAINTIFF and other workers did not have the authority t0 make employmem-related personnei decisions; (11) PLAINTIFF and Otherw (>1‘i DJ N \DOOQO‘x to have a eel} phone that is compatible with DEfiENDANT’s mobiie application. As a result, in ?he course of their employment with DEFENDANT PLAINTIFF and other members 0f the CALIFORNIA CLASS incurred unreimbursed Eusiness expenses Which included, but were not limited t0, COStS related t0 the use 0f their perscélal cellular phones and all on behalfofand for the benefit 0fDEFENDANI Further, PLAINTQIFF and Other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were also not mimbursed 0r indemnified byDEFENDANT for the cost associated with using their personal vehicles while performing for DEFENDANT. Moreover, PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were 21130 recfuired from time 5:0 time t0 pay for parking costs at certain shopping centers and delivery locations As a result, in the course 0f their employment with DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF- and other mjembers 0f the CALIFORNIA CLASS incun‘ed 'um‘eimb'ursed business expenSes which includeéi, but were not limited, t0, costs related t0 travel all on behalf 0f and fOr the benefit 0fDEFENDiANT. 22. Cal. Lab. Code § 226 provides theflt every employer shall furnish each this 01‘ her employees with an accurate itemized wage statément in writing showing among other things, gross wages earned and all applicable hourly} rates in effect during the pay period and the cozi‘esponding amount 0f time worked at each ?hourly rate. From time to time, DEFENDANT violated Cal. Lab. Code § 226 by failing to projvide wage statements that identified the. correct gross and net wagas earned. Aside from the violagtions listed above, DEFENDANT failed t0 issue to PLAINTIFF an itemized wage statement thathists all the requirements under California Labor Code 226 ex seq. As a result, from time t0 timeDEFENDANT provided PLAINTIFF and the ofher members Q‘f'the CALIFORNIA CLASS With wage statements which violated Cal. Lab. Code § 226. 23. By reason 0f this conduct applicjable t0 PLAINTIFF and all the CALIFORNIA 1 1 CLASS Members, DEFENDANT committed jacts 0f unfair competition in violation 0f the California Unfair Competition law, Cal. Bus. 81“: Prof. Code §§ 17200. etseq. (the ”UCL"), by engaging in a company-wide policy, practice afind procedure Which failed t0 correctly classify PLATNTEFF zmd the. CALIFORNEA CLASS Mel‘mbers as employees. The proper cmssification 0f these. employees is DEFENDANT‘S burden. Asia result 0fDEFENDAN’I"s intentional disregard 0f the obiigatitm ('0 meet this burden, .DEFENI?ANT failed t0 pay all required wages for work 130 COMMAJ \z 16 performed. byPLAlNTTFF andother CALIFORNIA CLASS Members and violated the California Labor Code and regulations promulgated thereunder as herein alleged. 24. PLAINTIFF as a worker fro DEFENDANT, was classified byDEFENDANT as an independent contractor and thus did not receive pay for 2111. time wofked, including minimum and overtime wages. During the CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD, PLAINTIFF was also required t0 perform work as ordered by DEFENDANT forlmore than five (5) hours during a shift without receiving a meal 0r rest break as evidenced by daily time reports for PLAINTIFF. PLAINTIFF theretbre ibrfeited meal and rest breaks without additional compensation and in accordance with DEFENDANTS strict corporate policy and practice which did not provide for mandatory meal and rest breaks. T0 date, DEFENDANT has not fully paidPLAINTIFF all wages still owed t0 him 01' any penalty wages owed t0 him under California Labor Code § 203. The amount in controversy for PLAINTIFF individually does not exceed the sum 01' value 0f $75,000. THE CALIFORNIA CLASS 25. PLAINTIFF brings the First Causé ofAction for Unfair, Unlawful and Deceptive Business Practices pursuant to Cal. Bug. & Prof. Code §§ 172005 ez‘ seq. (the ”UCL") as a Class Action, pursuant to Cal. Code OfCiV. Proc. § 382, 0n behalf of a California class, defined as all individuals who worked forDEFENDANT in California and who were classified as independent contractors and/or non exempt employees (the "CALIFORNIA CLASS") at any time during the period beginning four (4) years prior t0 the filing of this Complaint and ending 0n the date as determined by the Court (the ”CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD"). The amount in controversy for the aggregate ciaim 0f CALIFORNIA CLASS Members is under five million dollars ($55000,000.00). 26. T0 the extent equitable tolling, operates t0 toll claims by the CAI.‘,IFORNIA CLASS against DEFENDANT, the CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD should be adjusted accordingly. 27 All CALIFORNIA CLASS Members who performed and continue t0 perfm‘m this work for DEFENDANT during the CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD are similarly situated in that they are subjecr "t0 DEFENDANT’S policy and practice that required them to perform work 1 I COMII’LAJNK‘ Ux ~b U3 [\J \booqcx 16 without compensation as required by law. 28. During the CALIFORNIA CLASS ?ERIOD,DEFENDANT violated the fights 0fthe PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA CLASS Members under California law, without limitation, in the following manners: (8) (b) (C) (d) Violating the California Unfair Competition laws, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, er seq. the- ("UCL"), in that DEFENDANT, while acting as employer, devised and i111p1§mented a scheme whereby PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA CLASS Members are forced t0 mflawfully, unfairly and deceptively shoulder the cos‘t ofDE-FENDANT'S wages for all. unpaid wages, business related expenses, andDEFENDANT s share ofemployment taxes, social security taxes, unemployment insurance and workers' compensation insurance; Violating the California Unfair Competition laws, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, er seq, the ("UCL"), by unlawfillly, unfairly andj’or deceptiveiy having in place company policies, practices and procedures that uniformly misclassified PLAINTIFF Wand. the CALIFORNIA CLASS Members as independent contractors; Violating the Califbmia Ufifair Competition laws, C211. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ Ll 7200, er seq. the ("UCL"), by unlawfully, unfairly and/or deceptively failing t0 have in place a company policy, practice and procedure that accurately determined the amount ofworkiug time spentbyPLAINTIFF and the. CALIFORNIA CLASS Members performing non-exempt employee labor; Violating the. California Unfair Competition la‘vvs, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, (2r seq. the. ("UCL"), by failing t0 provide PLAINTIFF and the other members ofthe CALIFORNIA CLASS with 211i legally required meal and rest breaks; ‘ Violating the California I‘Jnvf’air Competition laws, Cm. Bus. & Prof. Code 12 COMI>1._.AJ\1 .5 Ls) [\3 LI) 6 10 11 13 14 15 16 29. (f) §§ .1 7200, efseq. the (”UCL") byviolating Cal, Lab. Code § 2802 by failing to reimburse PLAINTIFF land the CALIFORNIA CLASS members With necesmry expenses incmiréd in the discharge 0f their job duties; and, Committing 2m act 0f unfair competition in violation 0f the UCL, by Violating Cal. Lab. Code §§ 510, ez seq, by failing t0 pay the correct overtime pay t0 PLAINTIFF and the members offhe CALIFORNIA CLASS who were improperly classified as exempt, and retaining the unpaid overtime to the benefit ofDEFENDANT. As a result 0f DEFENDANT’S policies, practices and procedures, there are. numerous questions oflaw and fact common t0 all CALIFORNIA CLASS Members who worked for during the- CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD. These questions include, but are not limited, to the following: (a) (b) (0) (d) (fl Whether PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA. CLASS Members were misclassified as independent contractors by DEFENDANT; Whether the PLAINTIFF and the CALLFORNIA CLASS Members all aft‘fm-ded 2111 the. protections ofthe California Labor Code that apply when properly classified as n0n-exempt employees; Whether DEFENDANT'S policies, practices and pattern 0f conduct: described in this Complaint was and is unlawful; Whether DEFENDANT unlawfully failed t0 pay their share 0f state and federal employment taxes as required by State and federal tax laws; Whether DEFFNDANT'S policy: practice and procedure ofclassifying the CALIFORNIA CLASS Members as independent contractors exempt from hourly wages laws for all time worked and failing t0 pay the CALIFORNIA CLASS Members all am‘ounts due violates applicable provisions of California State law; Whether DEFENDANT ELmlm/Vfully failed t0 keep and furnish the CALI FORNIA CLASS Members‘ with accurate records ofall time worked; 13 COM15m I \ r Ux .12: DJ N \OOOQO\ (g) Whei‘her DEFENDANT has; engaged in unfair competition by the abovemlisted conduct; a116,: (hi) Whether DEFENDANF'S conduct was Wilifu}. 30. ThiS Class A ction meets {he statutory prerequisites for the maintenance 0f a Class Action as set forth in Cal. Code Of Civ. Proc. § 382, in that: (a) The persons- Who compri se‘fhe CALIFORNIA CLASS are so numerous that the joinder of all such persons is impracticable and the disposition 0f their claims as a class Will benefit the parties and the Court; ‘ K (b) Nearly 2111 factual? legal, statutory, declaratory and i'njunctive reliefissues {hat are raised in this Complaint are common t0 the CALIFORNIA CLASS and Will apply to even] CALIFORNIA CLASS Member; ‘ (C) The claims 0f the represefitative PLAINTIFF are typical 0f ”the claims of each member 0f the CALIFORNIA CLASS. PLAINTIFF, like all the CALIFORNIA CLASS Members, waS classified as 2m independent contractor upon hiring based 0n the defined corporate policies and practices and labors 1mder DEFENDANT'S procedure that failed t0 properly ciassify the PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA CLASS Members. PLAINTIFF sustained economic injmy as a result OfDEFENDANT‘S employment practices. PLAINTIFF and theCALIFORNIA CLASS Members were and are simfiariy 0r identically ha‘rmed by the same unlawful, unfair, deceptive and persuasive pattern 0f misconduct engaged in by DEFENDANT by deceptively telling all the CALIFORNIA CLASS Members that they were. not entitled t0 minimum wages, the employer‘s share 0f payment of? payroll taxes and mandatory insurance, and reimbursement for business expenses based 0n the defineci corporate poiiciés’ and practices, and unfairiy failed t0 pay these. employees who were improperiy classified as independent contractors; and, (d) The reprsgentative PLAINTIFF- will fairly and adequately represem and protect the interest 0ftbe CA LJFO’RNIA CLASS, and has retained counsel who is competent and experienced in Ciass Action Eitégation. There are 110 material conflicts between the claims ofthe representative .P.LAEN'fI".E.FF and the CAMSFOR‘NIA CLASS Members that would make class certification inappz‘opriate. Counsel for the CALIFORNIA CLASS will Vigorousiy assert the. £14 COM PLA i \I U1 g m N 16 26 27 8Ix.) claims 0172111 employees in the CALIFORNIA CLASS. 31. In addition t0 meeting the statutory prerequisites t0 a Class Action, this Action is properly maintained as a Class Action pursuant t0 Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382, in that: (a) Without class certification and detexmination of declaratmy, injunctive, statutory and other legal questions within the class format, prosecution of separate actions by indixddual members Ofthe CALIFORNIA CLASS will create the risk of: (i) Inconsistent 01‘ valying adjudications with respect t0 individual members offhe CALIFORNIA CLASS which Would establish incompatible standards ofcond’uct for the parties opposing the CALIFORNIA CLASS; and/or, (1' i) Adjudication with respect t0 individual members ofthe CALIFORNIA CLASS which would as a practical matter be disfiositive offhe interests Ofthe othermembers not party to the adjudication 01' substantially impair 0r impeded their ability to protect their interests. (b) The parties opposing the CALIFORNIA CLASS have acted on grounds generally applicable t0 the CALIFORNIA CLASS making appropriate class-wide relief with respect to the CALIFORNIA CLASS as a whole in that DEFENDANT unifonnly classified and treated the CALIFORNIA CLASS Members as independent contractors and, thereafter, unifbrmly failed to take proper steps t0 detenni'ne whether the CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were properly classified as independent contractors, and thereby denied these employees wages and payments for business expenses and the el'nployer‘s share of payroll taxes and mandatory insurance as required by law. (i) With respect t0 the First Cause 0f Action, the final reliefon behalf ofthe CALIFORNIA CLASS sought does not relate exclusively t0 restitution because through this claim the PLAINTIFF seeks declaratory reliefholding thatDEFENDANT‘S policies and practices constitute unfair competition. along with incidental equitable relief as may be necessary to remedy the conduct declared t0 constitute unfair competition. ( c) Common questions of‘law and fact exist as t0 msmbers ofthe CALIFORNIA CLASS with respect to the practices and Violations ofCalifomia and federal law as listed above, and predominate over any question affecfing only individual members, and a Class Action is 1; 5 <:‘<:>:W%1..A1Nr 4:me U1 6 superior to otlmr available methods fox" the Fair. and efficient adjudication 0f the controversy, including consideration 0f: (i) The- imml‘est oft‘he CALIFORNIA CLASS Members in individually controlling the prosecution 0r defense 0f separate actions; (ii) The extent and nature. 0f any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by 01- against members offlixe CALIFORNIA CLASS; (iii) 1n the context 0f Wage litigation because as a practical matter a substantial. number ofindividual CALIFORNIA {CLASS members will avoid asserting their legal rights out 0f fear ofretaiiation by DEFENDANT, which may adversely affect an individual’s job with DEFENDANT 0r with a subsequent employer, the Class Action is the only means t0 assert their claims through a representative; (iv) The desirability 01' undesirability of concentration the litigation 0f the- claims in the particular forum; (V) The difficulties likely t0 be encountered in the management of a Class Action; and, (vi) The- basis ofDEFENDANT‘s policies and practices applied t0 all the CALIFORNIA CLASS Members. 32. The Court should permit, this Action t0 be maintained as a Class Action pursuant t0 Cal. Code 0f Civ. Proc. § 382 because: (a) The questions of law and fact common t0 the CALIFORNIA CLASS predominate over any question affecting only ihdividual members; (b) A Class Action is superior to any other available method for the fair and efficient adjudication 0f ths Claims 0f the- members 0f the CALIFORNIA CLASS; (C) The CALIFORNIA CLASS Members are so numerous that it is impractical to bring all CALIFORNIA CLASS Members before the Court; (d) PLAINTIFF, and the CALIFORNIA CLASS Members, will not be able to obtain efi‘bctive and economic legal redress unless the action is maintained as a Class Action; (e) There is a community ofinterest in obtaining appropriate legal 21nd equitable 1 6 COM PLANI' k.) hm U1 6 16 18 I‘eiief for the acts of unfair competition, si'atutfiry violations and other improprietiea and in obtaining adequate compensation for the damages and injuries which DEFENDANT'S actions have inflicted upon the CALEORNIA CLASS; (f) There is a community 0f interest in ensuring that the combined assets and availabie insurance OfDEFENDAN'I‘ are sufficidnt t0 adequately compensate the CALIFORNIA CLASS Memberg for any injuries sustained; ‘ (g) DEFENDAN'I‘ has acted: 0r has refused t0 act 0n grounds generally applicabie t0 the CALIFORNIA CLASS, therebjj‘i making final class-wide reliefappropriate with respect to the CLASS as a Whole; (h) The members Oi’the CALIFORNIA CLASS are. readily ascefiainable fi‘om the buSines-s- records ofDEFE-NDANT‘; and, I (i) CEass treatment provides manageable judicial treatment calculated to bring an efficient and rapid conclusion to all litigation of ali wage and hour related claims arising out. 0fDEFENDANTS conduct as t0 the CALIFORNIA CLASS Members. 33. DEFENDANT maintains records from which the Court can ascertain and. identify by name andjob titie, each ofDEFENDANT‘s employees Who have been intentionally subj acted to DEFENDANE’S corporate poiicies, practices find procedures as herein alleged. PLAINTIFF will seek leave t0 amend the complaint to include any additional job titleS 0f similariy situated employees when they have been icientified. $78515 CALHTURNEA LARGE SUB-CLASS 34. PLAINTIFF further brings the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth CaUSes of’ Action on btjhalf 0f a Califdmia subclass, defined as 2111 members of the CALIFORNEA CLASS who are ox'previousiy were employed byDEFENDANT in Caliofornia (the “CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CL./~\SS”) at any tjime during the. period three (3) years‘ prior t0 the filing 0f the Compiaint and ending 0n the date as“ determined by the Court (The “CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS PERIOD”) pursuant t0 Cal. Code 0f CiV. Pros. § 382. The amount in controversy 'fibr rhe. aggregate claim ()fj'CDIXLIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members is under 1 7 C(L‘xxzmmxit‘ t 16 five. million dollars ($5,000,000.00). 35. DEFENDANT, as a matter 0f coyporate policy, practice and procedure, and in violation 0f the appllicable California. Labor (Eode. (“Labor Code”), and Ind‘usn‘ial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order requirementé intentionally, knowingly, and wilfully, 0n the basis 0f job rifle. alone and without regard t0 the actual overail requirements of the job, systematically classified PLAINTIFF and the other members ofthe- CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB- CLASS as independent contractors in order t0 avoid the. payment of all wages, and in order t0 avoid the obligations under the applicable California Labor Code- provisions. To the extent equitable tolling operates t0 toll claims by the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS against DEFENDANT, the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASSPERIOD should be adjusted accordingly. 36. DEFENDANT maintains records from Which the Coufl can ascenain and identify by job title each of DEFENDANT’S employees Who as CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members have- been systematically, intentionally and unifomlly misclassified as independent contractors as a matter 0f DEFEN’DANT’S JCOIpOI'ate policy, practices and procedures. PLAINTIFF will seek leave t0 amend the complaint t0 include- these additional job titles when they have been identified. 37. The CALIFORNIA LABOR SUBCLASS is so numerous that joinder of all CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members is impracticable. 3 8. DEFENDAN'iFViolated the rights ofthe CALIFORNIALABOR SUB-CLASS under Califomia law by: (a) Violating Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1197 & 1 197.1 emu}: bymisclassifying and thereby failing to fiay PLAINTIFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS the correctminimum wages forwhich DEFENDANT is liable; (b) Violating Cai. Lab. Code $3.3, 510, et 3‘qu by misclassifying and thereby failing t0 pay PI.,.AIN'I‘IFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS the. correct overtime pay for a workday longer them, eight (8) hours and/or a \rvorkweek longer them forty (40) hours for which l 8 COM PLAIN'I‘ \DOOQO‘sLh-bwmw 5...: C) '11 (C) (d) (e) (f) DEFENDANT is liable puirsuant t0 Cai. Lab. Code § 1 194; Violating Cal. Lab. (30(1th- §§ 226.? and 512, by failing to provide PLAINTIFF and the other imembm‘s 0f the CALIFORNLA LABOR SUB- CLASS with all legaily required offlduty, ‘uninten‘upted thirty (30:) minute meal breaks and the legally?! required rest breaks; Violating Cal. Lab. Code § 226 by failing t0 provide PLAINTIFF and the members offlihe CALIFORNIALABOR SUB-CLASS who were improperly classified as independent ciontraciors With an accurate itemized statement in writing showing the gé‘oss wages earned, the net wages earned, all appiicabie hmn'ly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding amount 0f time worked at cexch hourly rate by the employee; Violating; Cai. Lab. Code § 2802 by failing t0 reimburse PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS members with neceSsm‘y expenses incurred in the discharge offheirjob duties; and, Violating Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201 , 202 and/Q'r 203, which provides that when an’ employee is discharged; 0r quits from employment, the employer must pay the employee all wages: due without abatement, by failing t0 tender fail payment and/or restitution: 0f wages owed 0r in the manner required by California law f0 the 11161111911813 0fthe CAMPORNLA LABOR SUB-CLASS who have terminated their femployment. 39. This Class Action meets the statutory prerequisiteS for the maintenance Ufa Class Action as sci forth in Ca}. Code OfCiV. Proc. § 382, in that: (ti) (bi) The persons who comprise tithe CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS are. so numerous that the. joinder} 0f all CALIFORNLA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members is impracticable élnd the disposition 0f their claims as a class will benefit the parties and the ert; Nearly 8H factuafi, legal, sfatutmy, declaratory and injunctive relief issues that are. raised in this Compiaint are common t0 the CALIFORNIA LABOR 19 COM PL.A I \ l‘ l Ll} u?) DJ b0 \OOOQO\ 10 1], 13 '14 15 I6 17 18 (C) (d) SUB~CLASS and will apply} t0 every member ()fthe CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS; ' The claimg 0f the representative PLAINTIFF are- maicai 0f the daims 0f each member of‘theCALIFORNIALABOR SUB-CLASS. PLAINHFF, like all other members 0f fhe CALIFORNIA LABOR S‘UB-CLASS was improperiy classified as- an independent contractor and was thus denied minimum wage pay 3nd meLai and rest breaks, among other things, as a result ofDEFENDANT’S syStemjatic classification practices. PLAINTIFF and all other members 0f the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS sustained economic injuries arising from DEFENDANT’S Violations 0f the laws 0f Califbmia; and, The representative. PlAlNéTIFF WiH fairiy and adequately represent and protect the interest 0fthe CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS, and has retained counsel W110 are? competent and experienced in Class Action litigation. There are 110 {material conflicts between the Ckaims 0f the representati ve PLAINTIFF? and the members ofi‘the CALIFORNIALABOR SUB-CI__,ASS thatwould make Class certification inappropriate, Counsel for the. CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB~CLASS wiii vigorously assert the claims 0f all CAI...IFORNLA LABfiOR SUB~CLASS Members. 40. In addition t0 meeting the stammxy prerequisites to a Class Action, this action is properly maintained 215 a Class Action pursuant I0 Cal. Code ofCiV. Proc. § 382, in that: (8) \ Without ciass certification and determination 0f declaratoly, injunctive, statutory 21nd other iegal qLilestions within the class format, prosecuticm 0f separate actions by individtial members offhe CALIFORNLALABOR SUB- CLASS WEIE create. the risk; 0f: 1) Inconsistem 01‘ valying' adjudications with respect t0 individuai members offhe CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB~CLASS Which would establish incompatible standards Ofcond'uct for the parties‘ oppming 2O COM PIA i \I WOOQQm-PUJNM L-Ap-a HO r... lx.) ”rd 3-D.) 1 N U ,_4 ON (b) (C) the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS; 01‘, 2) Adjudication with respect to individual members 0f the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS which would as a practical matter be dispositive 0f interests Ofthe other members not party t0 the adjudication 0r substantially impair 01‘ impede their ability t0 protect their interesys. The pmfies opposing the- CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS have acted 01‘ re‘fhsed t0 act 0n grounds generally applicable. to the- CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS, making appropriate. class-wide relief with respect to the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS as a Whole in that the DEFENDANT uniformly classified and treated the. members Ofthe CALIFORNIALABOR ‘ SUB-CLASS as independent contractors and, thereafter, uniformly failed to take proper steps t0 detelmine whether the CALIFORNIALABOR SUB~ CLASS Members were properly classified as independent contractors; and thereby denied these employees the protections afforded t0 them under the California Labor Code; Common questions of law land fact predominate as t0 the members 0f the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS, with respect t0 the practices and Violations 0f California iaw as listed above, and predominate over any question afi‘ecting only individual CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members, and a Class A ctigm is superior t0 other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication 0f the controversy, including consideration of: 1) The interests 0f the members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB- CI_.ASS in individually controlling the prosecution 0r defense of separate actions in that the. substantial expense ofindivid'ua} actions will be avoided t0 recover the. relatively small amount ofeconomic losses sustained by the individual CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB- '21 (:‘(jWIJAIN'I' k.) m.txb‘) 16 2) 4) CLASS Members \fvhen compared. t0 the subsmntial expense and burden 0f individuajl prosecution 0f this litigation; Class certification will obviate the need for unduly duplicative iitigation that woulq create the risk 0f: A. Inconsistent 01‘ valying adjudications With respect t0 individual m‘embers Of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB- CLASS, which would establish incompatible standards of ‘ conduct for fihe DEFENDANT; and/or, B. Adjudication; with respect t0 individual members 0f the CALIFORNiA LABOR SUB-CLASS would as a practical matter be cii$positive 0f the interests 0f the other members not parties £0 the acijudication 0r substantially impair 0r impede their: abiliiy t0 protect their interests; In the context 0f Wage litigation because a substantial pumber 0f individual CAI__,£FOKNLALABOR SUB-CLASS Members Will avoid asserting their legal rights out 0f fear 0f retaliation by DEFENDANT, whijch may adversely affect an individual’sjob With DEFENDANT 0r with a subsequent empioyer, the Ciass Action is the only means t0 aésel‘t their claims through a representative; and, A Class action is supierior t0 other available methods for the fair and efficisnt adjudicatioén of this litigation because Class n‘eamlent will obviate the need for unduly and unnecessary duplicative litigation {hat is likely t0 resfilt in the absence 0f certification ()ii‘this action pursuant t0 Cal. Code OfCiV. Proc. § 382. 4]. This; Court should permit this action t0 be maintained as a Class Aciion pursuant t0 Cal. Code ofC‘iv. Proc. S 382 because: (a) The. questions 0flaw and fact common t0 the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB- CLASS prsdomina‘te ovér any question affecting Olliy individual 22‘ COM PLAI \ L‘ UI-PUJN 6 (b) (G) (d) (e) (f) (h) CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members‘; A Class Action is superior to any other available method for the fair and efficient adjudication 0f thé claims 0f the members 0f the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS because in the context ofemployment litigation a substantial number 0f individual CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members will avoid asserting their rights individually out 0f fear 0f retaliation 01' adverse. impact 0n their employment; The members of‘t‘he CALIFORNIALABOR SUB-CLASS are so numerous that it is impractical t0 bfipg all members Ofthe CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS before the Court; PLAINTIFF, and the otherCALIFORNIALABOR SUB-CLASS Members, Will not be able t0 obtain effective and economic legal redress unless the action is maintained as a Class Action; There is a community ofinterest in obtaining appropriate legal and equitable relief for the acts 0f unfair competition, statutory Violations and other improprieties, and in obtaining adequate compensation for the damages and injuries which IDEFLENDAN'I‘E actions have inflicted upon the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS; There is a conn'nunify 0f interest in ensuring that the combined assets 0f DEFENDANT are sufficient t0 adequately compensate the members 0f the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS for the injuries sustained; DEFENDANT has acted 0r refused to act 0n grounds generally applicable t0 the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS, therebymaking final class-wide re} iefappropriate with respect t0 the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS as a whole; The members 0f the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS are readily ascertaflmble from the business records 0f DEFENDANT; and, Class treatment provides mzmageable judicial "treatment caEculated t0 bring 23 COM PLANT OCMNOMQWNv-J 00 \l 6N U1 -b- DJ l\.) ?_- H \O 20 a efficient and rapid conclusion to all litigation ofall wage and hour related claims arising out ofthe conduct 0fDEFENDANT. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 42. This Court has jurisdiction over this Action pursuant t0 California Code 0f Civil Procedure, Section 410.10 and Califbmia Business & Professions Code, Section 17203. This- Action is brought as a Class Action 0n behalf PLAINTIFF and 0n behalf 0f similarly situated employees OfDEFENDANT pursuant. t0 Cal. Code OfCiv. Pros. Section 382. 43. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Cal. Code ofCiv. Proc. Sections 395 and 395.5, because DEFENDANT (i) currently maintains and at all relevant times maintained its principal offices and facilities in this County andl/or conducts substantial business in this County, and (ii) committed the wrongful conduct herein allegec} in this County against members 0f the CALIFORNIA CLASS and CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS. ‘ FIRST CAUSE 0F ACTION For Unlawful, Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices [Ca]. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ E7200, et seq.] (By PLAINTEFF and the CLASS and Against All Defendants) 44. PLAINTIFF and the CAI_,IFORNIA CLASS Members reallege and incorporate by this reference, as though fully set forth herein, the prior paragraphs of this Complaint. 45. DEFENDANT is a “person” as that term is defined under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17021. 46. ‘ Section 17200 of the California Business & Professions Code defines unfair competition as any un Iawful, unfair 01' fraudulent business act 0r practice. Section. 17200 applies to Violations 0f labor laws in the employment context. Section 17203 authorizes injunctive, declaratory andfor other equitable relief with respect t0 unfair competition as follows: Any person who engages, has engaged, 01' proposes t0 engage in unfair competition may be enjoined in any court 0f competent jurisdiction. The court may take such orders orjudgments! inciuding the appointment 0'le receiver, as may be necessary t0 prevent the U$e 0r employment by any: person ofzmy practice which constitutes 24 CC):\:‘1|’L.A l \l UJN .p Um OOOQQ 10 11 13 14 15 16 unfair competition, as defined in this chapter, or as may be necessary t0 restore t0 any person in interest any money 0r property, real 0r personal, which may have been acquired by means 0f such unfair competition. California Buéiness & Professions Code § 17203. 47. By the conduct aiieged herein, DEFENDANT has engaged and continues t0 engage in a business practice which violates Californiavlaw, including but not limited t0 the applicable Industrial Wage Orders, the California Labor Code including Sections 204, 210, 22], 226.7, 226.8, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, & 2802, and California Code 0f Regulations § 1.1090, for which this Court Should issue declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief, pursuant t0 Cal. Bus. & Prof § 17203, as may be necessary t0 prevent and remedy the conduct held t0 constitute unfair competition, including restitution ofwages wrongfully Withheld, business expenses wrongfully withheld and for the payment 0f the. employer’s share 0f income taxes, social security taxes, unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation insurance. 48. By the- conduct aiieged hereinDEFENDANThas obtained valuable property, money, and services from PLAINTIFF, and the other members Ofthe CALIFORNIA CLASS, and. has deprived them ofvaluable rights and benefits guaranteed by law, all t0 their detriment and to the benefit ofDEFENDANT so as to allow DEFENDANT t0 unfairly compete. Declaratory and injunctive relief is necessaly t0 prevent and remedy this unfair competition, and pecunimy compensation alone would not 21.1:be1‘d adequate and cmnplete relief. 49. All the acts described herein as violations of, among other things, the California Labor Code, California Code 0f Regulations and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, were. unlawful, were in violation Ofp'ublic policy; were immoral}, unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous, and were Iikely t0 deceive employees, and thereby constitute deceptive, unfair 21nd unlawful business practices in violation ofCal. Bus. and Prof. Code. §§ 17200, er seq. 50. By the conduct alleged herein DiEFENDANT’s practices were deceptive and fraudulent in that .DEFE’NLDANT’S policy and practice. was t0 represent to the CAI__,IFORNIA CLASS Members that they were nor enti tied t0 overtime. and minimum wages, payment for payroll taxes 0r mandatory insurance and other benefits as required by Califomia law, when in fact these representations were ‘f’alse and likely t0 deceive and for which this Court should issue injunctive 2'5 (glinxamugxm'r QOOQO‘th-‘DUJNP-A y...» C 1.1 16 and equitable relief, pursuant t0 Cal. Bus. & Pro wrongfully withheld. 5 1 . By the conduct alleged hereim DEF and deceptive in that DEFENDANT’S employm members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS to k DEFENDANT. 52. PLAINTIFF and the othermembers do, seek such relief as may be necessary t0 ré DEFENDANT has acquired, 0r ofwhiC-h PLAINT f. Code § 17203, including restitution ofwagas EVDANI s practices were also unlawful, unfair em practices caused PLAINTIFF and the- other >e underpaid during their employment with 0fthe CALIFORNIA CLASS are entitled t0, and ‘store to them the money and property which IFF and the othermembers Ofthe CALIFORNIA CLASS have been deprived, by means 0f the above described unlawful and unfair business practices, including earned but unpaid wages f01 53. PLAINTIFF and the othermembers to, and d0, seek a declaration that the descri'bec ‘ all time worked. 0fthe CALIFORNIA CLASS are further entitled i business practices- were unlawful, unfair and deceptive, and that injunctive relief should be issued restrainingDEFENDANT from engaging in any unlawful and unfair business practices in the. future. 54. and deceptive in that DEFENDANPS poiicies, By the conduct a} leged heyein, DEFENDANT’S practices were also unlawful, unfair practices and procedures failed to provide all legally required meal. and rest breaks t0 PLAINTIFF and the other members 0f the CALIFORNIA CLASS as required by Cal. Lab. Code. §§ 226.7 55. Thereform PLAINTIFF demands CALIFORNIA CLASS member, minimum wag taxes and mandatory insurance, and one ( 1) hou meal period was not timely provided for each fix for each workday in which a second off-duty m ( 1 0) hours 0f work. 56. CALIFORNIA CLASS-one (i Ll ) hour ofpay for ea PLAINTIFF further démzmds 01 provided as required by law. 2 and 5 1 ‘2. 0n behaif 0f himself and 0n behalf 0f each 6.5,, payment for the employer’s share 0f payroll r 0fpay for each workday in Which an off-duty e (5) hours ofwork, and/or one (1) hour Ofpay { :al period was not timely provided for each ten 1 behalf 0f himself and each member 0f the ch workday in wh ich a rest periodwas not timely COMM .AIN'I' k) #w 6 16 I7 18 i9 57. By and through the unlawfixl azid unfair business practices described herein, DEFE-NDANT has obtained valuable property. money and sewices from PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNM CLASS, including earned wages for all time worked and has deprived them Ofvaluable rights and benefits guaranteed by law and contract, all to the detriment offhese employees and t0 the benefit OfDEFENDANT so as t0 allow DEFENDANT to unfairly compete against competitors who comply with the law. 58. A11 the acts described herein as violations of, among other things, the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, the Califomia Code ofRegulations, and the Califomia Labor Code, are unlawful and in Violation 0f public policy, are- immoral, unethical, oppressive and unscrupulous, are deceptive, and thereby constitute unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practices in Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code. §§ 172.00 er seq. 59. PLAINTIFF and the othermembers lot‘the CALIFORNLA CLASS are entitled to, and d0, seek. such relief as may be necessmy to restore t0 them the money and. property which DEFENDANT has acquired, 01‘ofwhich PLAINTIFF and the other members ofthe CALIFORNIA CLASS have been deprived, by means 0f the above described unlawfill and unfair business practices. 60. PLAINTIFF and the othermembers offhe CALIFORNIA CLASS are further entitled t0} and d0, seek: a declaration that the described business practiccs are unlawful, unfair and decaptive, and that injunctive relief should be issfied restraining DEFE’NDAN'I‘ from engaging in any unlawful and unfair business practices in the future. 61. PLAINTIFF 21nd the other members ofthe CALIFORNIA CLASS have no plain, speedy a'nd/or adequate remedy at law that will end the unlawful and unfair business practices 0f DEFENDANT. Further, the practices herein alleged. presently continue t0 occur unabated. As a result 0f the unlawfifl and unfair business practices described herein, PLAINTIFF and the other members oft'he CALIFORNLA CLASS have suffered and will continue t0 suffer irreparable legal 21nd economic harm unless DEFENDANT is réstrained from continuing t0 engage in these unlawful and unfair business practices. 27. (TOM muhm'l' \ooouammeP-J ,... O 11 19 SECONfi CAUSE OF ACTION For Failure T0 Pay Minimum Wages [CaL Lab. Code §§ 1194, n97 and 11197.11 (By PLAINTEFF and the CALIFORNEA LABOR SUB-CLASS and Against All Defendants) 62. PLAINTIFF , and the other members oft‘he- CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB- CLASS, reallege and incorporate by this reference, as though fiJlly set forth herein, the prior paragraphs Ofthis Complaint. 63. PLAINTIFF and the other members offhe CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS bring'a claim for DEFENDANT" s willful and intentional Violations 0f the California Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission requirements for DEFENDANT’S failure to acchrately calculate and pay minimum wages t0 PLAINTIFF 21nd CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members. 64. Pursuant to Cai. Lab. Code § 204, other applicable laws and regulations, and public policy, an employer must timely pay its employees for all hours workeci. 65. C211. Lab. Code § 1 197 provides the. minimum wage for employees fixed by the commission is the minimum wage t0 be paid t0 employees, and the payment 0f a less wage than the- minim‘um so fixed in unlawful. 66. Cal. Lab. Code. § l 194 establishes an employee’s right to recover unpaid wages, including minimum wage compensation and interest thereon, together with the costs 0f suit. 67. DEFENDANT maintained a wagé practice- of paying PLAINTIFF and the other members ofthe CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS without regard to the conect amount oftime they worked. As set forth herein, DEFENDANIT’S policy and practice was to unlawfully and intentionally deny timely payment of wages due t0 PLAINTIFF and the other members 0f the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CI..,ASS. 68. DEFENDANT s uniform pattern of uniawfu} wage and hour practices manifested, without limitation, applicable t0 the CALIFORNIA LABOR SU'B-C'l_,.ASS as a whole, as a result ofimplemem‘ing a p0! icy and practice that denied accurate compensation 1‘0 PLAINTIFF and the 28 (:=<:>;x:u>1‘..AL=\Vy Ix) 4km U1 6 16 other members; ofthe CALIFORNIA LABOR SaUB-CLA88 in regards to minimum wage pay. 69. In committing these. violations ovf the Califomia Labor Code, DEFENDANT inaccurately calculates the correct time workeé and consequentiy undeIpays the actual time worked by PLAINTIFF and other members 0‘1 the. CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS. DEFENDANT acted in an illegal attempt t0 amid the. payment of all earned wages, and other benefits in Violation 0f the Caiifomia Labo‘r Code, the Indusu‘izfi Welfare Commission requirements and other applicabie laws and regulations. 70. As a direct result ofDEFENDANT’s unlawful wage pracsices as alleged herein, PLAINTIFF and the other members ofthe CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS d0 notreceive the. correct minimum wage compensation for their time worked for DEFENDANT. 7 .1 . During the CALIFORNIALABOR ‘SUB-CLASS PERIOD, PLAINTIFF and the other members 0f the CALIFORNLA LABOR SUB-CLASS were paid less for time worked that they were entitled t0, constituting a failure t0 pay all earned wages. 72. By Virtue of DEFENDANT’S unlawful failure t0 accurately pay all earned compensation t0 PLAINTIFF and the other members ofthe CALIFORNIALABOR SUB-CLASS for the true- éime they workeLL PLAINTIFF and the other members 0f the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS have suffered and will continue to suffer an economic injury in amounts which are. presently unknown t0 them and which will be ascertained according t0 proof at trial. 73. DEFENDANT knew 01' shouid ihéxx'e known that PLAINTIFF and the Other members 0f the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS are under compensaied for their time worked DEFENDANT elected, either through intentional malfeasance 01‘ gross nonfeasance, t0 notpayPLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members for their labor and DEFENDANT perpetrated this scheme by refugihg to pay PLAINTIFF and the Other members 0f the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CI..,ASS the con'ect minimum wages for their time. worked. 74. In performing the acts and practicés herein afleged in Violation 0f California labor laws, and refusing 1'0 compensats the members offhe CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS for 211i time worked and provide them with the requisite conme‘nsation, DEFENDANT acted and continues t0 act intentionally, oppressively, and maliciously toward PLAINTIFF and the other 29 (:QMPm i >5: $03k.) U1 6 members Ofthe CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB~CLASS with a conscious ofand utter disregard. for their legal rights, 0r the consequences to them, énd with the despicable intent 0f depriving them Oftheir property and legal rights, and otherwise causing them injmy in order t0 increase company profits a: the expenSe 0f these empioyees. ‘ 75. PLAINTIFF and this other membeirs thha CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS therefore request recovery of all unpaid wages, according t0 proof, interest, statutory costs, as W611 as the assessment of any statutory penalties 1against DEFENDANT, in a sum as provided by the California Labor Code and/or other appliéable statutes. T0 the- extent minimum wage compensation is detelmined t0 be owed t0 the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Memberswho have terminated their empioyment, DEFENDAjNTs conduct also violates Labor Code §§ 201 andj'or 202, and therefme these individuals are false be eniitied to waiting time penalties ander Cal. Lab. Code § 203, Which penalties are sought, fierein 0n behalfofthese CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members. DEFENDANT’S condfict as alleged. herein was wififul, intentional and not in good faith. Further, PLAINTIFF and 0therCALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members are entitled t0 seek and recover statt.2t01y cost; /'// /// //'/ III i'l i’ ./// /// THERE) CAUSE 0F ACTION For Failure T0 E’aé? Overfimc Wages {Ca}. Lab. Cecic §§2‘51f}, N94, & 377%98'} (By PLAENTEFF and the CALEFORNR LABGR SUB-CLASS and Against. Al] Dei‘cnéanm) 76, PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNI;A LABOR SUBfiL-ASS kigembers reallege and 30 Clixvn’l‘umx’f 4 < 1 Ux 43>. Lu) N @OOKQO‘x incorporate by this reference, as though fully ‘ set. forth herein, the prior paragraphs 0f this Complaint. 77. During the CALIFORNLA 1;..AIE3OR SUBCLASS PERIOD, DEFENDANT failed t0 pay PLAINTIFF and. the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members overiime wages forthe time they worked in excess 0f the maximum hours permissibke by iaw as required by Ca}. Lab. Code §§ 510 & 1198, even though PLAINTIFF 21nd the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB«CLASS Members were regularly required towork and did in fact work, 0Vertime thatDEFENDANT never recorded. as evidenced by DEFENDANT’S b'u'sineS-s‘ records and witnessed by DEFENDANT’S employees. 78. Byvirtue 0fDEFENDANT" s unlafi'fifi failure to pay compensation t0 PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for all ovelfime worked by these employees, PLAINTIFF andCALIFORNLA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members have suffered, andwin continue t0 suffer, an economic in amounts which are presently unknown t0 them and Which can be ascertained, according t0 proofat trial. 79. DEFENDANT knew 0r should haveimown thatPLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were misciasgified as independent. contracwrs and DEFENDANT elected, either through intentional maifeagance 01‘ gross nonfeasance, not t0 pay them for their labor as a matter 0f corporate policy, practice zmd procedure. 80. IPLALNTIFF and the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members therefore request recovery of 2111 compensation according to proof, interest, costs, as wen as the assessment ofany statutory penaities againstDEFENDANT in a sum as; provided by the Caiifbmia Labor Code andfor other statutes. T0 the extent Qvertime compensation is determined t0 be Owed to the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUBuCLA-SS Members who have tenninated their employment, these employees would also be entitied t0 waiting time penaities under Cal. Lab. Code § 203, Which penalties are sought herein. Further, PLAiNTIFF and the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB- CLASS Members are entitled to seek and recover si‘atumry costs. 81. In performing the: acts and practices herein alleged in Violation OfCalifomia labor Iawsfi and refuging t0 compensate the members ofthe CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS for all 31 COM E’i.‘..,A E \l' Ix) .Lxm L11 6 overtime worked and provide them with the requisite overtime compensation, DEFENDANT acted and continues t0 act :inteniionally, oppreSsively, arid maliciousiy toward PLAINTIFF and the other members ofthe CALIFORNLA LABOR SUB-CLASS with a conscious ofand utter disregard for their legal rights, 0r the consequences {'0 them, and with the despicable intent 0f depriving them 0ftheir property and legal rights, and otherwise causing them injmy in order t0 increase corporate profits at the expense offhese employees. FOURTH. CAUSE 0F ACTION For Failure t0 Provide Required Meal Periods {Ca}. Lab. Code §§ 226.7 8; 512 '1 (By PLAINTFEFF and the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS and Against Al] Defendants) 82. PLAINTIFF, and the other members Oft'he CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS, realkege and incorporate by this raference, as though fully set forth herein, the prior paragraphs of this Complaint. 83. During the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS PERIOD, from time t0 time, DEFENDANT failed t0 provide ail the legaliy required off-duty meal breaks to PLAINTIFF and the otherCALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members as required by the applicableWage Order and Labor Code. The nature Offhe work performed by PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB~CLASS MEMBERS did not prevent these employees from being relieved 0f all 0f their duties 'f'br the legally required ofi'ldut'y meal periods. As a resuit 0f their rigorous wm‘k schedules, PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIALABOR SUBWCLASS Members were from time t0 time not fulE‘y relieved 0f duty by DEFENDANT for their meal periods. Additionally, DEFENDAN’I"S failure to provide PLAI‘N'ii'Ti'iFZF and the CALIFORNIA LABOR S‘UB-CLASS Members With legally required meal breaks prior t0 their fifth (Sim hour Of work is evidenced by DEFENDANTS business records. As a. result, PLAINTIFF and other members of the CAI..,IFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS tberefol're forfbitcd meal breaks without additional compensation and in ziccordzmw with DEFENDIANT’S strict corporate policy and firactice. 32 C<:>;.xri.z>1;..g\1N? 16 84. DEFENDANT fiuthel violated Califomia Labm Code §§ 226.7 and the- applicable IWC Wage Ordel by failing to compensateFLAINjTIFF and CALIFORNIALABOR SUB-CLASS Members who were not prqvided a meal period? l‘dn accordahce with the applicable Wage Order, one- additional hour Ofcompensation at each empioyea’ s regular rate Ofpay for each workday that a meal period was not provided. 1 85. As a proximate result of the atbrementioned Violations, PLAINTIFF and. CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Mernberé have been damaged in an amount according to proof at trial, and seek all wages earned and due}, interest, penalties, expenses and costs of suit. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION For Failure t0 Provide ilequired Rest Periods [Ca]. Lab. Code §§ 226.7 & 512 ] (By PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA} LABOR SUB-CLASS and Against All Defenélants) l 86. PLAINTIFF, and the other membfers 0f the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS reallege and incorporate by this reference, as théugh fully set forth herein, the prior paragraphs 0f this Complaint. l 87. Foml time t0 time PLAINTIFF and othel CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS MembeIs W ele requhed t0 w01k 1n excess 0f fom (4) hows without being provided ten (10) minute rest periods. Further, these employees were denied their first rest periods 0f at least ten (1 0) minutes for some shifts worked ofat leélst two (2) t0 four (4) hours, a first. and second rest period 0f at least ten (10) minutes f(jn' some shifts worked 0f between six (6) and eight (8) hours, and a first, second and third rest; period ofat least ten (10) minutes for some shifts worked 0f ten (1 0) hours 01' more. PLAIIL’TIFIF and other CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB- CLASS Members we're also not provided with 9116 hour wages- in lieu thereof. As a result 0f their rigorous work schedules, PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members were periodically denied their propel glest pmiods bv DEEEVDANT and DEFENDANT’S managers. U) ‘ 1 J 3 COM!PL ”\JN' l" 4?; DJ IQ Ux 6 88. DEFENDANT further violated Célif‘omia Labor Code §§ 226.7 and the appiicable IWC Wage Order by failing t0 compensate PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB~CLASS Members who were not provided la ‘rest period, in accordance With the applicable Wage Order, one additional hour 0f compensation at each employee’s regular rate 0fpay for each workday that rest period was not provided. 89. As a proximate result. O‘fthe afbre‘mentioned violations, PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members have been damaged in an amount according to proofat trial, and seek all wages earned. and d'ué, interest, penalties, expenses and costs ofsuit. SIXTH CAUSE OF AC'I‘EON For Failure t0 Provide Accurate Itemized Statements [CaL Lab. Code § 226} (By PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS and Against All Defendants) 90. PLAINTIFF, and the other membgrs 0f the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS reallege and incomorate by this reference, as though fully set forth herein, the prior Ofthis Complaint. 91. Cal. Labor Code- § 226 provides that an employer must furnish employees with an “accurate itemized statement in writing showing: (1) gross wages eamed, (2) total hours worked by the. employee} éxcept for any employee whose compensation is solely based 0n a salmy and who is exgmpt from payment Of overtime under subdivision (a) OfSection 51 5 01‘ any applicable order Ofthe Industrial Welfi‘u‘e Commission, l (3) the number of piecerate units earned and any applicable piece rate if the employee 1's paid. on a piece~mte basis, (4) ail deductions, provided that 211.1 deductions made 0n written orders of the employee may be aggregated and shown as (me item, 34 COM}? 1..A l \I‘ 5 Ix) MAL» 6 10 1] 13 14 15 16 (5) net wages earned, (6) the- inclusive dates of the period for Which the employee. is paid, (7) the name 0f the employee and his 01' '1‘181‘ social security number, except that by January 1., 2008, only the East four digits of his 0r her social security number 01‘ an employee identification number other than a social security number may be shown on the itemized statement, (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 ofhours worked at each hourly rate by the employee.” 92. Cal. Lab. Code § 226 provides that evely employer shall fumish each 0f his or her employees with an accurate itemized wage statement in writing showing, among other things, gross wages eamed and a1} applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding amount offime worked at each hourly rate. From time t0 time, DEFENDANT violated Cal. Lab. Code § 226 by failing t0 provide- wage statements that identified the correct gross and net wages earned. Aside from the'violations listed above, DEFENDANT failed t0 igsue to PLAINTIFF an itemized wage statement that lists all the requirements under California Labor Code 226 ez‘ seq. As 21 result, from time t0 time DEFENDANT provided PLAINTIFF and the other members 0f the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS With wage statements Which violated Cal. Lab. Code § 226. 93. DEFENDANT knowingly and intentionally failed t0 comply with Labor Code § 226: causing damages t0 PLAINTIFF, and the other members Ofthe CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS. These damages include, but are not limited to, costs expended calculating the true. amount offime worked and the amount ofemploymem taxes which were not properly paid t0 state and federal tax authorities. These‘damages are difficult to estimate. Therefore, PLAINTIFF, and the Other Ineiljnbel's Of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CI..,ASS elect t0 recover liquidated damages‘ OfSS0.00 for the initial pay period in which the Violation occurred, and $100.00 for each violation in 51.1bsequent pay period pursuant f0 Labor Cede § 226, in 2m amount according t0 proofat the time 01’ trial (but in no event more than $4,000.00 35 (OMPm IV b U) l\) L11 6 (bf PLAINTIFF and each respective member 0f the- CALIFORNIA LABOR SUBCLASS herein) . SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION For Failure t0 Reimbursc Employees for Required Expenses {CaL Lab. Code § 2802] (By PLAINTEFF and the CALIFORNIA LABOR S‘UB-CLASS and Against All Defendants) 94. PLAINTIFF and the other CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS members reallege and incomorate by this reference, as théugh fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 79 ofthis Complaint. 95. Cal. Lab. Code § 2802 provides, in relevant part, that: An employer shall. indemnify his 01‘ her employee 1th all necessary expenditures 0r losses incun'ed by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge 0f his 0r her duties, 0r ofhis 01‘ her obedience. t0 the directions 0f the employer, even though unlawful, unless the em;_310y¢e, at the time ofobeying the directions, believed them t0 be unlawful. 96. At all relevant times herein, DEFENDANT violated Cal. Lab. Code § 2802, by failing t0 indemnify and reimburse PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA LABOR. SUB-CLASS members for required expenses incurred in the discharge- oftheir job duties for DEFENDANT’S benefit. Specifically, DEFENDANT failed t0 reimburse PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS membersfin‘ expenses which included, but were- not limited t0, the cost associated with the use 0f their personal cellular phones and personal vehicles for DEFENDANT’S benefit. In order t0 work for DEFERHDANT, PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS i\4(-:mbers were required t0 use their personal vehicles t0 travel and t0 use DEFENDANTS mobile application and as such it is mandatory t0 have a cell phone that is compatible. with DEFENDANT’S mobile application. AS a result, in the course- Of their employment with DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF and other members 0f the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS incurred L’mreimbursed business expenses which included, but were not limited t0, the costs related to the use Of their personal ceilula'r phones 36 COM PLAIN’J‘ I\) GOOQmU‘t-hw 10 11. 12 14 15 16 and personal vehicles all 0n behalfof and for the. benefit ofDEFENDANT. Further, PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA LABOR VSUB-CLASS Members are also not reimbursed or indemnified by DEFENDAN'I‘ for the cost associated with using their personal vehicles while driving for DEFENDANT. Moreover, PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB~CLASS Members were also required from] time t0 time t0 pay for parking costs at ceflain places. As a result, in the course Oftheir employment with DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF and other members 0f the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS incurred u'm‘eimbursed business expenses which included, but were not limited to, costs related to travel all on behalf 0f and for the benefit ofDEFENDANT. These expenses are necessary t0 complete their principal job duties. DEFENDANT is estopped ‘by DEFENDANT’S conduct t0 assert any waiver 0f this expectation. Although these expenses are necessary expenses incun'ed by PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS members, DEFENDANT failed t0 indemnify and reimburse PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS members for these expenses as an empioyer is required t0 d0 under the laws and regulations 0f California. I 97. PLAINTIFF therefore demands reimbursement for expenditures 01‘ losses incurred by them and the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS members in the discharge of their job duties ibr DEFENDANT, 0r their obedience t0 the directions OfDEFENDANT, with interest at the statutory rate and costs under Cal. Lab. Code § 2802. /// /// /// EIGHTE-i CAUSE OF ACTION For Failure t0 ?ay Wages When H)uc [Ca]. Lab. Code §§ 20'], 202 and 203] (By PLA’INTEFF and the CA]..,I§3()RN]A LABOR SUB-CLASS and Against All Defendants) 37 (:‘<:>;\:1I’1__.A1N'r ._.a C©m%O\U1-¥>UJN 16 26 98. PLAINTIFF, and the Other members offhe CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS reallege and incomorate by reference, as thoughlfully set forth herein, the prior paragraphs of "this Complaint. 99. Cal. Lab. Code § 200 states that: ‘ As used in this article: (a) "Wages” includes all amounts for labor performed by employees of evely descriptiom whether the amount is fixed 0r ascertained by the standard oftime, task, piece, Commission basis, 0r other method 0f calculation. (b) "Labor" includes iabor, work, 01‘ service whether rendered 0r performed under contract, subcontract, partnership, station plan, 0r other agreement if the labor t0 be. paid for is-perfomxed personally by the- person demanding payment. ‘ 100. Cal. Lab. Code S, 201 states, in relevant part, that “Ifan employer discharges an employee, the wages earned 21nd unpaid at the time of discharge are due and payable immediately.” 101. Cal. Lab. Code § 202 states, in relevant part, that: If an employee not having a written contract for a definite period quits his 0r her employment, his 01‘ her wages shall become due and payable not later than 72 hours thereafter, unless the employee bass given 72 hours previous notice 0f his 0r her intention to quit, in which case the employee is entitled to his 01‘ her wages at the time 0f quitting. Notwithstanding any other provision 0f law, an employee who quits without providing a 72-hour notice shall be entitled t0 receive payment by mail ifhe 01‘ she so requests and designates a mailing address. The date 0f the mailing shall constitute. the date ofpayment for purposes 0f the requirement t0 provide. payment Within 72 hours Ofthe notice ofquitting. 102. There was no definite term in PLAINTIFF’S or any other CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members’ employment contract. .103. Cal. Lab. Code § 203 states: If an employey willfilily fails t0 pay, without abatement or reduction, in accordance Wlth Septmns 201, 201 .5, 202, and 205.5, any wages ofan empbyee who ls dxscharged 0r who qmt‘s, the wages offhe employee shall contmue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate untfl pald 0r until an action therefor is commenced; but the wages shall not continue for more than 30 days. 104. The employment 0f iPLAiIN’I'iIIFF and many other CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB- CLASS Members has terminated, yet as t0 those- individ‘uals whose employment terminated, DEFENDANT did not timely tender payment 0f 21H wages owed as required by 12M. 105. Therefbre. 21$ provided by Cal Lab. Code § 203, 0n behalfofhimselfand the 38 COM PLAINI' 7 COOQQKII$UJN~ Hp; #0 ”A y-A r-t .D. DJ F.) H U1 16 26 27 78 members Ofthe CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS whose employment terminated, PLAINTIFF demands thirty days ofpay as penalty for not paying all wages due at time 0f termination for all individuals in the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS who tenninated employment during the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS PERIOD plus interest and statutmy costs as allowed. severally, as follows: 1. On behalf of the CALIFORNIA CLASS: !\.) WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays forjudgment against each Defendant, jointly and A) B) C) D) On behalfofthe CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS: A) B) PRAYER FOR RELIEF That the. Com“: cefiify the First Cahse ofAction asserted by the- CALIFORNIA CLASS as a class action pursuantto Cal. Code of Civ. Pmc. § 382; An order temporarily, preliminarily and permanently enjoining and restraining DEFENDANT from engaging in Similar unlawful conduct as set folTh herein; An order requin'ng DEFENDANT to pay minimum and overtime wages and all sums unlawfuly ‘withheid from compensation due to PLAINTIFF and the other members 0f the CALIFORNIA CIiILASS; and, Restitutionmy disgorgement of'DEFE‘NDANT’S i11~g0tten gains into a fluid fund for restitution 0f the sums incidental 1:0 DEFENDANT’S Violations due t0 PLAINTIFF and t0 the Other members 0f the CALIFORNIA CLASS. That the Court certify the. Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Causes 0f Action asserted by the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS as a class action pursuant t0 Cal. Code ofCiv. Proc. § 382; Compensaiory damages, according t0 pmofat trial, including compensation due PLAINTIFF and the other members offhe CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS: during the zlppiicable CAIJFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS PERIOD plus interes thereon at' the statut‘my rate; 39 COM PLA l\ 1‘ ©00QO\LA-mey-- .L‘. UJ IQ *--‘ O H U} 16 C) D) E) F) G) On all claims: A) An award ofinterest, including prejudgment interest at the legal rate; B) Such other and further relief as the‘. Court deems just and equitable; and, C) An award 0f penalties, attorneys’ fees and cost 0f suit, as allowable under the law, including, but not limited t0, pursuant t0 Labor Code §226, §II 194, and/OI‘ §2802. Dated: May 7, 2020 BLUMENTHAL NORDREI:-IAUG BI-JOWEVHK DE BLOUW LLP The wages ofall terminated individuals in the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS as a penalty from the. due date thereof at the same. rate until paid 01' until an action therefore is commenced, in accordance with Cal. Lab. Code § 203; The greater of all actual damages ‘01‘ fifty dollars ($50) for the initial pay period in which a Violation occurs and one hundred dollars (33 1 00) per each member 0f the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS for each Violation in a subsequent pay period, not exceeding an aggregate penalty offom‘ thousand dollars ($4,000), and an award. Ofcosts for violation ofCal. Lab. Code § 226; Meal and rest period compensation pursuant to California Labor Code Section 226.7 and the applicable I.WC Wage Order; The amount 0f the expenses PLAINTIFF and each member 0f the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUBCLASS incun‘ed in the course 0f their job duties, pius interest, and costs 0f suit; and, ‘ For liquidated damages pursuant tjo California Labor Code. Sections 1194.2 and 1.197. By: Nomlem B. Blurngnfhal Attorneys for Plamnff 40 COM I’ I..../\ I N' 1' I\.) Lll-‘DUJ 6 Dated: May 7, 2020 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PLAINTIFF demands ajury trial 0n issues n'iable t0 a juxy. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOVVMIK DE BLOUW’ LLP By: Nommn B. B l ume-nthal Attorneys for Plaintiff 41 COM I’LA l \i' CM-010 ATTORNEY 0R PAR WITHOUT fTTORBNEY (gaggmStale) Bar number, end address). FDR COURT USE ONLYorman B. B umentha Kyle Nordrehaug (Bar #(205975) .- g flBlumenth a] Nordrchaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP F 'fi 2255 Cane Clara, La Jolla, CA 92037 Superior Court of California TELEPHONE No.2 (858) 551-1223 FAX NO.: (85 8) 551-1232 V County of San Francisco ATTORNB/ FOR (Name): Plaintiff Ishan Basu-Kesselman I _ SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA, COUNTY 0F SAN FRANCISCO q UP 03WSTREET ADDRESS: 400 McAllister St. ‘ " ‘ ' MAILING ADDRESS: 400 McAllister St. ' CITY AND ZIP CODE: San Francisco 94 1 02-45 l 4 CLERW E COURT BRANCH NAME Central B l I/ Deputy ClerkCASE NAME: ISHAN BASU-KESSELMAN v. GARUDA LAB s, INC. ANGEUCA SUNGA CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation U ER:- I a' Unlimited E Limited , fig E 2 0 “‘5 8 6' 5 4 (L (Amount (Amount D Counter D Jomder _ . . JUDGE:demanded demanded Is Filed wuth first appearance‘ by defendant exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) DEPT: Items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2). 1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case: Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation Auto (22) Breach 0f wntfacgwarramy (05) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 140043.403) Uninsured motorist (46) Rule 3.740 collections (09) E Antitmst/Trade regulation (03) Other PIIPD/WD (Personal lnjurylProperty Other collections (09) E Construction defect (1 O) DamagaIWrongful Death) Tort insurance coverage (13) E Mass tori (40) Asbestos (04) other contract (37) E Securities litigation (28)E DUDDD Product liability (24) Real Property EnvironmentalfToxic iori (30) Medical malpradice (45) Emineni domain/lnverse Insurance coverage claims arising from theE Other PI/PD/WD (23) condemnafion (14) above listed provisionally complex case Non-PIIPDIWD (Other) Tort D WFDDQfUI eviciion (33) I types (41)E Business toruunfair business practice (07) D Other real property (2S) Enforcement of JudgmentE Civil rights (08) Unlawful Datainer E Enforcement of-iudgmenf (20)E Defamation (13) commerCia' (31) Miscellaneous Civil ComplaintE Fraud (1 5) E Residential (32) ‘ E RICO (27)E Intellectual property (1 9) D DFUQS (35) Other complaint (not specified above) (42)E Professional negligence (25) Jumcia' R°Vicw Miscellaneous Civil PetitionE Other “Dn'PI/PDNVD tort (35) ASSEt forfejture (05) Partnership and corporate governance (21) Em loyment E Petition re: arbitration award (1 1) E Other pemion (nor Specified above) (43) Wrongful termination (36) E Writ of mandate (D2) Oiher employment (15) D Otherjudicial review (39) 2. This case D is is not complex under rule 3 400 ofthe California Rules of Com. If the case is complex. mark the factors requirrng exceptionaljudicial management. a.E Large number of separately represented parties d.E Large number of witnesses b.D Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e.E Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts issues that will be time~c0nsuming to resolve in other counties states, or countries, or in a federal court c E Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. E Substantial postjudgmentjudicial superv15|on A Remedies sought (check all that apply): a.- monetary b.E nonmonetary; declaratory 05 Number of causes of action (specify). ONE (1) This case E is - Is not a class action suit. 1f there are any known related cases file and serve a notice of related case. You ma use f Date. August 21 2020 Norman Blumenthal (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURmeTY OR ATI'ORNEY 5W1!) NOTICE n Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed In the action 0r proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules cf Couri rule 3 220 ) Failure to file may result in sanctiéns - File this cbver sheei In addition to any cover sheet required by Iocaf court rule t Ifthis case is complex under rule 3. 400 et seq. ofthe California Rules of Court you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on an 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 statisticaf purposes only 2age 1 cl Form Adopted for Mancalory Use CHI. Ruias of Court. rules 2.30, 3.220, 3.4CO-3 403 3.740; Judicial CauncilchaIifcmia CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Cal. Standards alJudicial Administration, sla‘. 3.10 CM-G‘ID [Rem July 1. 2007] mvw. court.'nfa. ca.gov LexrsNexisrsi-Amommea’”ya.fifamia Judicm.‘ Counci' Forms @9199» I ' ' CM-D10 INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET To Plaintiffs and Others Fiiing First Papers. If you are filing a first py'aper (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 win be used to compile statistics about the types and numbers of cases filed. You must complete i‘tems 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 genera! and a more specific type of case listed in item 1, check the more specific one. lf the case has multipfe causes of action, chepk 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 omy with your initial paper. Failure to file a cover sheetlwith the first paper filed in a civil case may subject a party, its counsei, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 of the CaliforniajRules of Court. To Parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A "collections case" unde'r ruie 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; excmsive‘ 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 foliowing: (1) ton damages, (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recgvery of personal property, or (5) a prejudgment writ of attachment. The identification 0f 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 defehdant files a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgmen‘t in rule 3.740. T0 Parties in Complex Cases. ln complex cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet t0 designate whether the case is complex. If a p!aintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3.409 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 0n all parties to the action. A defendant maylfiie and serve no‘ later than the time of its first appearance a joinder in the plaintiff's designation a counter~designation that the case is not compiex or if the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that the case is complex. Auto Tort Auto (22)-Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death Uninsured Motorist (46) (if the case involves an uninsured motorist claim subject to arbitration, check (his item instead of Auto) Other Pl/PD/WD (Personal Injury] Property DamagelWrongful Death) Tort Asbestos (04) Asbestos Property Damage Asbestos Personal lnjury/ Wrongfu! Death Product Liability (not asbestospr foxic/environmental) (24) Medical Malpractice (45) Medical Malpractice- Physicians & Surgeons Other Professional Health Care Malpractice Other PI/PDIWD (23) Premises Liability (e.g., slip and fall) intentional Bodily injury/PD/WD (e.g., assault, vandalism) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Negligent lnfliction of Emotional Distress Other Pi/PD/WD Non-Pl/PDIWD (Other) Tort Business Tort/Unfair Business Practice (07) Civil Rights (e.g., discrimination. fatse arrest) (notcivi/ harassment) (O8) Defamation (2.9., slander, libel) (13) Fraud (16) lntekledual Property (19) Professional! Negiigence (25) Legal Malpractice Other Professional Malpractice (not medical or legal) Other Non-PUPDIWD Tort (35) Employment Wrongful Termination (36) Other Empéoymem (1 5') CM-om [Rem suéy 1, 2007; CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Contract 1 Breach of Contract/Warrantf/ (06) Breach of RentallLeasei Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful eviction) ContractiWarranty Breach-Seller Plaintiff (no! fraud ol‘r negligence) Negligent Breach of Cohtract/ Warranty Other Breach of Contract/Warranty Collections (e.g., money ow‘ed. open book accounts) (09) Collection Case-Seller Plaintiff Other Promissory Note/‘Collections Case Insurance Coverage (not provisionally complex) (1 8) I Auto Subrogafion OtherCoverage I 1 Other Contract (37) Contractual Fraud : Other Contract Dispute Real Property Eminent Domain/lnverse J Condemnation (1 4) ‘ Wrongful Eviction (33) ' Other Real Property (e.g., quiet title) (26) Writ of Possession of Real Property Mortgage Foreclosure ; Quiet Title I Other Real Property (no? eminent domain Iandlord/tenanf, or foreclosure) Unlawful Detainer Commercial (31) Residential (32) Drugs (38) (ii the case involves iilegal drugs check thisilem; otherwise. report as Commercial or Restdenfial) Judicial Review Asset Forfeiture {05) 1 Petition Re: Arbitration Award (1 1) Writ of Mandate (02) 1 Writ-Administrative Mandamus Writ-Mandamus on Limited Court Case Maiter Writ-Other Limited Court Case Review Other Judicial Review (39) Reviev of Health Officer Order Notice of Appeal-La bor Commissioner Apfieals CIVIL CASE COVER" SHEET i i..1‘.\'lls'.'\-’r:.x'z.s'i.l§> n' niauznvlm'i ' Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Rules of Court Rules 3.400-3.403) Antitrust/Trade Regulation (03) Construction Defect (1 O) Claims Involving Mass Tort (40) Securities Litigation (28) Environme ntailToxic Tort (30) insurance Coverage Claims (arising from provisionally complex case type listed above) (41) Enforcement of Judgment Enforcement of Judgment (20) Abstract of Judgment (Out of County) Confession of Judgment (non- domestic relations) Sister State Judgment Administrative Agency Award (no! unpaid faxes) Petition/Certification of Ently of Judgment on Unpaid Taxes Other Enforcement of Judgment Miscellaneous Civil Complaint RICO (27) Other Compfaint (not specified above) (42) Declaratory Relief Only Injunctive Refief Only (non- harassment) Mechanics Lien Other Commercial Comptaint Case (non-t‘ort/nan-complex) Other Civil Complaint {non-(ort/non-comp/ex) Miscellaneous Civil Petition Partnership and Corporate Governance (21) Other Petition {notspecified above} (43) Civil Harassment Workpiace Violence Elder/Dependent Adult Abuse Election Contest Petition for Name Change Petition for Relief From Late Claim Other Civii Petition Page 2 of 2 .71-‘1m deicim’ ("'oum‘i.’ fibrin.»- EXHIBIT E \DOONON 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C, 50 w San F nnnnndo, 7m Floor San Jose. CA 95113 2m ‘08398 I150 ANDREW M. SPURCHISE, Bar No. 245998 aspurchise@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 900 3rd Avenue, 8th Floor New York, NY 10022-3298 Telephone: 212.583.9600 Fax No.: 212.832.2719 ELISA NADEAU, Bar N0. 199000 enadeau@littler.com LINDA NGUYEN BOLLINGER, Bar No. 2895 1 5 lbollinger@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor San Jose, CA 951 13.2431 Telephone: 408.998.4150 Fax No.: 408.288.5686 Attorneys for Defendant GARUDA LABS, INC. dba INSTAWORK SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ELECTRONICALLY F I L E D Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 11/30/2020 Clerk of the Court BY: SANDRA SCHIRO Deputy Clerk ISHAN BASU-KESSELMAN, 0n behalf Case N0. CGC-20-586542 of the State of California, as private attorney general, NOTICE OF DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO ABATE, OR IN THE Plaintiff, ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR STAY V. Date: January 29, 2021 Time: 9:30 am. GARUDA LABS, INC., a Corporation; Dept: 302 and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. Complaint Filed: September 3, 2020 Case N0. CGC-20-586542 NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO ABATE OR MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 50 W. San F nnnnndo, 7m Floor San Jose, CA 95113 2431 4083984150 TO PLAINTIFF ISHAN BASU-KESSELMAN AND HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 29, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., 0r as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Department 302 0fthe above captioned court, located at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, California 94102, Defendant GARUDA LABS, INC. (“Instawork” 0r “Defendant”) will and hereby does demur t0 Plaintiff ISHAN BASU-KESSELMAN’S (“Basu-Kesselman” 0r “Plaintiff’) Representative Action Complaint for Civil Penalties Pursuant t0 Labor Code § 2699, et seq. for Violations 0f Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204 et seq., 210, 226(a), 226.7, 351, 510, 512, 558(a)(1)(2), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2802, California Code ofRegulations, Title 8, Section 11040, Subdivision 5(A)-(B), and the applicable Wage Order(s) (the “PAGA Complaint”) in its entirety. This demurrer is brought pursuant t0 California Code 0f Civil Procedure section 430.10(c) 0n the ground that the present action is between the same parties 0n the same causes 0f action as the previously-filed and pending actions Tai Tran v. Garuda Labs, Ina, Alameda Superior Court Case N0. RG20061241 and Tai Tran v. Garuda Labs, Ina, Alameda Superior Court Case N0. RG20067292 - and Plaintiffs instant action must be abated/stayed. Alternatively, the Court should stay this case pursuant t0 the doctrine 0f exclusive concurrent jurisdiction. As a separate alternative basis for a stay, the Court should stay this case pursuant t0 Federal Arbitration Act § 3 and Code 0f Civil Procedure § 1281.4 because the issue 0f whether Plaintiff is Instawork’s employee and his right t0 recovery under the California Labor Code are currently the subj ect 0f arbitration between the parties. As a result, this case should be stayed pending completion 0f arbitration. Finally, in the alternative, the Court should use its discretionary authority t0 stay the case t0 promote judicial efficiency, prevent multiple lawsuits and the potential for conflicting rulings, and t0 avoid prejudice t0 Instawork. This Demurrer is based 0n this Notice 0f Demurrer and Demurrer, the Memorandum 0f Points and Authorities, Request for Judicial Notice, and the Declaration 0f Linda Nguyen Bollinger filed herewith, the Complaint filed in this action, such matters in the records and file contained herein as may be judicially noticed by the Court, and such argument as the Court may permit 0n the hearing 0f this Demurrer. 2. Case N0. CGC-20-586542 NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO ABATE OR MOTION FOR STAY \OOONONUI-P 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 50 w San F nnnnndo, 7m Floor San Jose. CA 95113 2431 4039934150 This Demurrer is made following the efforts of Defendant’s counsel to meet and confer With Plaintiff” s counsel pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, as described in the Declaration 0f Linda Nguyen Bollinger filed herewith. Dated: November 30, 2020 ANDREW M. SPURCHI6E ELISA NADEAU LINDA NGUYEN BOLLINGER LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant GARUDA LABS, INC. 3 . Case N0. CGC-20-586542 NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO ABATE OR MOTION FOR STAY \DOONONUI-P 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 50 w San F nnnnndo, 7m Floor San Jose. CA 95113 2431 4039934150 DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF ISHAN BASU-KESSELMAN AND HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Defendant GARUDA LABS, INC. (“Instawork” 0r “Defendant”) hereby demurs to the PAGA Complaint of ISHAN BASU-KESSELMAN (“Plaintiff’ or “Basu-Kesselman”) in its entirety on the following grounds: FIRST CAUSE 0F ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT [CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 2698, ETSEQ.] Plaintiff’s First Cause 0f Action should be abated pending completion of the earlier-filed actions Tai Tran v. Garuda Labs, Ina, Alameda Superior Court Case No. RG20061241 and Tai Tran v. Garuda Labs, Inc., Alameda Superior Court Case No. RG20067292, because the earlier-filed actions involve the same parties and claims as Plaintiff’s PAGA Complaint. See Cal. Code 0f Civ. P. § 430.10(c). In the alternative, Plaintiff’s First Cause 0f Action should be stayed pursuant to the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction and this Court’s inherent authority pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 128 and 187 pending the outcome of the first-filed actions and/or pursuant t0 the Federal Arbitration Act § 3 and Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.4, because the issue of Whether Plaintiff is Instawork’s employee and his right to recovery under the California Labor Code are currently the subject 0f arbitration between the parties. As a result, this case should be stayed pending completion of arbitration. Dated: November 30, 2020 ANDREW M. SPUROHISE ELISA NADEAU LINDA NGUYEN BOLLINGER LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant GARUDA LABS, INC. 4841-9294-1 519.3 108436.1002 4. Case N0. CGC-20-586542 NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO ABATE OR MOTION FOR STAY EXHIBIT F 01th \Omflc‘x 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TTLER MENDELSON. P. C. | 50W. San Fem anmd 7m Floor San Jon. CAB 95113. 2‘31 40! 995.“SD f aspurchise@littler.com ' LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 900 3rd Avenue, 8th Floor I New York, NY 10022-3298 =‘ Telephone: 212.583.9600 Fax No.2 212.832.2719 ELISA NADEAU, Bar No. 199000 enadeau@littler.com 1bollinger@littler.com ,, LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. z 50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor ’ San Jose, CA 951 13.2431 Telephone: 408.998.4150 v: Fax No.: 408.288.5686 Attorneys for Defendant §1ISHAN BASU-KESSELMAN, on behalf ¥of the State of California, as private attorney general, Plaintiff, | V. :lGARUDA LABS, INC., a Corporation; {and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. z ANDREW M. SPURCHISE, Bar No. 245998 VI GARUDA LABS, INC. dba INSTAWORK COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISC 1 San Francisco County Suo'erior Court AUG 0 9.2021 CLEgK/AOF THE COURT v 4/ /?ep/my exam BY. LINDA NGUYEN BOLLINGER, Bar N0. 2895 1 5 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA Case N0. CGC-2 -586542 [PR ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO ABATE, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR STAY Date: August 9, 2021 Time: 9.30 a.m. Dept. 302 Complaint Filed: September 3, 2020 Case No. CGC-20-586542 [MD] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO ABATE, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR STAY MAWN \OOONQ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TTLER MENDELSON. ?.c. ‘ 50 W. San F mandn Iln Flnnv San Jose. CA 951112131 403395.415» i i I i \ I | i I z§ ; Defendant Garuda Labs, Inc.’s demurrer to abate, or in the alternative, motion to stay the ? action is granted. 1i Defendant’s argument that abatement of this PAGA action is warranted because there is a ‘i pending class action (Tran I) that rais'es similar claims (Mot. at 11) is meritless. Contrary to “Defendant’s contention, the two actions do not involve “the same parties”: plaintiff in Tran I seeks I 1"o represent himself and other similarly situated employees, while here, plaintiff is suing on behalf 0f the State of California. (Iskam'an v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, 386-387 :the plaintiff in a PAGA action is the State].) As our Supreme Court has explained, the two actions llare entirely distinct: A PAGA claim is legally and conceptually different from an employee’s own suit for damages and statutory penalties. An employee suing underPAGA does so as the proxy or agent of the state’s labor law enforcement agencies. Moreover, the civil penalties a PAGA plaintiff may recover on the state’s behalf are distinct from the statutory damages or penalties that may be available t0 employees suing for individual violations. Reliefunder PAGA is designed primarily to benefit the general public, not the party bringing the action. A PAGA representative action is therefore a type of qui tam action, conforming to all traditional criteria, except that a portion of the penalty goes not only to the citizen bringing the suit but to all employees affected by the Labor Code violation. The government entity on whose behalf the plaintiff files suit is always the real party in interest. < _.(Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73, 981 (citations and internal quotations omitted); Bautista v. Fantasy Activewear, Inc. (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 650, 656.) However, defendant shows that there is an earlier-filed PAGA action pending in Alameda Superior iCourt (Tran PAGA Action) that involves the same issues. (RJN, Ex. F, Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG20067-292.) In view of that pending action, the instant duplicative action should be - “stayed. In that PAGA action, filed on July 9, 2020, the plaintiff seeks to recover civil penalties on fbehalf of all Califomia-based aggrieved employees during the relevant time period (April 1, 2019) to date for a variety of alleged Violations of the Labor Code. (RJN, Ex. A.) The claims asserted in thaf ‘lpending action are identical to those asserted in this action, which was filed on September 3, 2020. In View of the overlapping and duplicative nature of these actions, an order abating and/or staying the instant, later-filed action is appropriate. A party may demur to a complaint on the ’ground that there is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(c). If these requirements 2 Case No. CGC-20-586542TM] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO ABATE, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR STAY \OOONQUI-PWNr-i NNNNNNNHHHr-IHHHHHH QMAUJNP-‘OKDWQQMhWNP-‘O 27 28 I TTLER MENDELSON. P.c. l 50 W San Fernanda 7m Fluuv 5:... Jun. CA 9514112431 Aomsulso v ¢ Le met, abatement of the second-filed action is mandatory. (Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. ‘Superior fourt (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 455, 460 [“An order of abatement issues as a matter ofright not as a ' matter 0f discretion Where the conditions for its issuance exist.”]; see also Leadford v. Leadford 1 x r {(1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 571, 574 [“A trial court has-no discretion to allow the second action to proceed ‘lf it finds the first involves substantially the same controversy between the same parties.”].) Similarly, “Under the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction, ‘when two Superior Courts “have concurrent jurisdiction over the subj ect matter and all parties involved in the litigation, the first Eto assume jurisdiction has exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the subj ect matter and a‘ll hparties involved until such time as all necessarily related matters have been resolved.’” (Plant Insulation C0. v. Fibreboard Corp. (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 781, 786-787.) The rule of exclusive iconcurrent jurisdiction “is meant to avoid the spectacle of the same parties litigating the same issues' Y'in two different courts at the same time, including the real possibility of ‘unseemly conflict between courts that might arise if they were free to make contradictory decisions or awards at the same time jor relating to the same controversy; another reason is to protect. litigants from the expense and harassment of multiple litigation.” (Franklin & Franklin v. 7-Eleven Ownersfor Fair Franchising K2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1176.) While PAGA itselfmay not preclude separate but similar E'actions by different employees against the same employer (Julian v. Glenair, Inc. (2017) 17 ' §iCal.App.5th 853, 866), that does not prevent the Court from staying this action under this rule. l Abatement or stay is appropriate under the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction and also Eibased on the Court’s inherent powers. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 128(a)(8).) A stay will prevent duplicative discovery and conflicting rulings. A stay will also conserve judicial resources. (See “People ex rel. Garamendi v. American Autoplan, Inc. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 760, 770 [“Under the statutory plea in abatement, ‘[t]he pendency of another earlier action growing out of the same transaction and between the same parties is a ground for abatement of the second action.”’]; "Advanced Bionics Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc. (2002) 29 Ca1.4th 697, 707 [“The first-filed rule in .r California means that when two courts of the same sovereignty have concurrent jurisdiction, ithe first jto assume jurisdiction over a particular subject matter of a particular controversy takes it exclusively . . .”]; Thomson v. Continental Ins. Co. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 738, 746-747 [“Granting a stay in a case 3 Case No. CGC-20-586542, V‘ TP‘RGPGSBD] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO ABATE, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR STAY 1 iwhere the issues in two actions are substantially identical is a matter addressed to the sound 2 :discretion of the trial court.”]; Leadford v. Leadford (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 571, 574 [“A trial court 3 jhas no discretion to allow the second action to proceed if it finds the first involves substantially the 4 ,lsame controversy between the same parties”].) 5 J In the Court’s View, a stay is appropriate to avoid duplicative litigation. A judgment in the 6 iTran PAGA Action Will be binding on plaintiff and other aggrieved employees. (See Arias v. 7 E‘Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, 993 [explaining that a PAGA judgment “is binding not only 8 on the named employee plaintiff but also on government agencies and any aggrieved employee not a 9 party to the proceeding”]; see also Robinson v. Southern Counties Oil Company (2020) 53 10 ,3!Ca1.App.5th 476, 482-483 [doctrine of claim preclusion barred relitigation of claim for civil 11 penalties based on Labor Code violations resolved in prior PAGA action].) Even if the Court has the 12 :Ediscretion to allow this concurrent action to proceed (see Tan v. Grubhub, Inc. (N.D.Ca1. 2016) 171 13 iitFSupde 998, 1013), plaintiff presents no persuasive reason why the Court should allow thg 14 ??duplicative litigation and possibility ofunseemly conflicts. If the actions are cobrdinated, of course, 15 jthe coordination court may lift the stay. Both parties’ citation to and discussion of an unpublished 16 ;decisi0n (Starks v. Vortex Industries, Inc.) is improper. (Cal. R. Ct. 8.1 1 15(a).) 17 ‘ IT Is s0 ORDERED. 18 'Vw 19 :Dated: £21? 7) , 2021 mP 20 Judge of the Sari Francisco Superior Court 21 @48234736-9461J / 108436-1002 ETHAN P' SCHULMAN 22 23 :i 24 l 25 w. 26 g 27 ‘3 28 H 4 Case No. CGC-20-586542 Hf‘éflfif‘n‘ifiti‘.’n”a£;°' \1 5“" ’°.‘55§§a.351‘5‘93‘“3' :1 [W] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO ABATE, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR STAY EXHIBIT G 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Shaun Setareh (SBN 204514) shaun@setarehlaw. corn David Keledjian (SBN 309135) david@setarehlaw. com SETAREH LAW GROUP 9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430 Beverly Hills, California 90212 Telephone (310) 888-7771 Facsimile (310) 888-0109 Attorneys for Plaintiff DANIEL LLAMAS SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION Case No.DANIEL LLAMAS, onbehalf of himself and all other aggrieved employees, Plaintiff, vs. ADVANTAGE WORKFORCE SERVICES, LLC, a California corporation; INSTAWORK, a business entity of unknown fonn; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR: 1. Civil Penalties (Lab. Code §§ 2698 et seq. ); JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT CGC-21-589650 ELECTRONICALLY F I L E D Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 02/05/2021 Clerk of the Court BY: RONNIE OTERO Deputy Clerk 1 Plaintiff DANIEL LLAMAS ("Plaintiff"), on behalf of himself, all other aggrieved 2 employees, the State of California, and the general public, complains and alleges as follows: 3 INTRODUCTION 4 1. Plaintiff brings this representative action against Defendants ADVANTAGE 5 WORKFORCE SERVICES, LLC, a California corporation; INSTAWORK, a business entity of 6 unknown fonn; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, (collectively referred to as "Defendants") for 7 alleged violations of the Labor Code. As set forth below, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have: 8 (1) failed to provide him and all other aggrieved employees with meal periods; 9 (2) failed to provide them with rest periods; 10 (3) failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods; 11 (4) failed to properly record their meal and rest breaks; 12 (5) failed to provide them with accurate written wage statements; 13 (6) failed to reimburse them for necessary business expenditures incurred; and 14 (7) failed to pay them all of their final wages following separation of employment; 15 2. Based on these alleged Labor Code violations, Plaintiff now brings this representative 16 action for civil penalties on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated aggrieved employees 17 ("Aggrieved Empliyees"), the state of California, and the general public. 18 JURISDICTON AND VENUE 19 3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case because the monetary 20 damages and restitution sought by Plaintiff from Defendants conduct exceeds the minimal jurisdiction 21 of the Superior Court of the State of California. 22 4. Venue is proper in the County of San Francisco pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 23 sections 395(a) and 395. 5 in that liability arose this county because at least some of the b'ansactions 24 that are the subject matter of this Complaint occurred therein and/or each defendant is found, 25 maintains offices, transacts business and/or has an agent therein. 26 5. Venue is proper in San Francisco County because Defendants' have at all times 27 alleged herein, conducted business in San Francisco County, and throughout California. As such, 28 venue is proper in any county in California. 1 COMPLAINT 1 PARTIES 2 6. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant in the State of California as an hourly, non-exempt 3 employee from approximately November 2019 through December 2019. 4 7. Defendant ADVANTAGE WORKFORCE SERVICES, LLC, is a California Corporation 5 and does business throughout the State of California. 6 8. Defendant INSTAWORK, is an unknown business entity which Plaintiff believes does 7 business throughout the State of California. 8 9. Plaintiff is ignorant of the tme names and capacities of the defendants sued herein as 9 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff 10 will amend this Complaint to allege the tme names and capacities of the DOE defendants when 11 ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that each of the fictitiously 12 named defendants are responsible in some manner for the occurrences, acts and omissions alleged 13 herein and that Plaintiff s alleged damages were proximately caused by these defendants, and each of 14 them. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege both the tme names and capacities of the DOE 15 defendants when ascertained. 16 10. Plaintiff is infonned and believes, and thereupon alleges that, at all relevant times 17 mentioned herein, some or all of the defendants were the representatives, agents, employees, partners, 18 directors, associates, joint venturers, joint employers, principals or co-participants of some or all of 19 the other defendants, and in doing the things alleged herein, were acting within the course and scope 20 of such relationship and with the full knowledge, consent and ratification by such other defendants. 21 11. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that, at all relevant times 22 mentioned herein, some of the defendants pursued a common course of conduct, acted in concert and 23 conspired with one another, and aided and abetted one another to accomplish the occurrences, acts 24 and omissions alleged herein. 25 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 26 12. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly employee from 27 approximately from November 20 19 through December 2019. 28 13. Aggrieved employees were not provided with meal periods of at least thirty (30) COMPLAINT 1 minutes for each five (5) hour work period due to (1) Defendants' policy of not scheduling each meal 2 period as part of each work shift; (2) no formal written meal policy that encouraged employees to 3 take their meal periods, or that advised aggrieved employees of their meal and rest period rights; and 4 (3) Defendants' practice of requiring aggrieved employees to continue working through their meal 5 and rest periods due to the excessive workload. Additionally, Plaintiff and aggrieved employees' meal 6 periods were consistently taken after the completion of their fifth hour of work. Moreover, Plaintiff 7 and aggrieved employees were never afforded the opportunity to take second meal periods when they 8 worked in excess if ten (10) hours a day. 9 14. Aggrieved employees were not provided with rest periods of at least ten (10) minutes 10 for each four (4) hour work period, or major fraction thereof, due to (1) Defendants' policy of not 11 scheduling each rest period as part of each work shift; (2) no formal written rest period policy that 12 encouraged employees to take their rest periods, or that advised aggrieved employees of their meal 13 and rest period rights; and (3) Defendants' practice of requiring aggrieved employees to continue 14 working through their rest breaks due to the excessive workload.. 15 15. Defendants also implemented a common policy and practice of failing to reimburse 16 Plaintiff and aggrieved employees for necessary expenditures incurred in executing their duties under 17 Defendants employ. Specifically, Plaintiff and aggrieved employees were required to use their 18 personal cell phones in the course of their duties, including, but not limited to, clocking their hours 19 worked and meal periods remotely with the web-based application on their phones. Defendant never 20 reimbursed Plaintiff and aggrieved employees for their necessary cell phone costs in executing their 21 work-related duties. 22 16. Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees were not provided with accurate wage 23 statements as mandated by law pursuant to Labor Code section 226. 24 17. Defendants failed to comply with Labor Code section 226(a)(l) as "gross wages 25 earned" were not accurately reflected in that: all hours worked, including overtime, were not included. 26 18. Defendants failed to comply with Labor Code section 226(a)(2) as "total hours worked 27 by the employee" were not accurately reflected in that: all hours worked, including overtime, were 28 not included. COMPLAINT 1 19. Defendants failed to comply with Labor Code section 226(a)(5) as "net wages earned" 2 were not accurately reflected in that: all hours worked, including overtime, were not included. 3 20. Defendants failed to comply with Labor Code section 226(a)(9) as "all applicable 4 hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each 5 hourly rate by the employee" were not accurately reflected in that: all hours worked, including 6 overtime, were not included. 7 21. Defendants failed to reimburse Plaintiff and aggrieved employees for necessary 8 expenditures incurred in executing their duties under Defendants' employ. Specifically, Defendants 9 required Plaintiff and aggrieved employees to maintain uniforms provided to them as a necessary 10 condition of employment. Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees were required to maintain uniforms 11 that consisted ofalong-sleeve shirt as well as a hat aad/or beanie, and were not reimbursed for such 12 expenditures. 13 22. Additionally, Defendants also required Plaintiff and aggrieved employees to use their 14 personal cell phones for work-related tasks, and were not reimbursed for such expenditures. As such, 15 Defendants failed to indemnify Plaintiff and aggrieved employees for such expenses both during and 16 after their employment ended. 17 18 19 20 21 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION CIVIL PENALTIES (Lab. Code §§ 2698 etseq.) (Plaintiff Against All Defendants) 23. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully alleged 22 herein. 23 24. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees have been non-exempt 24 employees of Defendants entitled to the full meal period protections of both the Labor Code and the 25 applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order. 26 25. Labor Code section 512 and Section 11 of the applicable Industrial Welfare 27 Commission Wage Order impose an affinnative obligation on employers to provide non-exempt 28 employees with uninterrupted, duty-firee meal periods of at least thirty minutes for each work period COMPLAINT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 » 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of five hours, and to provide them with two unintermpted, duty-free meal periods of at least thirty minutes for each work period often hours. 26. Labor Code section 226.7 and Section 11 of the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order ("Wage Order") both prohibit employers from requiring employees to work during required meal periods and require employers to pay non-exempt employees an hour of premium wages on each workday that the employee is not provided with the required meal period. 27. Compensation for missed meal periods constitutes wages within the meaning of Labor Code section 200. 28. Labor Code section 1198 makes it unlawful to employ a person under conditions that violate the applicable Wage Order. 29. Section 11 of the applicable Wage Order states: "No employer shall employ any person for a work period of more than five (5) hours without a meal period of not less than 30 minutes, except that when a work period of not more than six (6) hours will complete the day's work the meal period may be waived by muhial consent of the employer and employee. Unless the employee is relieved of all duty during a 30 minute meal period, the meal period shall be considered an 'on duty' meal period and counted as time worked. An 'on duty' meal period shall be permitted only when the nature of the work prevents an employee fi"om being relieved of all duty and when by written agreement between the parties an on-the-job paid meal period is agreed to. The written agreement shall state that the employee may, in writing, revoke the agreement at any time." 30. provides: Furthermore, California Code of Regulations, Title 8, § 11040(7)(A)(3) (A) Every employer shall keep accurate infonnation with respect to each employee including the following: ... (3) Time records showing when the employee begins and ends each work period. Meal periods, split shift intervals and total daily hours worked shall also be recorded. Meal periods during which operations cease and authorized rest periods need not be recorded. 31. Labor Code section 1198 makes it unlawful for employers to employ employees under conditions that violate the applicable Wage Order. 32. Plaintiff alleges that, at all relevant times during the applicable limitations period, Defendants maintained a policy or practice of not providing Plaintiff and aggrieved employees with COMPLArNT 1 unintermpted, duty-free meal periods for at least thirty (30) minutes for each five (5) hour work 2 period, as required by Labor Code section 512 ad the applicable Wage Order. Aggrieved employees 3 were not provided with meal periods of at least thirty (30) minutes for each five (5) hour work period 4 due to (1) Defendants' policy of not scheduling each meal period as part of each work shiflt; (2) no * 5 formal written meal policy that encouraged employees to take their meal periods, or that advised 6 aggrieved employees of their meal and rest period rights; and (3) Defendants' practice of requiring 7 aggrieved employees to continue working through their meal and rest periods due to the excessive 8 workload. Additionally, Plaintiff and aggrieved employees' meal periods were consistently taken 9 after the completion of their fifth hour of work. Moreover, Plaintiff and aggrieved employees were 10 never afforded the opportunity to take second meal periods when they worked in excess if ten (10) 11 hours a day. 12 33. Defendants also failed to properly record and track the meal periods owed to Plaintiff 13 and aggrieved employees as required by Labor Code § 1174, California Code of Regulations, Title 8, 14 §11040(7)(A)(3), and applicable Wage Orders. Labor Code section 1198 makes it unlawful for 15 employers to employ employees under conditions that violate the applicable Wage Order. 16 34. Aggrieved employees were not subject to valid on-duty meal period agreements with 17 Defendant. California law requires that meal period waivers be documented in a written agreement 18 that is voluntarily signed by both the employee and employer. The written agreement must state that 19 the employee may, in writing, revoke the agreement at any time. 8 Cal. Code Regs. § 11040(11). 20 Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees did not execute lawful meal period waivers in accordance with 21 California law. 22 35. Section 12 of the applicable Wage Order imposes an affirmative obligation on 23 employers to pennit and authorize employees to take required rest periods at a rate of no less than ten 24 minutes of net rest time for each four hour work period, or major fraction thereof, that must be in the 25 middle of each work period insofar as practicable. 26 36. Labor Code section 226.7 and Section 12 of the applicable Wage Order both prohibit 27 employers from requiring employees to work during required rest periods and require employers to 28 pay non-exempt employees an hour of premium wages at the employees' regular rates of pay, on each 6 COMPLAHSTT 1 workday that the employee is not provided with the required rest period(s). 2 37. Compensation for missed rest periods constitutes wages within the meaning of Labor 3 Code section 200. 4 38. Plaintiff alleges that, at all relevant times during the applicable limitations period, 5 Defendants maintained a policy or practice of not providing Plaintiff and aggrieved employees with 6 net rest periods of at least ten minutes for each four hour work period, or major fraction thereof, as 7 required by the applicable Wage Order. Aggrieved employees were not provided with rest periods of 8 at least ten (10) minutes for each four (4) hour work period, or major fraction thereof, due to (1) 9 Defendants' policy of not scheduling each rest period as part of each work shift; (2) no fonnal written 10 rest period policy that encouraged employees to take their rest periods, or that advised aggrieved 11 employees of their meal and rest period rights; and (3) Defendants' practice of requiring aggrieved 12 employees to continue working through their rest breaks due to the excessive workload.. 13 39. At all relevant times. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and aggrieved employees 14 additional premium wages when required meal and rest periods were not provided. 15 40. Labor Code section 226(a) states: 16 "An employer, semimonthly or at the time of each payment of wages, shall furnish to his or her employee, either as a detachable part of the check, draft, or voucher paying 17 the employee's wages, or separately if wages are paid by personal check or cash, an accurate itemized statement in writing showing (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours 18 worked by the employee, except as provided in subdivision (j), (3) the number ofpiece- rate units earned and any applicable piece rate if the employee is paid on a piece-rate 19 basis, (4) all deductions, provided that all deductions made on written orders of the employee may be aggregated and shown as one item, (5) net wages earned, (6) the 20 inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the name of the employee and only the last four digits of his or her social security number or an 21 employee identification number other than a social security number, (8) the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer and, if the employer is a farm labor 22 contractor, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1682, the name and address of the legal entity that secured the services of the employer, and (9) all applicable hourly rates 23 in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee and, beginning July 1, 2013, if the employer is a temporary 24 services employer as defined in Section 201.3, the rate of pay and the total hours worked for each temporary services assignment. The deductions made from payment 25 of wages shall be recorded in ink or other indelible form, properly dated, showing the month, day, and year, and a copy of the statement and the record of the deductions shall 26 be kept on file by the employer for at least three years at the place of employment or at a central location within the State of California. For purposes of this subdivision, 27 'copy' includes a duplicate of the itemized statement provided to an employee or a computer-generated record that accurately shows all of the information required by this 28 subdivision." COMPLAINT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 41. The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement ("DLSE") has sought to harmonize the "detachable part of the check" provision and the "accurate itemized statement in writing" provision of Labor Code section 226(a) by allowing for electronic wage statements so long as each employee retains the right to elect to receive a written paper stub or record and that those who are provided with electronic wage statements retain the ability to easily access the information and convert the electronic statements into hard copies at no expense to the employee. (DLSE Opinion Letter July 6, 2006). 42. Plaintiff is informed and believes that, at all relevant times during the applicable limitations period. Defendants have failed to provide aggrieved employees with written wage statements as described above. 43. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants' failure to provide him and aggrieved employees with accurate written wage statements were intentional in that Defendants have the ability to provide them with acciirate wage statements but have intentionally provided them with written wage statements that Defendants have known do not comply with Labor Code section 226(a). 44. In addition, inaccurate information on their wage statements have prevented immediate challenges to Defendants' unlawful pay practices, has required discovery and mathematical computations to determine the amount of wages owed, has caused difficulty and expense in attempting to reconstmct time and pay records, and/or has led to the submission of inaccurate information about wages and deductions to federal and state government agencies. 45. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and aggrieved employees have been entitled, upon the end of their employment with Defendants, to timely payment of all wages earned and unpaid before tennination or resignation. 46. At all relevant times, pursuant to Labor Code section 201, employees who have been discharged have been entitled to payment of all final wages immediately upon termination. 47. At all relevant times, pursuant to Labor Code section 202, employees who have resigned after giving at least seventy-two (72) hours notice of resignation have been entitled to payment of all final wages at the time of resignation. 48. At all relevant times, pursuant to Labor Code section 202, employees who have 8 COMPLAINT 1 resigned after giving less than seventy-two (72) hours notice of resignation have been entitled to 2 payment of all final wages within seventy-two (72) hours of giving notice of resignation. 3 49. During the applicable limitations period, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff all of his 4 final wages in accordance with the Labor Code by failing to timely pay him all of his final wages. 5 50. Plaintiff is informed and believes that, at all relevant time during the applicable 6 limitations period. Defendants have failed to timely pay aggrieved employees all of their final wages 7 in accordance with the Labor Code. 8 51. Plaintiff is informed and believes that, at all relevant times during the applicable 9 limitations period. Defendants have maintained a policy or practice of paying aggrieved employees 10 their final wages without regard to the requirements of Labor Code sections 201 or 202 by failing to 11 timely pay them all final wages. 12 52. Plaintiff is infonned and believes and thereupon alleges that Defendants' failure to 13 timely pay all final wages to him and aggrieved employees have been willfud in that Defendants have 14 the ability to pay final wages in accordance with Labor Code sections 201 and/or 202 but have 15 intentionally adopted policies or practices that are incompatible with those requirements. 16 17 18 19 20 53. Labor Code section 2802(a) states: "An employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of the employer, even though unlawful, unless the employee, at the time of obeying the directions, believed them to be unlawful." 54. Defendants failed to reimburse Plaintiff and aggrieved employees for necessary 21 expenditures inciirred in executing their duties imder Defendants' employ. Specifically, Plaintiff and 22 aggrieved employees were required to use their personal cell phones in the course of their duties, 23 including, but not limited to, clocking their hours worked and meal periods remotely with the web- 24 based application on their phones. Defendant never reimbursed Plaintiff and aggrieved employees for 25 their necessary cell phone costs in executing their work-related duties. 26 55. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that the reimbursement paid 27 by Defendants was insufficient to indemnify Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees for all necessary 28 expenses incurred in the discharge of their duties. COMPLAD4T 1 56. At all relevant times during the applicable limitations period, Defendants required 2 Plaintiff and aggrieved employees to pay for expenses and/or losses caused by Defendants' want of 3 ordinary care. Defendants failed to indemnify Plaintiff and Aggrieved employees for all such 4 expenditures. 5 57. During the applicable limitations period, Defendants have violated Labor Code 6 sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 223, 226(a), 226.7, 227.3, , 512, 1174, and 2802, Code of Regulations, 7 Title 8, 11040(7)(A)(3), and the applicable Wage Orders. 8 58. Labor Code sections 2699(a) and (g) authorize an aggrieved employee, on behalf of 9 herself and other current and former employees, to bring a representative civil action to recover civil 10 penalties pursuant to the procedures set forth in Labor Code section 2699. 3 that may, but need not, 11 be brought or maintained as a class action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 382. 12 59. Plaintiff, a former employee against who Defendants committed one or more of the 13 alleged Labor Code violations during the applicable limitations period, is an aggrieved employee 14 within the meaning of Labor Code section 2699(c). 15 60. Plaintiff has complied with the procedures for bringing suit specified in Labor Code 16 section 2699. 3. 17 61. Pursuant to Labor Code sections 2699(a) and (f), Plaintiff seeks the following civil 18 penalties for Defendants' violations of Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 221, 223, 226(a), 19 226. 7, 227. 3, , 512, 1174, and 2808, and Code of Regulations, Title 8, 11040(7)(A)(3), and the 20 applicable Wage Orders 21 A. For violations of Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203, 212, 226.7, 512, 1174, 22 1194, 1198, and 2802, $100 for each employee per pay period for each initial 23 violation and $200 for each employee per pay period for each subsequent 24 violation (penalties set by Labor Code section 2699(f)(2)); 25 B. For violations of Labor Code section 203, a penalty in an amount not exceeding 26 thirty days pay as waiting time (penalties set by Labor Code section 256); 27 C. For violations of Labor Code section 204, $100 for each employee for each 28 initial violation that was neither willful nor intentional, $200 for each 10 COMPLAINT 1 employee, plus 25% of the amount unlawfully withheld from each employee, 2 for each initial violation that was either willful or intentional, and $200 for 3 each employee, plus 25% of the amount unlawfully withheld from each 4 employee, for each subsequent violation, regardless of whether the subsequent 5 violation was either willful or intentional (penalties set by Labor Code section 6 210); 7 D. For violations of Labor Code section 223, $100 for each employee for each 8 initial violation that was neither willful nor intentional, $200 for each 9 employee, plus 25% of the amount unlawfully withheld from each employee, 10 for each initial violation that was either willful or intentional, and $200 for 11 each employee, plus 25% of the amount unlawfully withheld from each 12 employee, for each subsequent violation, regardless of whether the subsequent 13 violation was either willful or intentional (penalties set by Labor Code section 14 225. 5); 15 E. For violations of Labor Code section 226(a), if this action is deemed to be an 16 initial citation, $250 for each employee for each violation. Alternatively, if an 17 initial citation or its equivalent occurred before the filing of this action, $ 1,000 18 for each employee for each violation (penalties set by Labor Code section 19 226. 3); 20 F. Pursuant to Labor Code section 2699(g), Plaintiff seeks award of reasonable 21 attorneys' fees and costs in connection with her claims for civil penalties. 22 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 23 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself, the state of California, the general public, and 24 all other aggrieved employees, prays for relief and judgment against Defendants as follows: 25 (1) Pre-judgment interest; 26 (2) Civil penalties; 27 (3) Costs of suit; 28 (4) Reasonable attorneys' fees; and 11 COMPLAGSTT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (5) Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff, on behalf of himself, the State of California, the general public, all other aggrieved employees, hereby demands a jury trial on all issues so triable. Dated: Febmary 4, 2021 SETAREH LAW GROUP Shaun Setareh David Keledjian Attorneys for Plaintiff DANIEL LLAMAS 12 COMPLAINT EXHIBIT H .p \DOOQONUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Shaun Setareh (SBN 2045 14) shaun@setarehlaw.com David Keledjian (SBN 309135) david@setarehlaw.com SETAREH LAW GROUP 9665 Wilshire B1Vd., Suite 430 Beverly Hills, California 90212 Telephone (3 1 0) 888-7771 Facsimile (3 1 0) 888-0 1 09 ELECTRONICALLY F I L E D Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 04/1 5/2021 Clerk of the Court BY: JUDITH NUNEZ Deputy Clerk Attorneys for Plaintiff and Petitioner DANIEL LLAMAS SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO DANIEL LLAMAS, on behalf of himself and all other aggrieved employees, Plaintiff, VS. ADVANTAGE WORKFORCE SERVICES, LLC, a California corporation; INSTAWORK, a business entity ofunknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.1 CGC-21-589650 CLASS ACTION NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND REQUEST TO STAY CASES San Francisco County Case No.2 CGC-2 1 -589650 San Francisco County Case No.2 CGC- 20-586542 Alameda County Case No.2 RG20061241 Alameda County Case No.2 RG20067292 NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND REQUEST TO STAY CASES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE ACTION COURT, EACH PARTY APPEARING, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, 0n April 15, 2021, Plaintiff and Petitioner in the action entitled Llamas v. Advantage Worlgrorce Services, LLC, et al.; San Francisco County Case N0. CGC- 21-589650, by and through his attorneys for record identified in the caption above, submitted a Petition for Coordination and to Stay Cases to the Chairperson 0f the Judicial Council (located at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, 5th Floor, San Francisco, California 94102-3688) requesting assignment of a judge t0 determine whether it is appropriate to coordinate the following actions: 1. Llamas v. Advantage Worlgrorce Services, LLC, et al.; Class Action; San Francisco County Case N0. CGC-21-589650 (“Llamas”), filed on February 5, 2021; 2. Tran v. Garuda Labs, Inc. d/b/a Instawork; Class Action; Alameda County Case No.2 RG20061241 (“Tran I”), filed 0n May 11. 2020; 3. Tran v. Garuda Labs, Ina, d/b/a Instawork; Representative PAGAI Action; Alameda County Case N0.: RG20067292 (Tran 2); filed 0n July 9, 2020; and 4. Basu-Kesselman v. Garuda Labs, Ina; Representative PAGA Action; San Francisco County Case N0.: CGC- 20-586542 (“Basu-Kesselman”); filed 0n September 3, 2020. A copy of the Petition is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and will be filed in the above-captioned court. The Petition was served on all parties in all matters on April 16, 2021. Notice is hereby given that any party to this action Who intends to support the Petition may serve and submit a written statement in support 0f the Petition no later than the time allowed under California Rules 0f Court, Rule 3.526. Notice is hereby given pursuant t0 California Rules 0f Court, Rule 3.522(a)(4), that any party intending to oppose the petition for coordination must serve and submit to the Chairperson 0f the Judicial Council written opposition at least nine (9) court days before the hearing set in this matter. Notice is also hereby given that, pursuant t0 California Rules 0f Court, Rule 3.515(d), any party intending t0 oppose the Motion t0 Stay must serve and submit a written opposition t0 the Motion t0 Stay 1 California Private Attorney General Act, Cal. Labor Code § 2699, et seq. (“PAGA”). 1 NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND REQUEST TO STAY CASES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 no later than 10 days after February 10, 2021. Dated: April 15, 2021 SETAREH LAW GROUP Shaun Setareh David Keledjian Attorneys for Plaintiff and Petitioner DANIEL LLAMAS 2 NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND REQUEST TO STAY CASES PROOF OF SERVICE I am a citizen of the United States and am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State 3 of California. I am over the age of 1 8 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Beverly Hills, CA 90212. 4 ^ On April 15, 2021, 1 served the foregoing documents described as: 6 NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND REQUEST TO STAY CASES 7 g in this action by transmitting a tme copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 Linda Bollinger Elisa Nadeau Littler Mendelson, PC 50 West San Fernanda Street, 7th Floor San Jose, CA 95113 Ibollin er littler. com enadeau littler. com To the Clerk of the San Francisco County Superior Court Civic Center Courthouse 400 McAllister Street San Francisco, Ca 94102-4514 [X] BY MAIL I am readily familiar with the practice of Setareh Law Group for the collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. It is the practice that correspondence is deposited with United States Postal Service the same day it is submitted for mailing with postage thereon fully prepaid at Beverly Hills, California. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. [X] ONLY BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION By e-mailing the document(s) to the persons at the e-mail address(es) listed based on notice provided on April 15, 2021 that, during the Coronavims (COVID-19) pandemic, some offices will be working remotely, and are therefore using only electronic mail. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the transmission. 24 [X] STATE I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on April 15, 2021, at Beverly Hills, California. Lauren Farrington 1 PROOF OF SERVICE EXHIBIT I LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. so w. San Fernando. 7m Floor SanJose, CA 551131431 408.998.4150 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ANDREW M. SPURCHISE, Bar N0. 245998 aspurchise@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 900 3rd Avenue, 8th Floor New York, NY 10022-3298 Telephone: 212.583.9600 Fax No.: 212.832.2719 ELISA NADEAU, Bar No. 199000 enadeau@littler.com LINDA NGUYEN BOLLINGER, Bar No. 2895 1 5 lbollinger@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor San Jose, CA 951 13.2431 Telephone: 408.998.4150 Fax No.2 408.288.5686 Attorneys for Defendants ADVANTAGE WORKFORCE SERVICES, LLC; GARUDA LABS, INC. dba INSTAWORKI SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ELECTRONICALLY F I L E D Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 04/29/2021 Clerk of the Court BY: EDNALEEN ALEGRE Deputy Clerk DANIEL LLAMAS, on behalf of himself Case N0. CGC-21-589650 and all other aggrieved employees, NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER Plaintiff, AND DEMURRER TO ABATE, OR, IN ADVANTAGE WORKFORCE Date: August 13, 2021 SERVICES, LLC, a California corporation; Time: 9:30 am. INSTAWORK, business entity 0f unknown Dept: 302 THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR V. STAY form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Judge.: Hon. Ethan P. Schulman Defendants. Complaint Filed: February 5, 2021 1 Garuda Labs, Inc. dba Instawork is erroneously sued as “Instawork, business entity 0funknown form”. Case No. CGC-21-589650 NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO ABATE OR MOTION FOR STAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 50 W. San F nnnnn do, 7th Floor San Jose. CA 95113.2431 408.998.41 50 TO PLAINTIFF DANIEL LLAMAS AND HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 13, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Department 302 ofthe above captioned court, located at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, California 94102, Defendants ADVANTAGE WORKFORCE SERVICES, LLC (“AWS”) and GARUDA LABS, INC. dba INSTAWORK erroneously sued as “INSTAWORK, business entity 0funknown form” (“‘Instawork” and collectively “Defendants”) will and hereby does demur t0 Plaintiff DANIEL LLAMAS’S (“Llamas” or “Plaintiff’) Complaint for Civil Penalties (Labor Code § 2698, et seq.) (the “PAGA Complaint”) in its entirety. This demurrer is brought pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(c) on the ground that the present action is between the same parties 0n the same causes of action as the previously-filed and pending actions: Tai Tran v. Garuda Labs, Ina, Alameda Superior Court Case N0. RG20061241; Tai Tran v. Garuda Labs, Ina, Alameda Superior Court Case N0. RG20067292; and Ishan Basu-Kesselman v. Garuda Labs, Ina, San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-20- 586542 - and Plaintiff’s instant action must be abated/stayed. Alternatively, the Court should stay this case pursuant to the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction. Finally, in the alternative, the Court should use its discretionary authority t0 stay the case t0 promote judicial efficiency, prevent multiple lawsuits and the potential for conflicting rulings, and t0 avoid prejudice t0 Instawork. This Demurrer is based on this Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer, the Memorandum 0f Points and Authorities, Request for Judicial Notice, and the Declaration of Linda Nguyen Bollinger filed herewith, the Complaint filed in this action, such matters in the records and file contained herein as may be judicially noticed by the Court, and such argument as the Court may permit 0n the hearing of this Demurrer. This Demurrer is made following the efforts of Defendants’ counsel to meet and confer With Plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, as described in the Declaration of Linda Nguyen Bollinger filed herewith. /// /// /// 2. Case N0. CGC-2 1 -589650 NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO ABATE OR MOTION FOR STAY LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. so w. San Fernando. 7m Floor SanJose, CA 551131431 408.998.4150 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: April 29, 2021 3. ANDREW M. SPURCHfiE ELISA NADEAU LINDA NGUYEN BOLLINGER LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Attorneys for Defendants ADVANTAGE WORKFORCE SERVICES, LLC and GARUDA LABS, INC. dba INSTAWORK erroneously sued as “INSTAWORK, business entity of unknown form” NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO ABATE OR MOTION FOR STAY Case No. CGC-21-589650 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. so w. San Fernando. 7m Floor SanJose, CA 551131431 408.998.4150 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEMURRER T0 PLAINTIFF DANIEL LLAMAS AND HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Defendants ADVANTAGE WORKFORCE SERVICES, LLC (“AWS”) and GARUDA LABS, INC. dba INSTAWORK erroneously sued as “INSTAWORK, business entity of unknown form” (“Instawork” and collectively “Defendants”) hereby demur to the PAGA Complaint 0f DANIEL LLAMAS (“Plaintiff’ or “L1amas”) in its entirety on the following grounds: FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION 0F THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT [CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 2698, ETSEQ.] Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action should be abated pending completion 0f the earlier-filed actions Tai Tran v. Garuda Labs, Ina, Alameda Superior Court Case No. RG20061241; Taz’ Tran v. Garuda Labs, Ina, Alameda Superior Court Case No. RG20067292; and Ishan Basu-Kesselman v. Garuda Labs, Ina, San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-20-586542, because the earlier-filed actions involve the same parties and claims as Plaintiff‘s PAGA Complaint. See Cal. Code of CiV. P. § 430.10(c). In the alternative, Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action should be stayed pursuant t0 the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction and this Court’s inherent authority pursuant to Code 0f Civil Procedure sections 128 and 187 pending the outcome of the first-filed actions. ANDREW M. SPURCfiISE ELISA NADEAU LINDA NGUYEN BOLLINGER LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant ADVANTAGE WORKFORCE SERVICES, LLC and GARUDA LABS, INC. dba INSTAWORK erroneously sued as “INSTAWORK, business entity of unknown form” Dated: April 29, 2021 4818-3755-1589] / 108436-1003 4. Case No. CGC-21-589650 NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO ABATE OR MOTION FOR STAY EXHIBIT J 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 EXHIBIT K SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY 0F SANTA CLARA 191 N. FIRST STREET SAN JOSE, CA 95113-1 090 TO: FILE COPY RE: Daniels v. Garuda Labs. Inc. CASE NUMBER: 21CV379147 ORDER DEEMING CASE COMPLEX AND STAYING DISCOVERY AND RESPONSIVE PLEADING DEADLINE WHEREAS, the Complaint was filed by Plaintiff DEANGELO DANIELS (“Plaintiff”) in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, on April 5, 2021 and assigned to Department 3 (Complex Civil Litigation), the Honorable Patricia M. Lucas presiding, pending a ruling on the complexity issue; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: The Court determines that the above-referenced case is COMPLEX within the meaning of California Rules of Court 3.400. The matter remains assigned, for all purposes, including discovery and trial, to Department 3 (Complex Civil Litigation), the Honorable Patricia M. Lucas presiding. The parties are directed to the Court’s local rules and guidelines regarding electronic filing and to the Complex Civil Guidelines, which are available on the Court’s website. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.254, the creation and maintenance of the Master Service List shall be under the auspices of (1) Plaintiff DEANGELO DANIELS, as the first-named party in the Complaint, and (2) the first-named party in each Cross-Complaint, if any. Pursuant to Government Code section 70616(c), each party’s complex case fee is due within ten (10) calendar days of this date. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order on all parties forthwith and file a proof of service within seven (7) days of service. Any party objecting to the complex designation must file an objection and proof of service within ten (10) days of service of this Order. Any response to the objection must be filed within seven (7) days of service of the objection. The Court will make its ruling on the submitted pleadings. The Case Management Conference remains set for Julv 28. 2021 at 2:30 p.m. in Department g and all counsel are ordered to attend by CourtCalI. Counsel for all parties are ordered to meet and confer in person at least 15 days prior to the First Case Management Conference and discuss the following issues: 1. Issues related to recusal or disqualification; 2. Issues of law that, if considered by the Court, may simplify or further resolution of the case, including issues regarding choice of law; 3. Appropriate alternative dispute resolution (ADR), for example, mediation, mandatory settlement conference, arbitration, mini-trial; Updated on 7/30/20. Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 4/6/2021 4:24 PM Reviewed By: R. Walker Case #21CV379147 Envelope: 6186197 4. A plan for preservation of evidence and a uniform system for identification of documents throughout the course of this litigation; 5. A plan for document disclosure/production and additional discovery; which will generally be conducted under court supervision and by court order; 6. Whether it is advisable to address discovery in phases so that information needed to conduct meaningful ADR is obtained early in the case (counsel should consider whether they will stipulated to limited merits discovery in advance of certification proceedings), allowing the option to complete discovery if ADR efforts are unsuccessful; 7. Any issues involving the protection of evidence and confidentiality; 8. The handling of any potential publicity issues; Counsel for Plaintiff is to take the lead in preparing a Joint Case Management Conference Statement to be filed 5 calendar days prior to the First Case Management Conference, and include the following: 1. A Statement as to whether additional parties are likely to be added and a proposed date by which all parties must be served; 2. Service lists identifying all primary and secondary counsel, firm names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses and fax numbers for all counsel; 3. A description of all discovery completed to date and any outstanding discovery as of the date of the conference; Applicability and enforceability of arbitration clauses, if any; A list of all related litigation pending in other courts, including Federal Court, and a brief description of any such litigation, and a statement as to whether any additional related litigation is anticipated (CRC 3.300); 6. A description of factual and legal issues - the parties should address any specific contract provisions the interpretation of which may assist in resolution of significant issues in the case; 7. The parties’ tentative views on an ADR mechanism and how such mechanism might be integrated into the course of the litigation; 8. Whether discovery should be conducted in phases or limited; and if so, the order of phasing or types of limitations of discovery. If this is a class action lawsuit, the parties should address the issue of limited merits discovery in advance of class certification motions. .0"? To the extent the parties are unable to agree on the matters to be addressed in the Joint Case Management Conference Statement, the positions of each party or of various parties should be set forth separately and attached to this report as addenda. The parties are encouraged to propose, either jointly or separately, any approaches to case management they believe will promote the fair and efficient handling of this case. The Court is particularly interested in identifying potentially dispositive or significant threshold issues the early resolution of which may assist in moving the case toward effective ADR and/or a final disposition. STAY 0N DISCOVERY AND RESPONSIVE PLEADING DEADLINE Pending further order of this Court, the service of discovery and the obligation to respond to any outstanding discovery is stayed. However, Defendant(s) shall file a Notice of Appearance for purposes of identification of counsel and preparation of a service list. The filing of such a Notice of Appearance shall be without prejudice to the later filing of a motion to quash to contest jurisdiction. Parties shall not file or serve responsive pleadings, including answers to the complaint, motions to strike, demurrers, motions for change of venue and cross-complaints until a date is set at the First Case Management Conference for such filings and hearings. Updated on 7/30/20. This Order is issued to assist the Court and the parties in the management of this “Complex” case through the development of an orderly schedule for briefing and hearings. This Order shall not preclude the parties from continuing to informally exchange documents that may assist in their initial evaluation of the issues presented in this Case. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order on all the parties in this matter forthwith. SO ORDERED. Date: Hon. Patricia M. Lucas Judge of the Superior Court If you, a party represented by you, or a witness to be called on behalf of that party need an accommodation under the American with Disabilities Act, please contact the Court Administrator’s office at (408) 882-2700, or use the Court’s TDD line, (408) 882-2690 or the VoicefFDD California Relay Service, (800) 735-2922. Updated on 7/30/20. April 6, 2021 EXHIBIT L 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 E-FILED 6/25/2021 8:28 PM d A (s 232943) Clerk of Court E Win iwazian BN ' f A LAWYERSfor JUSTICE, PC ggfifii'ogfcggflg C?ar’a 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 y Glendale, California 91203 21 CV383683 Tel: (818) 265-1020 Reviewed By: R. Walker Fax: (8 1 8) 265-1021 Attorneysfor Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA DEANGELO DANIELS, individually, and Case No.: 21 CV383683 on behalf 0f other aggrieved employees pursuant t0 the California Private Attorneys COMPLAINT FOR ENFORCEMENT General ACt; UNDER THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS Plaintiff GENERAL ACT, CALIFORNIA LABOR ’ CODE § 2698, ET SEQ. VS' Violation 0f California Labor Code § GARUDA LABS, INC DBA 2698, et seq. (California Labor Code INSTAWORK, an unknown business entity; Private Attorneys General Act 0f 2004) and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR ENFORCEMENT UNDER THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT, CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE § 2698, ET SEQ. 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 COMES NOW, Plaintiff DEANGELO DANIELS (“Plaintiff”), individually, and 0n behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant t0 the California Private Attorneys General Act, and alleges as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This representative action is brought pursuant t0 the California Labor Code section 2698, et seq. The civil penalties sought by Plaintiff exceed the minimal jurisdiction limits of the Superior Court and will be established according t0 proof at trial. The “amount in controversy” for the named Plaintiff, including 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 to the California Constitution, Article VI, Section 10, Which grants the superior court “original jurisdiction in all other causes” except those given by statute to 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 t0 render the exercise 0f jurisdiction over it by the California courts consistent With traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 4. Venue is proper in this Court because, upon information and belief, Defendant maintains offices, has agents, and/or transacts business in the State 0f California, including the County of Santa Clara. The majority 0f the acts and omissions alleged herein relating to Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees took place in the State of California, including the County of Santa Clara. PARTIES 5. PlaintiffDEANGELO DANIELS is an individual residing in the State of California. /// 1 COMPLAINT FOR ENFORCEMENT UNDER THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT, CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE § 2698, ET SEQ. 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 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 of Santa Clara. 7. At all relevant times, GARUDA LABS, INC. DBA INSTAWORK was the “employer” of Plaintiff within the meaning of all applicable state laws and statutes. 8. At all times herein relevant, GARUDA LABS, INC. DBA INSTAWORK and DOES 1 through 100, and each of them, were the agents, partners, joint venturers, joint employers, representatives, servants, employees, successors-in-interest, co-conspirators and assigns, each 0f the other, and at all times relevant hereto were acting Within the course and scope of their authority as such agents, partners, joint venturers, 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 or otherwise, 0f defendants DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffwho sues 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 t0 in this Complaint, and unlawfully caused the injuries and damages t0 Plaintiff as alleged in this Complaint. Plaintiff will seek leave of court t0 amend this Complaint t0 show the true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained. 10. GARUDA LABS, INC. DBA INSTAWORK and DOES 1 through 100 will hereinafter collectively be referred to as “Defendants.” 11. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants including the unknown defendants identified as DOES, directly 0r indirectly controlled 0r affected the working conditions, wages, working hours, and conditions 0f employment 0f Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees so as t0 make each 0f said Defendants employers and employers liable under the statutory provisions set forth herein. 2 COMPLAINT FOR ENFORCEMENT UNDER THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT, CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE § 2698, ET SEQ. 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 PAGA ALLEGATIONS 12. At all times herein set forth, PAGA was applicable t0 Plaintiff’s employment by Defendants. 13. At all times herein set forth, PAGA provides that any provision of law under the California Labor Code that provides for a civil penalty to be assessed and collected by the LWDA for Violations 0f the California Labor Code may, as an alternative, be recovered through a civil action brought by an aggrieved employee 0n behalf of herself and other current 0r former employees pursuant to procedures outlined in California Labor Code section 2699.3. 14. Pursuant to PAGA, a civil action under PAGA may be brought by an “aggrieved employee,” who is any person that was employed by the alleged Violator and against Whom one or more of the alleged Violations was committed. 15. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants and the alleged Violation was committed against him during his time 0f employment and he is, therefore, an aggrieved employee. Plaintiff and the other employees are “aggrieved employees” as defined by California Labor Code section 2699(0) in that they are all current or former employees of Defendants, and one 0r more of the alleged Violations were committed against them. 16. Pursuant to California Labor Code sections 2699.3 and 2699.5, an aggrieved employee, including Plaintiff, may pursue a civil action arising under PAGA after the following requirements have been met: a. The aggrieved employee shall give written notice by online submission (hereinafter “Employee’s Notice”) t0 the Labor & Workforce Development Agency (hereinafter “LWDA”) and by U.S. Certified Mail t0 the employer of the specific provisions 0f the California Labor Code alleged t0 have been violated, including the facts and theories t0 support the alleged Violations. b. The LWDA shall provide notice (hereinafter “LWDA Notice”) to the employer and the aggrieved employee by certified mail that it does not 3 COMPLAINT FOR ENFORCEMENT UNDER THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT, CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE § 2698, ET SEQ. 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 intend to investigate the alleged Violation within sixty (60) calendar days 0f the postmark date 0f the Employee’s Notice. Upon receipt 0f the LWDA Notice, or if the LWDA Notice is not provided Within sixty-five (65) calendar days of the postmark date of the Employee’s Notice, the aggrieved employee may commence a civil action pursuant to California Labor Code section 2699 t0 recover civil penalties in addition t0 any other penalties to which the employee may be entitled. 17. On April 21, 2021, Plaintiff provided written notice by online submission t0 the LWDA and by U.S. Certified Mail t0 Defendant GARUDA LABS, INC. DBA INSTAWORK of the specific provisions of the California Labor Code alleged to have been violated, including the facts and theories t0 support the alleged Violations. Plaintiff has not received an LWDA Notice Within sixty-five (65) calendar days 0f the date of Plaintiff’s notice. 18. Therefore, Plaintiff has satisfied the administrative prerequisites under California Labor Code section 2699.3(a) t0 recover civil penalties against Defendants, in addition to other remedies, for Violations 0f California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 226(3), 226.7, 510, 512(a), 1174(d), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2800 and 2802. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 19. At all relevant times set forth herein, Defendants employed Plaintiff and other aggrieved hourly-paid 0r non-exempt employees who worked for any of the Defendants in the State 0f California, including all current and formerly hourly-paid 0r non-exempt employees Who Garuda Labs misclassified as “independent contractors” within the State 0f California (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “other aggrieved employees”). 20. Plaintiff performed work for Defendants in November 2020 in the State of California, County 0f Santa Clara, and was classified by Defendants as an independent contractor. 21. Defendants hired Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees, and failed t0 compensate them for all hours worked, missed meal periods or rest breaks. 4 COMPLAINT FOR ENFORCEMENT UNDER THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT, CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE § 2698, ET SEQ. 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 22. Defendants had the authority t0 hire and terminate Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees, to set work rules and conditions governing Plaintiff” s and the other aggrieved employees’ employment, and t0 supervise their daily employment activities. 23. Defendants exercised sufficient authority over the terms and conditions 0f Plaintiff s and the other aggrieved employees’ employment for them t0 be joint employers 0f Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees. 24. Defendants directly hired and paid wages and benefits t0 Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees. 25. Defendants continue t0 employ hourly-paid 0r non-exempt employees and “independent contractors” Within the State 0f California. 26. As t0 the aggrieved employees classified as “independent contractors” by Defendants, by working for Defendants, Plaintiff and the other aggrieved have not made the decision independently t0 go into business for themselves. Instead, Defendants have unilaterally determined that Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees are independent contractors While precluding them from taking the usual steps towards promoting and establishing an independent business. Defendants prohibit Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees from setting their own rates 0f pay for their own services, and requires them t0 agree t0 a set payment. 27. Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees worked over eight (8) hours in a day, and/or forty (40) hours in a week during their employment With Defendants. 28. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants engaged in a uniform policy and systematic scheme of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees. This scheme involved, inter alia, failing to pay them for all hours worked and for missed (short, late, interrupted, and altogether missed) meal periods and rest breaks in Violation 0f California law. 29. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees were entitled t0 /// 5 COMPLAINT FOR ENFORCEMENT UNDER THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT, CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE § 2698, ET SEQ. 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 receive certain wages for overtime compensation and that they were not receiving wages for overtime compensation. 30. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants failed t0 provide Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees the required rest and meal periods during the relevant time period as required under the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and thus they are entitled t0 any and all applicable penalties. 3 1. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees were entitled t0 receive all meal periods 0r payment 0f one additional hour 0f pay at Plaintiff’ s and the other aggrieved employee’s regular rate 0f pay When a meal period was missed, and they did not receive all meal periods 0r payment 0f one additional hour 0f pay at Plaintiff’ s and the other aggrieved employee’s regular rate 0f pay When a meal period was missed. 32. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees were entitled t0 receive all rest periods or payment 0f one additional hour 0f pay at Plaintiff’ s and the other aggrieved employees’ regular rate 0f pay When a rest period was missed, and they did not receive all rest periods 0r payment 0f one additional hour 0f pay at Plaintiff s and the other aggrieved employees’ regular rate 0f pay When a rest 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 aggrieved employees were entitled t0 receive at least minimum wages for compensation and that they were not receiving at least minimum wages for all hours worked. 34. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees were entitled t0 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. /// 6 COMPLAINT FOR ENFORCEMENT UNDER THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT, CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE § 2698, ET SEQ. 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 35. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees were entitled t0 receive all wages owed t0 them during their employment. Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees 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. 36. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees 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 0f hours worked by Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees. 37. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should have known that Defendants had to keep complete and accurate payroll records for Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees in accordance With California law, but, in fact, did not keep complete and accurate payroll records. 38. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees were entitled t0 reimbursement for necessary business-related expenses and costs. 39. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should have known that they had a duty t0 compensate Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees pursuant to California law, and that Defendants had the financial ability t0 pay such compensation, but willfully, knowingly, and intentionally failed to d0 s0, and falsely represented t0 Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees that they were properly denied wages, all in order t0 increase Defendants’ profits. 40. At all material times set forth herein, Defendants failed t0 pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees. Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees /// 7 COMPLAINT FOR ENFORCEMENT UNDER THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT, CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE § 2698, ET SEQ. 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 were required t0 work more than eight (8) hours per day and/or forty (40) hours per week without overtime compensation. 41. At all material times set forth herein, Defendants failed t0 provide uninterrupted meal and rest periods t0 Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees. 42. At all material times set forth herein, Defendants failed t0 pay Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees at least minimum wages for all hours worked. 43. At all material times set forth herein, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees all wages owed t0 them upon discharge 0r resignation. 44. At all material times set forth herein, Defendants failed t0 pay Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees’ wages Within any time permissible under California law, including, inter alia, California Labor Code section 204. 45. At all material times set forth herein, Defendants failed t0 provide complete and accurate wage statements to Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees. 46. At all material times set forth herein, Defendants failed t0 keep complete and accurate payroll records for Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees. 47. At all material times set forth herein, Defendants failed to reimburse Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees for necessary business-related expenses and costs. 48. At all material times set forth herein, Defendants failed t0 properly compensate Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees pursuant t0 California law in order t0 increase Defendants’ profits. 49. California Labor Code section 218 states that noting in Article 1 of 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.” /// /// /// /// /// 8 COMPLAINT FOR ENFORCEMENT UNDER THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT, CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE § 2698, ET SEQ. 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 § 2698, et seq. (Against GARUDA LABS, INC. DBA INSTAWORK, and DOES 1 through 100) 50. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 49, and each and every part thereof with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 5 1. PAGA expressly establishes that any provision 0f the California Labor Code which provides for a civil penalty to be assessed and collected by the LWDA, or any 0f its departments, divisions, commissions, boards, agencies 0r employees for a Violation of the California Labor Code, may be recovered through a civil action brought by an aggrieved employee on behalf of himself 0r herself, and other current 0r former employees. 52. Whenever the LWDA, 0r any 0f its departments, divisions, commissions, boards, agencies, 0r employees has discretion to assess a civil penalty, a court in a civil action is authorized t0 exercise the same discretion, subj ect to the same limitations and conditions, t0 assess a civil penalty. 53. Plaintiff and the other hourly-paid 0r non-exempt employees are “aggrieved employees” as defined by California Labor Code section 2699(0) in that they are all current or former employees of Defendants, and one 0r more of the alleged Violations was committed against them. Failure t0 Pay Overtime 54. Defendants’ failure to pay legally required overtime wages t0 Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees is in Violation of the Wage Orders and constitutes unlawful 0r unfair activity prohibited by California Labor Code sections 5 10 and 1198. Failure t0 Provide Meal Periods 55. Defendants’ failure t0 provide legally required meal periods to Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees is in Violation 0f the Wage Orders and constitutes unlawful or unfair activity prohibited by California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 5 12(a). /// 9 COMPLAINT FOR ENFORCEMENT UNDER THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT, CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE § 2698, ET SEQ. 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 Failure to Provide Rest Periods 56. Defendants’ failure to provide legally required rest periods to Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees is in Violation 0f the Wage Orders and constitutes unlawful or unfair activity prohibited by California Labor Code section 226.7. Failure t0 Pay Minimum Wages 57. Defendants’ failure to pay legally required minimum wages t0 Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees is in Violation of the Wage Orders and constitutes unlawful 0r unfair activity prohibited by California Labor Code sections 1194, 1197 and 1197.1. Failure t0 Timely Pay Wages Upon Termination 58. Defendants’ failure t0 timely pay wages to Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees upon termination in accordance with Labor Code sections 201 and 202 constitutes unlawful and/or unfair activity prohibited by California Labor Code sections 201 and 202. Failure t0 Timely Pay Wages During Employment 59. Defendants’ failure to timely pay wages t0 Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees during employment in accordance With Labor Code section 204 constitutes unlawful and/or unfair activity prohibited by California Labor Code section 204. Failure t0 Provide Complete and Accurate Wage Statements 60. Defendants’ failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements to Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees in accordance with Labor Code section 226(a) constitutes unlawful and/or unfair activity prohibited by California Labor Code section 226(a). Failure to Keep Complete and Accurate Payroll Records 61. Defendants’ failure to keep complete and accurate payroll records relating t0 Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees in accordance With California Labor Code section 1174(d) constitutes unlawful and/or unfair activity prohibited by California Labor Code section 1174(d). /// /// 10 COMPLAINT FOR ENFORCEMENT UNDER THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT, CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE § 2698, ET SEQ. 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 Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business-Related Expenses and Costs 62. Defendants’ failure to reimburse Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees for necessary business-related expenses and costs in accordance with California Labor Code sections 2800 and 2802 constitutes unlawful and/or unfair activity prohibited by California Labor Code sections 2800 and 2802. 63. Pursuant to California Labor Code section 2699, Plaintiff, individually, and 0n behalf 0f all aggrieved employees, requests and is entitled t0 recover from Defendants and each 0f them, attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant t0 California Labor Code section 218.5, as well as all penalties pursuant to PAGA against Defendants, and each of them, including but not limited to: a. Penalties under California Labor Code section 2699 in the amount of a hundred dollars ($100) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial Violation, and two hundred dollars ($200) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each subsequent Violation; b. Penalties under California Code of Regulations Title 8 section 11010 et seq. in the amount of fifty dollars ($50) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial Violation, and one hundred dollars ($100) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each subsequent Violation; c. Penalties under California Labor Code section 210 in addition to, and entirely independent and apart from, any other penalty provided in the California Labor Code in the amount 0f a hundred dollars ($100) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial Violation, and two hundred dollars ($200) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each subsequent Violation; and d. Any and all additional penalties and sums as provided by the California Labor Code and/or other statutes. 64. Pursuant to California Labor Code section 2699(i), civil penalties recovered by aggrieved employees shall be distributed as follows: seventy-five percent (75%) t0 the 11 COMPLAINT FOR ENFORCEMENT UNDER THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT, CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE § 2698, ET SEQ. 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 Labor and Workforce Development Agency for the enforcement 0f labor laws and education of employers and employees about their rights and responsibilities and twenty-five percent (25%) t0 the aggrieved employees. 65. Further, Plaintiff is entitled to seek and recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant t0 California Labor Code sections 210, 218.5 and 2699 and any other applicable statute. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf 0f other aggrieved employees pursuant t0 the California Private Attorneys General Act, requests a trial by jury. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant t0 the Private Attorneys General Act, prays for relief and judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, in excess 0f twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000): As t0 the First Cause 0f Action 1. For civil penalties pursuant to California Labor Code sections 2699(a), (f) and (g), costs/expenses, and attorneys’ fees for Violation 0f California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 226(a), 226.7, 510, 512(a), 1174(d), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2800 and 2802;and 2. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and appropriate. DATED: June 25, 2021 LAWYERSfor JUSTICE, PC By: fiW Edwin Aiwazian Attorneysfor Plaintiff 12 COMPLAINT FOR ENFORCEMENT UNDER THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT, CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE § 2698, ET SEQ. AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL EXHIBIT M SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY 0F SANTA CLARA 191 N. FIRST STREET SAN JOSE, CA 95113-1 090 TO: FILE COPY RE: Daniels v. Garuda Labs. Inc. CASE NUMBER: 21CV383683 ORDER DEEMING CASE COMPLEX AND STAYING DISCOVERY AND RESPONSIVE PLEADING DEADLINE WHEREAS, the Complaint was filed by Plaintiff DEANGELO DANIELS (“Plaintiff”) in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, on June 25, 2021 and assigned to Department 1 (Complex Civil Litigation), the Honorable SunilR.Kulkarni presiding, pending a ruling on the complexity issue; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: The Court determines that the above-referenced case is COMPLEX within the meaning of California Rules of Court 3.400. The matter remains assigned, for all purposes, including discovery and trial, to Department 1 (Complex Civil Litigation), the Honorable Sunil R. Kulkarni presiding. The parties are directed to the Court’s local rules and guidelines regarding electronic filing and to the Complex Civil Guidelines, which are available on the Court’s website. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.254, the creation and maintenance of the Master Service List shall be under the auspices of (1) Plaintiff DEANGELO DANIELS, as the first-named party in the Complaint, and (2) the first-named party in each Cross-Complaint, if any. Pursuant to Government Code section 70616(c), each party’s complex case fee is due within ten (10) calendar days of this date. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order on all parties forthwith and file a proof of service within seven (7) days of service. Any party objecting to the complex designation must file an objection and proof of service within ten (10) days of service of this Order. Any response to the objection must be filed within seven (7) days of service of the objection. The Court will make its ruling on the submitted pleadings. The Case Management Conference remains set for October 21. 2021 at 2:30 p.m. in DeQartment 1 and all counsel are ordered to attend by CourtCaIl. Counsel for all parties are ordered to meet and confer in person at least 15 days prior to the First Case Management Conference and discuss the following issues: 1. Issues related to recusal or disqualification; 2. Issues of law that, if considered by the Court, may simplify or further resolution of the case, including issues regarding choice of law; 3. Appropriate alternative dispute resolution (ADR), for example, mediation, mandatory settlement conference, arbitration, mini-trial; 4. A plan for preservation of evidence and a uniform system for identification of documents throughout the course of this litigation; 5. A plan for document disclosure/production and additional discovery; which will generally be conducted under court supervision and by court order; Updated on 3/11/21. Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 6/28/2021 3:05 PM Reviewed By: R. Walker Case #21CV383683 Envelope: 6739574 6. Whether it is advisable to address discovery in phases so that information needed to conduct meaningful ADR is obtained early in the case (counsel should consider whether they will stipulated to limited merits discovery in advance of certification proceedings), allowing the option to complete discovery if ADR efforts are unsuccessful; 7. Any issues involving the protection of evidence and confidentiality; 8. The handling of any potential publicity issues; Counsel for Plaintiff is to take the lead in preparing a Joint Case Management Conference Statement to be filed 5 calendar days prior to the First Case Management Conference, and include the following: 1. a brief objective summary of the case; a summary of any orders from prior case management conferences and the progress of the parties’ compliance with said orders; 3. significant procedural and practical problems that may likely be encountered; 4. suggestions for efficient management, including a proposed timeline of key events; and 5. any other special consideration to assist the court in determining an effective case management plan. To the extent the parties are unable to agree on the matters to be addressed in the Joint Case Management Conference Statement, the positions of each party or of various parties should be set forth separately and attached to this report as addenda. The parties are encouraged to propose, either jointly or separately, any approaches to case management they believe will promote the fair and efficient handling of this case. The Court is particularly interested in identifying potentially dispositive or significant threshold issues the early resolution of which may assist in moving the case toward effective ADR and/or a final disposition. STAY ON DISCOVERY AND RESPONSIVE PLEADING DEADLINE Pending further order of this Court, the service of discovery and the obligation to respond to any outstanding discovery is stayed. However, Defendant(s) shall file a Notice of Appearance for purposes of identification of counsel and preparation of a service list. The filing of such a Notice of Appearance shall be without prejudice to the later filing of a motion to quash to contest jurisdiction. Parties shall not file or serve responsive pleadings, including answers to the complaint, motions to strike, demurrers, motions for change of venue and cross-complaints until a date is set at the First Case Management Conference for such filings and hearings. This Order is issued to assist the Court and the parties in the management of this “Complex” case through the development of an orderly schedule for briefing and hearings. This Order shall not preclude the parties from continuing to informally exchange documents that may assist in their initial evaluation of the issues presented in this Case. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order on all the parties in this matter forthwith. SO ORDERED. Date: Hon. Sunil R. Kulkarni Judge of the Superior Court If you, a party represented by you, or a witness to be called on behalf of that party need an accommodation under the American with Disabilities Act, please contact the Court Administrator’s office at (408) 882-2700, or use the Court’s TDD line, (408) 882-2690 or the Voice/TDD California Relay Service, (800) 735-2922. ----- 2 Updated on 3/11/21. June 28, 2021 EXHIBIT N SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY 0F SANTA CLARA 191 N. FIRST STREET SAN JOSE, CA 95113-1 090 FILED TO: FILE COPY July 2, 2021 Clerk of The Court RE: Daniels v. Garuda Labs. Inc. ggfiiiygfcggrzttaogfga CASE NUMBER: 21CV379147 W63 21CV379147 RE: Daniels v. Garuda Labs. Inc. By: rwalker CASE NUMBER: 21CV383683 Envelope #6791763 ORDER AND NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT OF CASE A review of the above-entitled actions has determined that actions are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court Rule 3.300. The Court has determined that the actions involve some of the same parties, are based on the same or similar claims, and involve the same transaction or events. Accordingly, the assignment of the matters to the same judge is likely to effect a substantial savings ofjudicial effort and is also likely to be convenient to the parties. The parties are notified that relating the cases under California Rules of Court Rule 3.300 merely has the result that these two matters are assigned to the same judge; no consolidation of the actions has been ordered. Under the general practice of this court, related cases are generally assigned to the judge to whom the first filed action was assigned. |T IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the actions listed above be, and are, reassigned to Department 3, the Hon. Patricia M. Lucas presiding, for all purposes, including discovery, law & motion, settlement conference, and trial. Any and all hearing dates in the related cases set before Department 1 are now vacated. A Case Management Conference in these two related actions shall be set for Julv 28. 2021 at 2:30 p.m. in Department 3. Please contact the Complex Civil Litigation Department, (408) 882-2286, if you have any questions. SO ORDERED. Si d:7/2/2021 1:21 AM Date Issued: JUly 2a 2021 fit/W Honorable Egth McGowen Civil Supervising Judge If you, a party represented by you, or a witness to be called on behalf of that party need an accommodation under the American with Disabilities Act, please contact the Court Administrator’s office at (408) 882-2700, or use the Court’s TDD line, (408) 882-2690 or the Voice/TDD California Relay Service, (800) 735-2922. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, Califomia 91203 ©WQQM$WNH NNNNNNNNNt-ifi-tb-AI-In-tr-Ir-sy-ap-np-n OOQGM¥WNHO©OOQONM#WNHC Edwin Aiwazian (SBN 232943) Arby Aiwazian (SBN 269827) Ovsanna Takvoryan (SNM 217435) LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91203 Telephone: (8 18) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 RECEIVED Judicial Council of Callfomla AUG I 72:24 Gourd! Lawyer fl.) Attomeysfor Plaintifi-Petitioner Deangelo Daniels JUDICIAL COUNCIL 0F THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA DEANGELO DANIELS, individually, and on behalf of other members ofthe general public similarly situated; Plaintifi‘, vs. GARUDA LABS, INC. DBA INSTAWORK, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive; Defendants. DEANGELO DANIELS, individually, and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act; Plaintiff, vs. GARUDA LABS, INC. DBA INSTAWORK, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive; Defendants. DANIEL LLAMAS, on behalf of himself and all other aggrieved employees; Plaintifi‘, vs. Judicial Council Proceeding No.: Z743 CLASS ACTION PROOF 0F SERVICE Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara, Case No. 21CV379147 Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara, Case No. 21CV383683 Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-21- 589650 Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-20- 586542 Superior Court of California for the County ofAlameda, Case No. RG20061241 Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda, Case No. RGZOO67292 PROOF0F SERVICE LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91203 \DOONQUI-PWNt-k NNNNNNNNNt-th-tr-tt-th-tr-tt-th-tr-tt-t OONONUI$UJNHOKOOON©U14>UJNHO ADVANTAGE WORKFORCE SERVICES, LLC, a California corporation; INSTAWORK, a business entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive; Defendants. ISHAN BASU-KESSELMAN, on behalf 0f the State 0f California, as a private attorney general; Plaintiff, vs. GARUDA LABS, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive; Defendants. TAI TRAN, individually and 0n behalf 0f all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, vs. GARUDA LABS, INC., DBA INSTAWORK; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive; Defendants. TAI TRAN, 0n behalf of himself and all other aggrieved employees ; Plaintiff, vs. GARUDA LABS, INC., DBA INSTAWORK; and DOES 1-10, inclusive; Defendants. PROOF OF SERVICE LAWYERSfor JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91203 \DOOflQUl-PUJNr-t NNNNNNNNNp-tr-twt-th-tr-tt-tr-tr-tp-t OONQUl-PUJNi-‘OKOOOQQU‘I-PUJNV-‘O PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OFLOSANGELES I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203, Glendale, California 91203. On August 16, 2021, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: I PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY (CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 404) ' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY (CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 404) I DECLARATION OF OVSANNA TAKVORYAN IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY (CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 404) 0n interested parties in this action as follows: Chair, Judicial Council of California Attn: Appellate Court Services (Civil Case Coordination) 455 Golden Gate Avenue, 5th Floor San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Email: coordinati0n@iu.ca.20v [X] BY GENERAL LOGISTICS SYSTEMS (GLS)/FEDEX EXPRESS I placed such documents in a General Logistics Systems (GLS)/FedEX Express Envelope addressed t0 the party 0r parties listed above With delivery fees fully pre-paid for overnight delivery by the close 0f the next business day and caused it t0 be delivered to a General Logistics Systems (GLS) drop-off box before 7:00 p.m./FedEX Express before 5:00 p.m. on the stated date. [X] BY E-MAIL The above-referenced document(s) was transmitted to the person(s) at the e-mail address(es) listed herein at their most recent known e-mail address 0r e-mail 0f record in this action. I did not receive, Within reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message 0r other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. /// /// /// /// PROOF OF SERVICE LAWYERSfor JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91203 \DOOflQUl-PUJNr-t NNNNNNNNNt-tb-tr-tt-th-tr-tt-Ar-tr-tt-t OONQUl-PUJNi-‘OKOOOQONU‘I-PUJNF-‘O [X] STATE I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws 0f the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on August 16, 2021, at Glendale, California. Valerie Palomo PROOF OF SERVICE LAWYERSfor JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue Sulte 203 Glendale, California 91203 \OOONQUI-PUJNH NNNNNNNNNt-tr-tb-Ah-tr-tr-‘h-th-tr-kr-t OONONM-PUJNF-‘OKOOOQQKII-PWNr-‘O PROOF OF SERVICE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA, COUNTY0FLOSANGELES I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State 0f California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203, Glendale, California 91203. On August 18, 2021, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND MOTION FOR STAY on interested parties in this action by placing a true and correct copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Andrew M. Spurchise LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 900 3rd Avenue, 8th Floor New York, NY 10022-3298 Elisa Nadeau Linda Nguyen Bollinger LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor San Jose, CA 951 13 Attorneysfor Defendant Garuda Labs, 1110., DBA Instawork [X] BY GENERAL LOGISTICS SYSTEMS (GLS)/FEDEX EXPRESS I placed such documents in a General Logistics Systems (GLS)/FedEX Express Envelope addressed t0 the party 0r parties listed above With delivery fees fully pre-paid for overnight delivery by the close of the next business day and caused it to be delivered to a General Logistics Systems (GLS) drop-off box before 7:00 p.m./FedEX Express before 5:00 pm. on the stated date. [X] STATE I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed 0n August 18, 2021, at Glendale, California. Valerie Palomo PROOF OF SERVICE