AmendmentCal. Super. - 6th Dist.April 29, 202110 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21 CV380908 Santa Clara - Civil Bevin Allen Pike (SBN 221936) Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com Daniel S. Jonathan (SBN 262209) Daniel.Jonathan@capstonelawyers.com Trisha K. Monesi (SBN 3035 12) Trisha.Monesi@capst0nelawyers.com Capstone Law APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (3 10) 556-4811 Facsimile: (3 1 0) 943 -0396 Attorneys for Plaintiff Maria Sanchez Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 11/24/2021 10:25 AM Reviewed By: R. Walker Case #21 CV380908 Envelope: 7733045 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MARIA SANCHEZ, individually, and 0n behalf 0f other members 0f the general public similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee pursuant t0 the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), Plaintiff, VS. CORTEC PRECISION SHEET METAL, INC., a California corporation; CORTEC PRECISION INTERNATIONAL SALES CORPORATION, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.2 2 1 CV380908 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT & ENFORCEMENT ACTION UNDER THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT, CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §§ 2698, ET SEQ. (1) Violation of California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198 (Unpaid Overtime); (2) Violation of California Labor Code §§ 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198 (Unpaid Minimum Wages); (3) Violation of California Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512(a), 516, and 1198 (Failure to Provide Meal Periods); (4) Violation of California Labor Code §§ 226.7, 516, and 1198 (Failure t0 Authorize and Permit Rest Periods); (5) Violation of California Labor Code §§ 226(a), 1174(d), and 1198 (Non- Compliant Wage Statements and Failure t0 Maintain Payroll Records); (6) Violation 0f California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202 (Wages Not Timely Paid Upon Termination); (7) Violation 0f California Labor Code § 204 (Failure t0 Timely Pay Wages During Employment); (8) Violation 0f California Labor Code § 2802 (Unreimbursed Business Expenses); (9) Civil Penalties for Violations 0f California FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Labor Code, Pursuant to PAGA, §§ 2698, etsqu (10) Violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. (Unlawful Business Practices); and (1 1) Violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. (Unfair Business Practices) Jury Trial Demanded FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Maria Sanchez, individually and on behalf 0f all other members of the public similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee and 0n behalf0f all other aggrieved employees, alleges as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This class action is brought pursuant t0 California Code of Civil Procedure section 382 and California Labor Code sections 2698, et seq. (“PAGA”) t0 recover civil penalties and any other available relief on behalf of Plaintiff, the State 0f California, and other current and former employees who worked for Defendants in California as non-exempt, hourly paid employees and received at least one wage statement and against Whom one or more Violations of any provision in Division 2 Part 2 Chapter 1 of the Labor Code 0r any provision regulating hours and days of work in the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order were committed, as set forth in this complaint. The monetary damages, penalties, and restitution sought by Plaintiff exceed the minimal jurisdiction limits of the Superior Court and will be established according t0 proof at trial. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the California Constitution, Article VI, section 10. The statutes under Which this action is brought do not specify any other basis for jurisdiction. Plaintiffs share 0f damages, penalties, and other relief sought in this action does not exceed $75,000. 2. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants are either citizens of California, have sufficient minimum contacts in California, or otherwise intentionally avail themselves 0fthe California market s0 as t0 render the exercise ofjurisdiction over them by the California courts consistent with traditional notions 0f fair play and substantial justice. There is n0 basis for federal diversity jurisdiction in this action because there is no complete diversity, and this case falls within the statutory exceptions t0 “minimal diversity” jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4). Upon information and belief, two-thirds 0r more of the class members and Defendants are citizens of California and/or (a) two-thirds 0f the class members and Defendants are citizens 0f California; (b) the alleged wage and hour Violations occurred in California; (c) significant relief is being sought against Defendants whose Violations 0f California wage and hour laws form a significant basis Page 1 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 for Plaintiff” s claims; and (d) n0 other class action has been filed within the past three (3) years 0n behalf 0f the same proposed class against Defendants asserting the same 0r similar factual allegations. 3. Venue is proper in this Court, because Defendants filed Statement of Information forms With the California Secretary 0f State designating a principal place 0f business in San Jose, County of Santa Clara, in accordance With California Corporations Code section 2105(a)(3). Cal. Code CiV. P. § 395.5. Venue is also proper in this Court because Defendants employ persons in this county, and employed Plaintiff in this county, and thus a substantial portion of the transactions and occurrences related t0 this action occurred in this county. THE PARTIES 4. Plaintiff Maria Sanchez is a resident 0f San Jose, in Santa Clara County, California. Defendants employed Plaintiff as an hourly paid, non-exempt Shipping Department Employee, Hardware Installer, and Inventory Department Employee, from approximately October 2016 to August 2020. Plaintiff worked for Defendants at their location in San Jose, California. During her employment, Plaintiff typically worked eight (8) t0 ten (10) hours 0r more per day, and five (5) 0r more days per week. Plaintiff’s primary job duties included, Without limitation, labelling inventory; installing screws, washers, and rivets t0 metal parts; operating hydraulic metal presses; reading blueprints; and performing inventory counts. 5. CORTEC PRECISION SHEET METAL, INC. was and is, upon information and belief, a California corporation, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, an employer Whose employees are engaged throughout this county, the State of California, or the various states of the United States of America. 6. CORTEC PRECISION INTERNATIONAL SALES CORPORATION was and is, upon information and belief, a California corporation, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, an employer Whose employees are engaged throughout this county, the State 0f California, 0r the various states 0f the United States 0f America. 7. Plaintiff is unaware 0f the true names 0r capacities ofthe Defendants sued herein under the fictitious names DOES 1 through 10, but Will seek leave of this Court t0 amend the Page 2 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 complaint and serve such fictitiously named Defendants once their names and capacities become known. 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DOES 1 through 10 were the partners, agents, owners, or managers of CORTEC PRECISION SHEET METAL, INC. and CORTEC PRECISION INTERNATIONAL SALES CORPORATION at all relevant times. 9. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each and all of the acts and omissions alleged herein was performed by, or is attributable t0, CORTEC PRECISION SHEET METAL, INC.; CORTEC PRECISION INTERNATIONAL SALES CORPORATION; and/or DOES 1 through 10 (collectively, “Defendants” 0r “CORTEC”), each acting as the agent, employee, alter ego, and/or joint venturer of, or working in concert With, each of the other co-Defendants and was acting Within the course and scope of such agency, employment, joint venture, or concerted activity with legal authority t0 act 0n the others’ behalf. The acts 0f any and all Defendants were in accordance With, and represent, the official policy 0f Defendants. 10. At all relevant times, Defendants, and each 0f them, ratified each and every act 0r omission complained of herein. At all relevant times, Defendants, and each of them, aided and abetted the acts and omissions 0f each and all the other Defendants in proximately causing the damages herein alleged. 11. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of said Defendants is in some manner intentionally, negligently, 0r otherwise responsible for the acts, omissions, occurrences, and transactions alleged herein. 12. Under California law, Defendants are jointly and severally liable as employers for the Violations alleged herein because they have each exercised sufficient control over the wages, hours, working conditions, and employment status of Plaintiff and class members. Each Defendant had the power to hire and fire Plaintiff and class members, supervised and controlled their work schedule and/or conditions of employment, determined their rate of pay, and maintained their employment records. Defendants suffered 01‘ permitted Plaintiff and class Page 3 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 members t0 work and/or “engaged” Plaintiff and class members so as t0 create a common-law employment relationship. As joint employers of Plaintiff and class members, Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the civil penalties and all other relief available to Plaintiff and class members under the law. 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all relevant times, Defendants, and each 0f them, have acted as joint employers With respect t0 Plaintiff and class members because Defendants have: (a) jointly exercised meaningful control over the work performed by Plaintiff and class members; (b) jointly exercised meaningful control over Plaintiffs and class members’ wages, hours, and working conditions, including the quantity, quality standards, speed, scheduling, and operative details of the tasks performed by Plaintiff and class members; (c) jointly required that Plaintiff and class members perform work which is an integral part 0f Defendants’ businesses; and (d) jointly exercised control over Plaintiff and class members as a matter of economic reality in that Plaintiff and class members were dependent 0n Defendants, Who shared the power to set the wages of Plaintiff and class members and determined their working conditions, and who jointly reaped the benefits from the underpayment of their wages and noncompliance with other statutory provisions governing their employment. 14. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all relevant times there has existed a unity of interest and ownership between Defendants such that any individuality and separateness between the entities has ceased. 15. CORTEC PRECISION SHEET METAL, INC.; CORTEC PRECISION INTERNATIONAL SALES CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 10 are therefore alter egos of each other. Page 4 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16. Adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of Defendants would permit an abuse of the corporate privilege, and would promote injustice by protecting Defendants from liability for the wrongful acts committed by them under the name CORTEC. 17. Plaintiff further alleges, upon information and belief, that Defendants CORTEC PRECISION SHEET METAL, INC. and CORTEC PRECISION INTERNATIONAL SALES CORPORATION are alter egos of each other for the following reasons: (a) (b) (C) On the California Secretary 0f State's website (https://businesssearch.sos.ca.g0V/), CORTEC PRECISION SHEET METAL, INC. and CORTEC PRECISION INTERNATIONAL SALES CORPORATION share the same entity address and mailing address, “2231 Will W001 Drive, San Jose, CA 951 12”; According t0 the most recent “Statement 0f Information” forms filed with the California Secretary of State, CORTEC PRECISION SHEET METAL, INC. and CORTEC PRECISION INTERNATIONAL SALES CORPORATION share the same officers and/or directors, including, but not limited to, Anthony John Corrales, who serves as Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, Chief Financial Officer, and Director 0f both entities; and On information and belief, CORTEC PRECISION SHEET METAL, INC. and CORTEC PRECISION INTERNATIONAL SALES CORPORATION utilize the same standardized employment forms and issue the same employment policies. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 18. Defendants are a leading sheet metal, assemblies, machining, and frames fabricator for technology-based companies. Upon information and belief, Defendants maintain a single, centralized Human Resources (“HR”) department at their corporate headquarters in San Jose, California, which is responsible for the recruiting and hiring of new employees, and communicating and implementing Defendants’ company-wide policies, including timekeeping Page 5 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 policies and meal and rest period policies, to employees throughout California. 19. In particular, Plaintiff and class members, 0n information and belief, received the same standardized documents and/or written policies. Upon information and belief, the usage 0f standardized documents and/or written policies, including new-hire documents, indicate that Defendants dictated policies at the corporate level and implemented them company-Wide, regardless 0f their employees’ assigned locations or positions. Upon information and belief, Defendants set forth uniform policies and procedures in several documents provided at an employee’s time 0f hire. 20. Upon information and belief, Defendants maintain a centralized Payroll department at their corporate headquarters in San Jose, California, which processes payroll for all non-exempt, hourly paid employees working for Defendants at their various locations and jobsites in California, including Plaintiff and class members. Based upon information and belief, Defendants issue the same formatted wage statements to all non-exempt, hourly paid employees in California, irrespective of their work locations. Upon information and belief, Defendants process payroll for departing employees in the same manner throughout the State 0f California, regardless of the manner in which each employee’s employment ends. 21. Defendants continue t0 employ non-exempt or hourly paid employees in California. 22. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein mentioned, Defendants were advised by skilled lawyers and other professionals, employees and advisors knowledgeable about California labor and wage law, employment and personnel practices, and about the requirements of California law. 23. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Plaintiff and class members were not paid for all hours worked because all hours worked were not recorded. 24. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew 0r should have known that Plaintiff and class members were entitled t0 receive certain wages for overtime compensation and that they were not receiving certain wages for overtime compensation. Page 6 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 25. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and class members were entitled t0 be paid at a regular rate 0f pay, and corresponding overtime rate 0f pay, that included as eligible income all remuneration required by law, including but not limited to, all income derived from incentive pay, nondiscretionary bonuses, and/or other forms 0f compensation, but failed t0 include all forms of remuneration in calculating the regular rate 0fpay for Plaintiff and class members. 26. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew 0r should have known that Plaintiff and class members were entitled t0 receive at least minimum wages for compensation and that they were not receiving at least minimum wages for work that was required t0 be done off-the-clock. In Violation 0f the California Labor Code, Plaintiff and Class members were not paid at least minimum wages for work done off-the-clock. 27. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew 0r should have known that Plaintiff and class members were entitled to meal periods in accordance with the California Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Order or payment of one (1) additional hour 0f pay at their regular rates 0f pay When they were not provided With timely, uninterrupted, thirty (30) minute meal periods and that Plaintiff and class members were not provided With all meal periods 0r payment of one (1) additional hour ofpay at their regular rates 0f pay when they did not receive a timely, uninterrupted, thirty (30) minute meal period. 28. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and class members were entitled t0 rest periods in accordance With the California Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Order or payment of one (1) additional hour 0fpay at their regular rates 0fpay when they were not authorized and permitted t0 take a compliant rest period. In Violation 0f the Labor Code, Plaintiff and class members were not authorized and permitted to take compliant rest periods, nor did Defendants provide Plaintiff and class members With payment of one (1) additional hour 0fpay at their regular rates 0f pay When they were not authorized and permitted t0 take a compliant rest period. 29. 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 Page 7 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 accurate wage statements in accordance with California law. In Violation of the California Labor Code, Plaintiff and class members were not provided complete and accurate wage statements. 30. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should have known that they had a duty t0 maintain accurate and complete payroll records in accordance With the California Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Order, but willfully, knowingly, and intentionally failed to do so. 31. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew 0r should have known that Plaintiff and class members were entitled t0 timely payment 0f all wages earned upon termination 0f employment. In Violation 0f the California Labor Code, Plaintiff and Class members did not receive payment of all wages due, including, but not limited t0, overtime wages, minimum wages, and/or meal and rest period premiums, Within permissible time periods. 32. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and class members were entitled t0 timely payment 0f wages during their employment. In Violation of the California Labor Code, Plaintiffand class members did not receive payment of all wages, including, but not limited t0, overtime wages, minimum wages, and/or meal and rest period premiums, Within permissible time periods. 33. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and class members were entitled t0 receive full reimbursement for all business-related expenses and costs they incurred during the course and scope of their employment and that they did not receive full reimbursement 0f applicable business -related expenses and costs incurred. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein mentioned, Defendants knew 0r should have known that Defendants had a duty to provide Plaintiff and class members With written notice 0f the material terms 0f their employment With Defendants as required by the California Wage Theft Prevention Act, but willfully, knowingly, and intentionally failed t0 d0 so. Page 8 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 34. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein mentioned, Defendants knew or should have known that they had a duty t0 compensate Plaintiff and class members for all hours worked, and that Defendants had the financial ability t0 pay such compensation, but willfully, knowingly, and intentionally failed to do s0, and falsely represented to Plaintiff and class members that they were properly denied wages, all in order to increase Defendants’ profits. PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ALLEGATIONS 35. At all times herein set forth, PAGA provides that any provision of law under the Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Order that provides for a civil penalty t0 be assessed and collected by the LWDA for Violations 0f the California Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Order may, as an alternative, be recovered by aggrieved employees in a Civil action brought 0n behalf of themselves and other current 0r former employees pursuant t0 procedures outlined in California Labor Code section 2699.3. 36. PAGA defines an “aggrieved employee” in Labor Code section 2699(0) as “any person Who was employed by the alleged Violator and against whom one 0r more 0f the alleged Violations was committed.” 37. Plaintiff and other current and former employees 0f Defendants are “aggrieved employees” as defined by Labor Code section 2699(0) in that they are all Defendants’ current 0r former employees and one or more of the alleged Violations were committed against them. 38. Pursuant t0 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 or representative shall give written notice by online filing with the LWDA and by certified mail to the employer of the specific provisions 0f the California Labor Code alleged t0 have been violated, including the facts and theories to support the alleged Violation. (b) An aggrieved employee’s notice filed with the LWDA pursuant t0 2699.3(a) and any employer response t0 that notice shall be accompanied Page 9 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (C) by a filing fee 0f seventy-five dollars ($75). The LWDA shall notify the employer and the aggrieved employee 0r representative by certified mail that it does not intend t0 investigate the alleged Violation (“LWDA’S Notice”) within sixty (60) calendar days 0f the postmark date 0f the aggrieved employee’s notice. Upon receipt 0f the LWDA Notice, 0r if n0 LWDA Notice is provided Within sixty-five (65) calendar days 0f the postmark date 0f the aggrieved employee’s notice, the aggrieved employee may commence a civil action pursuant t0 California Labor Code section 2699 t0 recover civil penalties. 39. Pursuant t0 California Labor Code sections 2699.3(c), aggrieved employees, through Plaintiff, may pursue a civil action arising under PAGA for Violations of any provision other than those listed in Section 2699.5 after the following requirements have been met: (a) (b) The aggrieved employee 0r representative shall give written notice by online filing With the LWDA and by certified mail to the employer 0f the specific provisions of the California Labor Code alleged to have been violated (other than those listed in Section 2699.5), including the facts and theories t0 support the alleged Violation. An aggrieved employee’s notice filed with the LWDA pursuant t0 2699.3(0) and any employer response to that notice shall be accompanied by a filing fee of seventy-five dollars ($75). The employer may cure the alleged Violation Within thirty-three (33) calendar days 0f the postmark date of the notice sent by the aggrieved employee 0r representative. The employer shall give written notice within that period 0f time by certified mail t0 the aggrieved employee or representative and by online filing With the LWDA ifthe alleged Violation is cured, including a description 0f actions taken, and n0 civil action pursuant to Section 2699 may commence. If the alleged Violation is not cured Within the 33-day period, the aggrieved employee may commence Page 10 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a civil action pursuant to Section 2699. 40. On May 4, 2021, Plaintiff provided written notice by online filing to the LWDA and by Certified Mail to Defendants 0f the specific provisions 0f the California Labor Code alleged to have been violated, including facts and theories to support the alleged Violations, in accordance with California Labor Code section 2699.3. Plaintiffs written notice was accompanied With the applicable filing fee of seventy-five dollars ($75). The LWDA PAGA Administrator confirmed receipt of Plaintiff” s written notice and assigned PlaintiffPAGA Case Number LWDA-CM-831 167-21. A true and correct copy 0f Plaintiff’s written notice t0 the LWDA and Defendants is attached hereto as “Exhibit 1.” On August 4, 202 1 , Plaintiff provided an amended written notice by online filing to the LWDA and by Certified Mail t0 Defendants clarifying the facts and theories supporting Plaintiffs claims. A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs amended written notice t0 the LWDA and Defendants is attached hereto as “Exhibit 2.” 41. As of the filing date 0f this complaint, over 65 days have passed since Plaintiff sent the amended notice described above to the LWDA, and the LWDA has not responded that it intends t0 investigate Plaintiffs claims and Defendants have not cured the Violations. 42. Thus, Plaintiff has satisfied the administrative prerequisites under California Labor Code section 2699.3(a) and 2699.3(0) to recover civil penalties against Defendants for Violations of California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 204, 226(a), 226.7, 510, 512(a), 516, 1174(d), 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2802, and 2810.5. 43. Labor Code section 558(a) provides “[a]ny employer or other person acting on behalf of an employer Who violates, or causes t0 be violated, a section 0f this chapter 0r any provision regulating hours and days 0fwork in any order 0f 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. . . .” Labor Code section 558(0) provides “[t]he civil penalties provided for in this section are in addition t0 any other civil 0r Page 11 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 criminal penalty provided by law.” 44. Defendants, at all times relevant to this complaint, were employers 0r persons acting 0n behalf 0f an employer(s) who violated Plaintiff’s and other aggrieved employees’ rights by Violating various sections of the California Labor Code as set forth above. 45. As set forth below, Defendants have violated numerous provisions 0f both the Labor Code sections regulating hours and days of work as well as the applicable IWC Wage Order. 46. Pursuant to PAGA, and in particular, California Labor Code sections 2699(a), 2699.3(a), 2699.3(0), and 2699.5, and section 558, Plaintiff, acting in the public interest as a private attorney general, seeks assessment and collection 0f civil penalties for herself, all other aggrieved employees, and the State 0f California against Defendants for Violations of California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 204, 226(a), 226.7, 510, 512(a), 516, 1174(d), 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2802, and 2810.5. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 47. Plaintiff brings this action 0n her own behalf, as well as 0n behalf 0f each and all other persons similarly situated, and thus seeks class certification under California Code 0f Civil Procedure section 382. 48. A11 claims alleged herein arise under California law for which Plaintiff seeks relief authorized by California law. 49. Plaintiff’ s proposed class consists of and is defined as follows: A11 persons who worked for Defendants as non-exempt, hourly paid employees in California, within four years prior to the filing of the initial complaint until the date 0f trial (“Class”). 50. Plaintiffs proposed subclass consists 0f and is defined as follows: A11 persons Who worked for Defendants as non-exempt, hourly paid employees in California and Who received at least one wage statement Within one (1) year prior t0 the filing of the initial complaint until the date 0f trial (“Subclass”). 51. Members 0f the Class and Subclass are referred t0 herein as “class members.” 52. Plaintiff reserves the right t0 redefine the Class and Subclass and t0 add Page 12 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 additional subclasses as appropriate based on further investigation, discovery, and specific theories of liability. 53. There are common questions of law and fact as to class members that predominate over questions affecting only individual members, including, but not limited to: (a) (b) (C) (d) (6) (f) (g) (h) (i) Whether Defendants required Plaintiff and class members t0 work over eight (8) hours per day, over twelve (12) hours per day, or over forty (40) hours per week and failed t0 pay all legally required overtime compensation to Plaintiff and class members; Whether Defendants failed t0 properly calculate the “regular rate” 0f pay on which Plaintiff” s and class members’ overtime rate 0f pay was based; Whether Defendants failed t0 pay Plaintiff and class members at least minimum wages for all hours worked; Whether Defendants failed t0 provide Plaintiff and class members with meal periods; Whether Defendants failed to authorize and permit Plaintiff and class members t0 take rest periods; Whether Defendants provided Plaintiff and class members With complete and accurate wage statements as required by California Labor Code section 226(a); Whether Defendants maintained accurate payroll records as required by California Labor Code section 1174(d); Whether Defendants failed to pay earned overtime wages, minimum wages, and/or meal and rest period premiums, due t0 Plaintiff and class members upon their discharge; Whether Defendants failed timely t0 pay overtime wages, minimum wages, and/or meal and rest period premiums, due t0 Plaintiff and Class members during their employment; Whether Defendants failed t0 reimburse Plaintiff and class members for Page 13 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 necessary and required business-related expenditures and/or losses incurred by them in the scope of their employment; (k) Whether Defendants failed t0 provide written notice 0f information material t0 Plaintiffs and class members’ employment with Defendants; (1) Whether Defendants engaged in unlawful and unfair business practices in Violation 0f California Business & Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.; and (m) The appropriate amount 0f damages, restitution, 0r monetary penalties resulting from Defendants’ Violations 0f California law. 54. There is a well-defined community 0f interest in the litigation and the class members are readily ascertainable: (a) (b) (C) Numerosity: The class members are so numerous that joinder of all members would be unfeasible and impractical. The membership of the entire class is unknown t0 Plaintiff at this time; however, the class is estimated t0 be greater than one hundred (100) individuals and the identity of such membership is readily ascertainable by inspection 0f Defendants’ employment records. Typicality: Plaintiff is qualified to, and will, fairly and adequately protect the interests of each class member with whom she has a well-defined community of interest, and Plaintiff’s claims (0r defenses, if any) are typical 0f all class members as demonstrated herein. Adeguacy: Plaintiff is qualified t0, and will, fairly and adequately protect the interests of each class member with whom she has a well-defined community 0f interest and typicality 0f claims, as demonstrated herein. Plaintiff acknowledges that she has an obligation t0 make known t0 the Court any relationship, conflicts 0r differences With any Class member. Plaintiff’s attorneys, the proposed class counsel, are versed in the rules governing class action discovery, certification, and settlement. Plaintiff Page 14 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 has incurred, and throughout the duration of this action, will continue to incur costs and attorneys’ fees that have been, are, and Will be necessarily expended for the prosecution 0f this action for the substantial benefit of each class member. (d) Superiority: The nature 0f this action makes the use of class action adjudication superior t0 other methods. A class action Will achieve economies 0f time, 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 the entire class. (e) Public Policy Considerations: Employers in the State of California Violate employment and labor laws every day. Current employees are often afraid t0 assert their rights out of fear of direct or indirect retaliation. Former employees are fearful 0f 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 0f anonymity that allows for the Vindication of their rights while simultaneously protecting their privacy. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198-Unpaid Overtime (Against all Defendants) 55. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges as if fully stated herein each and every allegation set forth above. 56. Labor Code section 1198 makes it illegal t0 employ an employee under conditions 0f labor that are prohibited by the applicable wage order. California Labor Code section 1198 requires that “. . . the standard conditions of labor fixed by the commission shall be the . . . standard conditions 0f labor for employees. The employment of any employee . . . Page 15 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 under conditions of labor prohibited by the order is unlawful.” 57. California Labor Code section 1198 and the applicable IWC Wage Order provide that it is unlawful t0 employ persons Without compensating them at a rate 0f pay either time- and-one-half or two-times that person’s regular rate of pay, depending on the number of hours worked by the person 0n a daily 0r weekly basis. 58. Specifically, the applicable IWC Wage Order provides that Defendants are and were required t0 pay Plaintiff and class members 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 (1 1/2) for all hours worked in excess 0f eight (8) hours in a day 0r more than forty (40) hours in a workweek. 59. The applicable IWC Wage Order further provides that Defendants are and were required to pay Plaintiff and class members working more than twelve (12) hours in a day, overtime compensation at a rate 0f two (2) times their regular rate 0f pay. An employee’s regular rate 0f pay includes all remuneration for employment paid t0, 0r 0n behalf of, the employee, including nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive pay. 60. California Labor Code section 510 codifies the right t0 overtime compensation at one and one-half (1 1/2) times the regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a day or forty (40) hours in a week 0r for the first eight (8) hours worked on the seventh (7th) day ofwork, and to overtime compensation at twice the employee ’s regular rate ofpay for hours worked in excess of twelve (12) hours in a day 0r in excess of eight (8) hours in a day 0n the seventh (7th) day of work. 61. During the relevant time period, Defendants willfully failed to pay all overtime wages owed to Plaintiff and class members. During the relevant time period, Plaintiff and class members were not paid overtime premiums for all 0f the hours they worked in excess 0f eight (8) hours in a day, in excess 0f twelve (12) hours in a day, and/or in excess 0f forty (40) hours in a week, because all hours worked were not recorded. 62. First, during the relevant period, Defendants had a company-Wide policy and/or practice of improperly rounding 0r underreporting employees’ clock-in and clock-out time durations in their timekeeping system t0 the nearest half (0.5) of an hour. Defendants’ rounding Page 16 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 policy resulted in the failure t0 compensate Plaintiff and class members fully for all hours worked, causing Plaintiff and class members to not be paid overtime wages for all 0f the overtime hours they actually worked. Defendants’ policy 0f rounding is unfair and has, over time, resulted in the underpayment of wages t0 Plaintiff and class members. T0 the extent Defendants’ rounding policy has taken away time worked that was eligible for overtime, Plaintiff and class members were denied overtime pay for all hours worked. 63. Second, during the relevant period, Defendants had a policy and/or practice 0f discouraging and impeding Plaintiff and class members from recording hours worked that were outside 0f their scheduled shifts, in order t0 limit the amount 0f overtime employees could accrue. On information and belief, this policy 0f limiting overtime, coupled with Defendants’ practice of understaffing and assignment 0f heavy workloads (see infra), led Plaintiff and class members t0 work off-the-clock before and after their scheduled shift times in order t0 complete their assigned tasks. For example, approximately once per week, Plaintiffwas required to clock out and continue working for up to 15 minutes t0 complete a rush order at the request 0f management. In addition, several times a year, Plaintiff spent 10 minutes getting an early start 0n her daily tasks 0r preparing a rush order before being permitted t0 clock in for her scheduled shift. 64. Third, Defendants implemented, on a company-Wide basis, an employer-imposed requirement that Plaintiff and class members undergo mandatory health screenings and temperature checks before their scheduled shifts. Plaintiff and class members were required to locate an authorized supervisor and undergo the mandatory health screenings, Which could take up t0 five (5) minutes each instance, before Defendants permitted them to clock in for their shifts, but Defendants did not compensate them for the time they remained under Defendants’ control. 65. Fourth, during the relevant period, Defendants had, and continue t0 have, a company-Wide policy and/or practice 0f understaffing their worksites While assigning heavy workloads, including pressuring employees t0 meet deadlines and productivity requirements. Defendants also had a practice of strictly adhering t0 a schedule 0f meal periods, which further Page 17 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 caused Plaintiff and class members to not be relieved of their duties for compliant meal periods. Defendants’ policies and/or practices resulted in a failure t0 provide Plaintiffand class members With adequate meal period coverage, and thus, Plaintiff and class members were not always afforded uninterrupted 30-minute meal periods during shifts When they were entitled t0 receive a meal period. For example, Defendants only permitted meal periods t0 be taken at 12:00 p.m., and if Plaintiff and class members were still working 0n their assigned tasks at that time, they were not permitted to take a later meal period and would therefore take a shortened meal 0r miss their meal period altogether. As another example, twice per week, Plaintiffs meal periods would be interrupted for five (5) minutes at a time, in order t0 complete rush orders 0r assist other departments. Thus, Plaintiff and class members missed and/or had meal periods interrupted 0r cut short in order t0 complete their assigned workloads and meet productivity requirements. Defendants did not pay Plaintiff and class members for the time they continued to perform tasks during meal periods. 66. Fifth, during the relevant time period, 0n information and belief, Defendants implemented a company-Wide policy and/or practice 0f automatically deducting meal periods from Plaintiffs and class members’ time records. As a result 0f this policy, Defendants deducted 30-minute meal periods from Plaintiffs and class members’ time records even when meal periods were missed, short, and/or interrupted. Thus, Defendants did not record all hours worked during meal periods, and Plaintiff and class members performed work during meal periods for Which they were not paid. 67. Defendants knew 0r should have known that as a result of these company-wide practices and/or policies, Plaintiff and class members were performing their assigned duties off- the-clock before and after their shifts and during meal periods, and were suffered 01‘ permitted to perform work for Which they were not paid. Because Plaintiff and class members worked shifts of eight (8) hours a day 01‘ more 0r forty (40) hours a week 01‘ more, some 0f this off-the- clock work qualified for overtime premium pay. Therefore, Plaintiff and class members were not paid overtime wages for all of the overtime hours they actually worked. 68. Furthermore, on information and belief, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff and Page 18 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 class members the correct overtime rate for the recorded overtime hours that they generated. In addition t0 an hourly wage, Defendants paid Plaintiff and class members incentive pay, nondiscretionary bonuses, and/or other forms of remuneration. However, in Violation of the California Labor Code, Defendants failed t0 incorporate all compensation, including incentive pay, nondiscretionary bonuses, and/or other forms of remuneration, into the calculation 0f the regular rate 0f pay for purposes 0f calculating the overtime wage rate. Therefore, during times when Plaintiff and class members worked overtime and received these other forms 0f pay, Defendants failed t0 pay all overtime wages by paying a lower overtime rate than required. 69. For example, Defendants paid Plaintiff and class members annual nondiscretionary bonuses. During pay periods that Plaintiff and class members were paid overtime wages, Defendants did not always incorporate the nondiscretionary bonuses and/or incentive pay into Plaintiffs and class members’ regular rate 0f pay and, as a result, paid them at incorrect and lower rates 0f pay for overtime hours worked. Specifically, Defendants paid Plaintiff and class members 1.5 times their hourly rate of pay instead of 1.5 times their regular rate 0f pay. Defendants’ failure t0 properly calculate the overtime rates 0f pay based 0n all remuneration paid has resulted in an underpayment of overtime wages t0 Plaintiff and class members 0n a company-Wide basis. 70. Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and class members the balance of overtime compensation as required by California law, violates the provisions 0f California Labor Code sections 510 and 1198. Pursuant t0 California Labor Code section 1194, Plaintiff and class members are entitled t0 recover their unpaid overtime compensation, as well as interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Violation 0f California Labor Code §§ 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198-Unpaid Minimum Wages (Against all Defendants) 71. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges as if fully stated herein each and every allegation set forth above. Page 19 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 72. At all relevant times, California Labor Code sections 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198 provide that the minimum wage for employees fixed by the IWC is the minimum wage to be paid to employees, and the payment 0f a wage less than the minimum so fixed is unlawful. Compensable work time is defined in IWC Wage Order No. 1-2001 as “the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer, and includes all the time the employee is suffered 0r permitted t0 work, Whether 0r not required t0 d0 so.” Cal. Code. Regs. tit. 8, § 11010(2)(G) (defining “Hours Worked”). 73. As stated, Defendants had a company-wide policy and/or practice ofrounding 0r underreporting Plaintiffs and class members’ hourly clock-in and clock-out time durations in their timekeeping system t0 the nearest half-hour, resulting in the failure t0 compensate them for all hours worked. Also, due t0 Defendants’ restrictions 0n overtime accrual, Defendants systematically failed t0 pay Plaintiff and class members for actual hours worked before and after scheduled shifts, because these hours were not accurately recorded. As stated, because Defendants discouraged and impeded Plaintiff and class members from recording hours worked that were outside 0f their scheduled shifts, Plaintiff and class members were required t0 work off-the-clock before and after their scheduled shift start and end times, completing assigned job duties, and submitting themselves t0 off-the-clock health screenings. 74. Additionally, as set forth above, due to Defendants’ uniform practice of understaffing, assignment of heavy workloads, pressure to meet deadlines and productivity requirements, strict adherence to a schedule 0f meal periods, and the resulting lack 0f coverage, Plaintiff and class members were impeded from taking all uninterrupted meal periods t0 which they were entitled and were required t0 work off-the-clock. Moreover, as stated, Defendants had a company-Wide practice and/or policy 0f automatically deducting meal periods from Plaintiffs and class members’ time records, even when meal periods were missed, short, and/or interrupted. Thus, Defendants systematically failed t0 pay Plaintiff and class members for actual hours worked during unpaid meal periods because these hours were not always correctly recorded. 75. Defendants did not pay minimum wages for all hours by Plaintiff and class Page 20 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 members. To the extent that these off-the-clock hours did not qualify for overtime premium payment, Defendants did not pay at least minimum wages for those hours worked off-the-clock in Violation 0f California Labor Code sections 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198. 76. Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and class members minimum wages violates California Labor Code sections 1182. 12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198. Pursuant to California Labor Code section 1194.2, Plaintiff and class members are entitled t0 recover liquidated damages in an amount equal to the wages unlawfully unpaid and interest thereon. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Violations 0f California Labor Code, §§ 226.7, 512(a), 516, and 1198-Meal Period Violations (Against all Defendants) 77. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges as if fully stated herein each and every allegation set forth above. 78. At all relevant times herein set forth, California Labor Code section 5 12(a) provides that an employer may not require, cause, 0r permit an employee t0 work for a period 0f 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 of the employee is not more than six (6) hours, the meal period may be waived by mutual consent ofboth the employer and the employee. Under California law, first meal periods must start after no more than five hours. Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004, 1041-1042 (2012). 79. At all relevant times herein set forth, California Labor Code sections 226.7, 512(3), 516, and 1198 provide that n0 employer shall require an employee t0 work during any meal period mandated by an applicable order 0f the IWC. 80. At all relevant times herein set forth, Labor Code sections 226.7 and 5 12(a), and the applicable IWC Wage Order also require employers t0 provide a second meal period 0f not less than thirty (30) minutes if an employee works over ten (10) hours per day 0r t0 pay an employee one (1) additional hour 0f pay at the employee’s regular rate, except that if the total hours worked is n0 more than twelve (12) hours, the second meal period may be waived by Page 21 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 mutual consent of the employer and the employee only if the first meal period was not waived. 81. During the relevant time period, as stated, Defendants had, and continue to have, a company-Wide policy and/or practice 0f understaffing While assigning heavy workloads, including pressure to meet deadlines and productivity requirements. Further, Defendants had a company-wide practice of strictly adhering t0 a schedule of meal periods for Plaintiff and class members, resulting in Plaintiff and class members having their meal periods cut short t0 return to work or waiting extended periods 0f time before taking meal periods, due to the heavy workload and lack of coverage. Defendants’ practices and policies prevented Plaintiff and class members from taking all compliant meal periods t0 which they were entitled. 82. As a result, Plaintiff and class members would be forced to work in excess of five (5) hours before taking a meal period and, at times, had their meal periods cut short and/or had t0 forgo their meal periods altogether. For example, because Defendants only permitted meal periods t0 be taken at 12:00 p.m., Plaintiff took her meal periods late, after the end of her sixth 0r seventh hour 0f work, when her shift started at 5:00 a.m. or 6:00 a.m. Furthermore, if Plaintiff was still engaged in tasks t0 meet a deadline 0r Defendants’ produc tivity expectations at the designated meal period start time, she was not afforded the opportunity t0 take a later meal period. In addition, Plaintiff’s meal periods were interrupted 0r cut short twice per week by five (5) minutes per instance to complete rush orders or assist other departments. 83. Furthermore, as stated, Defendants implemented a company-wide policy and practice 0f automatically deducting meal periods from Plaintiffs and class members’ time records. As a result 0f this policy, Defendants deducted 30 minutes from Plaintiffs and class members’ time records even when meal periods were missed, short, and/or interrupted. Thus, Defendants systematically failed to correctly record meal periods. 84. Moreover, Defendants did not provide Plaintiff and class members With second 30-minute meal periods 0n days that they worked in excess 0ften (10) hours in one day. During her employment, Plaintiff worked shifts in excess of ten (10) hours 0r more hours per day but was not provided an uninterrupted second 30-minute meal period. Plaintiff and class members did not sign valid meal period waivers 0n days that they were entitled t0 meal periods and were Page 22 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 not relieved of all duties. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants knew or should have known that, as a result of these policies, Plaintiff and class members were not actually relieved 0f all duties to take timely, uninterrupted meal periods. Defendants further knew or should have known that Defendants did not pay Plaintiff and class members meal period premiums When meal periods were late, interrupted, shortened, 0r missed. 85. As described above, Defendants’ company-Wide policy and/or practice 0f rounding 0r underreporting employee clock-in and clock-out time durations in their timekeeping system prevented Plaintiff and class members from receiving meal period premiums when they took late and/or shortened meal periods. Defendants’ rounding policy rounded employees’ Clock-in and clock-out times in their timekeeping system t0 the nearest half (0.5) of an hour. Thus, t0 the extent that Defendants’ timekeeping system reported that Plaintiff and class members were provided with timely, full 30-minute meal periods When, in fact, the meal periods were taken after the fifth hour 0fwork or were less than 30 minutes, Plaintiff and class members were entitled t0 a meal period penalty. Plaintiff and class members did not receive meal period penalties for these improperly rounded meal periods. 86. Moreover, Defendants engaged in a company-Wide practice and/or policy 0f not paying all meal period premiums owed When compliant meal periods are not provided. Because 0fDefendants’ practices and/or policies, Plaintiffand class members have not received premium pay for all missed, late, and interrupted meal periods. Alternatively, t0 the extent that Defendants did pay Plaintiff and class members premium pay for missed, late, and interrupted meal periods, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff and class members at the correct rate 0f pay for premiums because Defendants systematically failed t0 include all forms 0f compensation, such as incentive pay, nondiscretionary bonuses, and/or other forms 0f remuneration, in the regular rate 0f pay. As a result, Defendants failed t0 provide Plaintiff and class members compliant meal periods in Violation 0f California Labor Code sections 226.7, 512(a), and 516 and failed to pay the full meal period premiums due. 87. Defendants’ conduct violates the applicable IWC Wage Order, and California Page 23 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Labor Code sections 226.7, 512(a), 516, and 1198. Plaintiff and class members are therefore entitled to recover from Defendants one (1) additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each work day that the meal period was not provided. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation 0f California Labor Code §§ 226.7, 516, and 1198-Rest Period Violations (Against all Defendants) 88. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges as if fully stated herein each and every allegation set forth above. 89. At all relevant times herein set forth, the applicable IWC Wage Order and California Labor Code sections 226.7, 516, and 1198 were applicable to Plaintiff and class members’ employment by Defendants. 90. 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 0n 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. 91. 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. T0 comply With its obligation to authorize and permit rest periods under California Labor Code section 226.7 and the applicable IWC Wage Order, an employer must “relinquish any control over how employees spend their break time, and relieve their employees 0f all duties-including the obligation that an employee remain 0n call. A rest period, in short, must be a period of rest.” Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. , 2 Cal. 5th 257, 269-270 (2016). Pursuant to the applicable IWC Wage Order and California Labor Code section 226.7(0), Plaintiff and class members are entitled t0 recover from Defendants one (1) additional hour ofpay at their regular rates ofpay for each work day that a required rest period was not authorized and permitted. Page 24 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 92. During the relevant time period, Defendants regularly failed to authorize and permit Plaintiff and class members t0 take a ten (10) minute rest period per each four (4) hour period worked or major fraction thereof. As with meal periods, Defendants’ company-Wide practices, including understaffing and assigning heavy workloads, prevented Plaintiff and class members from being relieved of all duty t0 take rest periods. Additionally, Defendants strictly adhered t0 a schedule 0f rest periods, which, coupled with Defendants’ failure t0 provide adequate rest period coverage, further led to Plaintiff and class members not being authorized and permitted t0 take compliant rest periods. For example, Defendants scheduled rest periods at 9:15 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. each day, and if Plaintiff and class members were still engaged in time-sensitive tasks or tasks that could not be immediately paused at the designated times, they would receive a shortened rest period or miss their rest period altogether. 93. Additionally, 0n information and belief, during the relevant time period, Defendants maintained and implemented a company-Wide on-premises rest period policy, which mandated that Plaintiff and class members remain 0n the work premises during their rest periods. Because Plaintiff and class members were restricted from leaving the premises during rest periods, they were denied the ability t0 use their rest periods freely for their own purposes , such as running personal errands. Thus, Defendants effectively maintained control over Plaintiff and class members during rest periods. 94. As a result 0f Defendants’ practices and policies, Plaintiff and class members worked shifts in excess of 3.5 hours, in excess 0f 6 hours, and in excess of 10 hours Without receiving all uninterrupted 10-minute rest periods t0 Which they were entitled. For example, Plaintiffs rest periods were interrupted twice per week and she missed rest periods 1-3 times per month because of the heavy workload and lack of coverage. Further, Plaintiff did not receive a third rest period when she worked shifts in excess 0f 10 hours. 95. Defendants have also engaged in a company-Wide policy and/or practice of not paying all rest period premiums owed When compliant rest periods are not authorized and permitted. Alternatively, to the extent that Defendants did pay Plaintiff and class members one (1) additional hour ofpremium pay for missed rest periods, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff and Page 25 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 class members at the correct rate 0f pay for premiums because Defendants failed to include all forms 0f compensation, such as incentive pay, nondiscretionary bonuses, and/or other forms 0f remuneration, in the regular rate 0f pay. As a result, Defendants denied Plaintiff and class members rest periods and failed t0 pay them rest period premiums due, in Violation 0f Labor Code sections 226.7, 516, and the applicable IWC Wage Order. 96. Defendants’ conduct violates the applicable IWC Wage Order and California Labor Code sections 226.7, 516, and 1198. Plaintiff and class members are therefore entitled to recover from Defendants one (1) additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate 0f compensation for each work day that a compliant rest period was not authorized and permitted. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation 0f California Labor Code §§ 226(a), 1174(d), and 1198-N0n-C0mpliant Wage Statements and Failure to Maintain Accurate Payroll Records (Against all Defendants) 97. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges as if fully stated herein each and every allegation set forth above. 98. At all relevant times herein set forth, California Labor Code section 226(a) provides that every employer shall furnish each 0f his 0r her employees an accurate and complete itemized wage statement in writing, including, but not limited t0, the name and address 0f the legal entity that is the employer, the inclusive dates of the pay period, total hours worked, and all applicable rates 0f pay. 99. At all relevant times, Defendants have knowingly and intentionally provided Plaintiff and Subclass members with uniform, incomplete, and inaccurate wage statements. For example, Defendants issued uniform wage statements t0 Plaintiff and Subclass members that fail to correctly list: gross wages earned; total hours worked; net wages earned; and all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period, including rates ofpay for overtime wages and/or meal and rest period premiums, and the corresponding number 0f hours worked at each hourly rate. Specifically, Defendants violated sections 226(a)(1), 226(a)(2), 226(a)(5), and 226(a)(9). Page 26 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 100. Because Defendants did not record the time Plaintiff and Subclass members spent working off-the-clock, improperly rounded their total hours worked, and deducted time from their records for meal periods that were interrupted and/or missed (and therefore time for Which they should have been paid), Defendants did not list the correct amount of gross wages and net wages earned by Plaintiff and Subclass members in compliance with section 226(a)(1) and section 226(a)(5), respectively. For the same reason, Defendants failed to accurately list the total number of hours worked by Plaintiff and Subclass members, in Violation of section 226(a)(2), and failed to list the applicable hourly rates ofpay in effect during the pay period and the corresponding accurate number 0f hours worked at each hourly rate, in Violation 0f section 226(a)(9). 101. Additionally, because Defendants did not calculate Plaintiff’s and Subclass members’ regular rate 0f pay correctly for purposes 0f paying overtime wages and/or meal and rest period premiums, Defendants did not list the correct amount of gross wages in compliance with section 226(a)(1). For the same reason, Defendants failed t0 list the correct amount 0f net wages in Violation 0f section 226(a)(5). Defendants also failed t0 correctly list all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period, namely, correct rates 0f pay for overtime wages and/or meal and rest period premiums, in Violation of section 226(a)(9). 102. The wage statement deficiencies also include, among other things, failing to list the number 0f piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece rate if the employee is paid 0n a piece-rate basis; failing to list all deductions; failing to list the inclusive dates 0f the period for Which aggrieved employees were paid; failing to list the name of the employee and only the last four digits of his 0r her social security number 0r an employee identification number other than a social security number; failing t0 list the name and address 0f the legal entity that is the employer; and/or failing t0 state all hours worked as a result ofnot recording 0r stating the hours they worked off-the-clock. 103. California Labor Code section 1198 provides that the maximum hours of work and the standard conditions of labor shall be those fixed by the Labor Commissioner and as set forth in the applicable IWC Wage Order. Section 1198 further provides that “[t]he employment Page 27 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of any employees for longer hours than those fixed by the order or under conditions of labor prohibited by the order is unlawful.” Pursuant t0 the applicable IWC Wage Order, employers are required t0 keep accurate time records showing When the employee begins and ends each work period and meal period. During the relevant time period, Defendants failed, on a company-wide basis, t0 keep accurate records of work period and meal period start and stop times for Plaintiff and Subclass members, in Violation 0f section 1198. As stated, Defendants engaged in a company-wide practice and/or policy of automatically deducting meal periods from Plaintiff” s and Subclass members’ time records regardless 0f if 0r when meal periods were actually taken, and thereby failed t0 keep accurate records 0f meal start and end times for Plaintiffand Subclass members. Furthermore, in light ofDefendants’ failure to provide Plaintiff and Subclass members with second 30-minute meal periods t0 which they were entitled, Defendants kept n0 records 0f meal start and end times for second meal periods. 104. California Labor Code section 1174(d) provides that “[e]very person employing labor in this state shall . . . [k]eep a record showing the names and addresses of all employees employed and the ages 0f all minors” and “[k]eep, at a central location in the state 0r at the plants or establishments at Which employees are employed, payroll records showing the hours worked daily by and the wages paid t0, and the number of piece-rate units eamed by and any applicable piece rate paid to, employees employed at the respective plants or establishments. . . .” At all relevant times, and in Violation 0f Labor Code section 1174(d), Defendants willfully failed t0 maintain accurate payroll records for Plaintiff and Subclass members showing the daily hours they worked and the wages paid thereto as a result of failing to record the off-the-clock hours that they worked and improperly rounding Plaintiffs and Subclass members’ total hours worked. 105. Plaintiff and Subclass members are entitled to recover from Defendants the greater 0f their actual damages caused by Defendants’ failure t0 comply with California Labor Code section 226(a), or an aggregate penalty not exceeding four thousand dollars ($4,000) per employee. /// Page 28 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation 0f California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202-Wages Not Timely Paid Upon Termination (Against all Defendants) 106. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges as if fully stated herein each and every allegation set forth above. 107. This cause of action is dependent upon, and Wholly derivative of, the overtime wages, minimum wages, and/or meal and rest period premiums, that were not timely paid to Plaintiff and those class members n0 longer employed by Defendants upon their termination. 108. At all times relevant herein set forth, 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 that if an 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 of his or her intention t0 quit, in Which case the employee is entitled t0 his 0r her wages at the time 0f quitting. 109. Defendants willfully failed t0 pay Plaintiff and class members Who are n0 longer employed by Defendants the earned and unpaid wages set forth above, including but not limited to, overtime wages, minimum wages, and/or meal and rest period premiums, either at the time of discharge, 0r Within seventy-two (72) hours of their leaving Defendants’ employ. 110. Defendants’ failure t0 pay Plaintiff and class members who are n0 longer employed by Defendants their wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge, or Within seventy-two (72) hours 0f their leaving Defendants’ employ, violates Labor Code sections 201 and 202. Plaintiff and class members are therefore entitled t0 recover from Defendants the statutory penalty wages for each day they were not paid, at their regular rate 0f pay, up t0 a thirty (3 0) day maximum pursuant to California Labor Code section 203. /// /// Page 29 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation 0f California Labor Code § 204-Failure t0 Timely Pay Wages During Employment (Against all Defendants) 111. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges as if fully stated herein each and every allegation set forth above. 112. This cause of action is dependent upon, and Wholly derivative of, the overtime wages, minimum wages, and/or meal and rest period premiums, that were not timely paid to Plaintiff and those class members. 113. At all times relevant herein set forth, Labor Code section 204 provides that all wages earned by any person in any employment between the first (lst) and the fifteenth (15th) days, inclusive, 0f any calendar month, other than those wages due upon termination 0f an employee, are due and payable between the sixteenth (16th) and the twenty-sixth (26th) day of the month during which the labor was performed. 114. At all times relevant herein, Labor Code section 204 provides that all wages earned by any person in any employment between the sixteenth (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 first (lst) and the tenth (10th) day of the following month. 115. At all times relevant herein, Labor Code section 204 provides that all wages earned for labor in excess of the normal work period shall be paid no later than the payday for the next regular payroll period. Alternatively, at all times relevant herein, Labor Code section 204 provides that the requirements of this section are deemed satisfied by the payment 0fwages for weekly, biweekly, 0r semimonthly payroll if the wages are paid not more than seven (7) calendar days following the close 0f the payroll period. 116. During the relevant time period, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and class members all wages due including, but not limited t0, overtime wages, minimum wages, and/or meal and rest period premiums, within the time periods specified by California Labor Code section 204. Page 30 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 117. Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and class members all wages due violates Labor Code section 204. Plaintiff and class members are therefore entitled t0 recover from Defendants the statutory penalty wages pursuant t0 California Labor Code section 210. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation 0f California Labor Code § 2802-Unpaid Business-Related Expenses (Against all Defendants) 118. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges as if fully stated herein each and every allegation set forth above. 119. At all times herein set forth, California Labor Code section 2802 provides that an employer must reimburse employees for all necessary expenditures and losses incurred by the employee in the performance of his 0r her job. The purpose of Labor Code section 2802 is to prevent employers from passing off their cost 0f doing business and operating expenses 0n t0 their employees. Cochran v. Schwan’s Home Service, Ina, 228 Cal. App. 4th 1137, 1144 (2014). The applicable wage order, IWC Wage Order No. 1-2001, provides that: “[W]hen tools 0r equipment are required by the employer 0r are necessary t0 the performance 0f a job, such tools and equipment shall be provided and maintained by the employer, except that an employee Whose wages are at least two (2) times the minimum wage provided herein may be required to provide and maintain hand tools and equipment customarily required by the trade 0r craft.” 120. Defendants, on a company-wide basis, required that Plaintiff and class members use their own personal mobile devices, including, but not limited t0 cellular phones, and/or mobile data to carry out their job duties, but failed to reimburse them for the costs of their work- related mobile device expenses. For example, Plaintiff and class members were required to use their personal cellular phones t0 complete their work-related tasks, such as communicating With supervisors and third-party vendors about the status of orders. Although Defendants required Plaintiff and class members t0 utilize their personal mobile devices to carry out their work- related responsibilities, Defendants failed t0 fully reimburse them for this cost. 121. Additionally, Defendants required Plaintiff and class members to purchase their own supplies and tools, such as pencils, Post-It Notes, toolboxes, screwdrivers, and cutters. For Page 31 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 example, Plaintiff was required to spend approximately $240.00 on these supplies in order to carry out her work-related duties. Although Defendants required Plaintiff and class members t0 purchase their own supplies and tools for use on the job, Defendants did not reimburse them for these expenses. 122. Defendants could have provided Plaintiff and class members with the actual tools for use 0n the job, such as company mobile devices, and supplies and tools. Or, Defendants could have fully reimbursed employees for their mobile device expenses and supplies and tools expenses. Instead, Defendants passed these operating costs off onto Plaintiff and class members. At all relevant times, Plaintiff did not earn at least two (2) times the minimum wage. 123. Defendants’ company-Wide policy and/or practice of passing 0n their operating costs to Plaintiff and class members violates California Labor Code section 2802. Defendants have intentionally and willfully failed to reimburse Plaintiff and class members for necessary business-related expenses and costs. 124. Plaintiff and class members are entitled t0 recover from Defendants their business-related expenses incurred during the course and scope 0f their employment, plus interest. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION For Civil Penalties Pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 2698, et seq. (Against all Defendants) 125. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges as if fully stated herein each and every allegation set forth above. 126. California Labor Code §§ 2698, et seq. (“PAGA”) permits Plaintiff to recover civil penalties for the Violation(s) 0fthe Labor Code sections enumerated in Labor Code section 2699.5. Section 2699.5 enumerates Labor Code sections 201, 202, 204, 226(a), 226.7, 510, 512(a), 1174(d), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802. Labor Code section 2699.3(0) permits aggrieved employees, including Plaintiff, t0 recover civil penalties for Violations ofthose Labor Code sections not found in section 2699.5, including sections 516, 2810.5, and 1182.12. 127. Defendants’ conduct, as alleged herein, violates numerous sections 0f the Page 32 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 California Labor Code, including, but not limited t0, the following: (a) (b) (C) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) Violation 0f Labor Code sections 5 10 and 1198, and the applicable IWC Wage Order for Defendants’ failure t0 compensate Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees with all required overtime pay and failure to properly calculate the overtime rates paid to Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees, as alleged herein; Violation ofLabor Code sections 1182.12. 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198, and the applicable IWC Wage Order for Defendants’ failure t0 compensate Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees with at least minimum wages for all hours worked, as alleged herein; Violation of Labor Code sections 226.7, 512, 516, and 1198, and the applicable IWC Wage Order for Defendants’ failure to provide Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees with meal periods, as alleged herein; Violation ofLabor Code sections 226.7, 516, and 1198, and the applicable IWC Wage Order for Defendants’ failure t0 authorize and permit Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees t0 take rest periods, as alleged herein; Violation of Labor Code sections 226(a) and 1198, and the applicable IWC Wage Order for failure to provide accurate and complete wage statements t0 Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees, as alleged herein; Violation 0f Labor Code sections 1174(d) and 1198, and the applicable IWC Wage Order for failure to maintain payroll records as alleged herein; Violation 0fLabor Code sections 201 and 202 for failure to pay all earned wages upon termination, as alleged herein; Violation 0f Labor Code section 204 for failure to pay all earned wages during employment, as alleged herein; Violation 0f Labor Code section 2802 for failure t0 reimburse Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees for all business expenses necessarily incurred, as alleged herein; and Page 33 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (j) Violation of Labor Code section 28 10.5(a)(1)(A)-(C) for failure to provide written notice 0f information material to Plaintiffs and other aggrieved employees’ employment With Defendants, as set forth below. 128. California’s Wage Theft Prevention Act was enacted t0 ensure that employers provide employees With basic information material to their employment relationship at the time of hiring, and t0 ensure that employees are given written and timely notice 0f any Changes to basic information material t0 their employment. Codified at California Labor Code section 2810.5, the Wage Theft Prevention Act provides that at the time 0f hiring, an employer must provide written notice t0 employees containing basic and material payroll information, including, among other things, the rate(s) 0f pay and basis thereof, whether paid by the hour, shift, day, week, salary, piece, commission, or otherwise, including any rates for overtime, the regular payday designated by the employer, and any allowances claims as part 0f the minimum wage, including meal 0r lodging allowances. Labor Code § 2810.5(a)(1)(A)-(C). 129. At all relevant times herein, Defendants failed t0 provide Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees written notice that lists the requisite information set forth in Labor Code section 2810.5(a)(1)(A)-(C) 0n a company-wide basis. 130. Defendants’ failure t0 provide Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees With written notice 0f basic information regarding their employment With Defendants is in Violation 0f Labor Code section 2810.5. Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees are therefore entitled to recover civil penalties pursuant t0 Labor Code sections 2699(a), (f), and (g). TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation 0f California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. - Unlawful Business Practices (Against all Defendants) 131. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges as if fully stated herein each and every allegation set forth above. 132. Defendants are “persons” as defined by California Business & Professions Code sections 17201, as they are corporations, firms, partnerships, joint stock companies, and/or Page 34 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 associations. 133. Defendants’ conduct, as alleged herein, has been, and continues to be, unfair, unlawful and harmful to Plaintiff, class members, and t0 the general public. Plaintiff has suffered injury in fact and has lost money as a result of Defendants’ unlawful business practices. Plaintiff seeks to enforce important rights affecting the public interest within the meaning 0f Code 0f Civil Procedure section 1021 .5. 134. Defendants’ activities, as alleged herein, are Violations 0f California law, and constitute unlawful business acts and practices in Violation 0f California Business & Professions Code sections 17200, et seq. 135. A Violation of California Business & Professions Code sections 17200, er seq. may be predicated 0n the Violation of any state or federal law. In the instant case, Defendants’ policies and practices have violated state law in at least the following respects: (a) (b) (C) (d) Requiring non-exempt, hourly paid employees, including Plaintiff and class members, to work overtime Without paying them proper compensation in Violation 0f California Labor Code sections 510 and 1198 and the applicable IWC Wage Order, and paying Plaintiff and class members overtime at a lower rate than required by law by failing to properly calculate the regular rate of pay for purposes of overtime, as alleged herein; Failing t0 pay at least minimum wage t0 Plaintiff and class members in Violation of California Labor Code sections 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198 and the applicable IWC Wage Order, as alleged herein; Failing t0 provide uninterrupted meal periods t0 Plaintiff and Class members in Violation 0f California Labor Code sections 226.7, 512(a), 516, and 1198, and the applicable IWC Wage Order, as alleged herein; Failing t0 authorize and permit Plaintiff and class members t0 take uninterrupted rest periods in Violation of California Labor Code sections 226.7, 516, and 1198, and the applicable IWC Wage Order, as alleged Page 35 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 herein; (e) Failing to provide Plaintiff and class members With accurate wage statements and failing t0 maintain accurate payroll records in Violation of California Labor Code sections 226(a), 1174(d), and 1198, and the applicable IWC Wage Order, as alleged herein; (f) Failing timely t0 pay all earned wages to Plaintiff and class members in Violation of California Labor Code section 204, as alleged herein; (g) Failing to reimburse Plaintiff and class members for all business expenses necessarily incurred in Violation 0f California Labor Code sections 2802, as alleged herein; and (h) Failing t0 provide written notice 0f information material to Plaintiff” s and class members’ employment with Defendants in Violation 0f Labor Code section 2810.5(a)(1)(A)-(C), as set forth below. 136. At all relevant times herein, California’s Wage Theft Prevention Act was enacted t0 ensure that employers provide employees with basic information material to their employment relationship at the time 0f hiring, and t0 ensure that employees are given written and timely notice of any changes t0 basic information material t0 their employment. Codified at California Labor Code section 2810.5, the Wage Theft Prevention Act provides that at the time 0f hiring, an employer must provide written notice to employees containing basic and material payroll information, including, among other things, the rate(s) ofpay and basis thereof, Whether paid by the hour, shift, day, week, salary, piece, commission, or otherwise, including any rates for overtime, the regular payday designated by the employer, and any allowances claims as part of the minimum wage, including meal or lodging allowances. Labor Code § 2810.5(a)(1)(A)-(C). 137. At all relevant times, 0n information and belief, Defendants failed, on a company-Wide basis, t0 provide written notice t0 Plaintiff and class members that lists the requisite information set forth in Labor Code section 2810.5(a)(1)(A) -(C). Defendants’ failure t0 provide Plaintiff and class members with written notice 0f basic information regarding their Page 36 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 employment with Defendants is in Violation of Labor Code section 2810.5. 138. As a result of the Violations 0f California law herein described, Defendants unlawfully gained an unfair advantage over other businesses. Plaintiff and class members have suffered pecuniary loss by Defendants’ unlawful business acts and practices alleged herein. 139. Pursuant t0 California Business & Professions Code sections 17200, et seq, Plaintiff and class members are entitled t0 restitution 0f the wages Withheld and retained by Defendants during a period that commences four years prior to the filing of this complaint; a permanent injunction requiring Defendants t0 pay all outstanding wages due t0 Plaintiff and class members; and an award 0f attomeys’ fees pursuant t0 California Code 0f Civil Procedure section 1021.5 and other applicable laws; and an award of costs. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation 0f California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. - Unfair Business Practices (Against all Defendants) 140. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges as if fully stated herein each and every allegation set forth above. 141. Defendants are “persons” as defined by California Business & Professions Code sections 17201, as they are corporations, firms, partnerships, joint stock companies, and/or associations. 142. Defendants’ conduct, as alleged herein, has been, and continues to be, unfair, and harmful t0 Plaintiff, class members, and t0 the general public. Plaintiff has suffered injury in fact and has 10st money as a result 0f Defendants’ unfair business practices. Plaintiff seeks t0 enforce important rights affecting the public interest Within the meaning 0f Code 0f Civil Procedure section 1021.5. 143. Defendants’ activities, namely Defendants’ company-wide practice and/or policy 0f not paying Plaintiff and class members meal and rest period premiums due t0 them under Labor Code section 226.7, deprived Plaintiff and class members of the compensation guarantee and enhanced enforcement implemented by section 226.7. The statutory remedy provided by Page 37 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 section 226.7 is a “‘dual-purpose’ remedy intended primarily t0 compensate employees, and secondarily t0 shape employer conduct.” Safeway, Inc. v. Superior Court, 238 Cal. App. 4th 1138, 1149 (2015). The statutory benefits 0f section 226.7 were guaranteed to Plaintiff and class members as part of their employment with Defendants, and thus Defendants’ practice and/or policy of denying these statutory benefits constitutes an unfair business practice in Violation 0f California Business & Professions Code sections 17200, et seq. (Id.) 144. A Violation of California Business & Professions Code sections 17200, et seq. may be predicated 0n any unfair business practice. In the instant case, Defendants’ policies and practices have violated the spirit 0f California’s meal and rest period laws and constitute acts against the public policy behind these laws. Pursuant t0 California Business & Professions Code sections 17200, et seq., Plaintiff and class members are entitled t0 restitution for the class-wide loss 0f the statutory benefits implemented by section 226.7 Withheld and retained by Defendants during a period that commences four years prior t0 the filing of this complaint; a permanent injunction requiring Defendants t0 pay all statutory benefits implemented by section 226.7 due t0 Plaintiff and class members; an award 0f attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 and other applicable laws; and an award 0f costs. REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff requests a trial by jury. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiff, 0n behalf 0f all others similarly situated, prays for relief and judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows: 1. For damages, unpaid wages, penalties, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000), exclusive 0f interest and costs. Plaintiff reserves the right t0 amend her prayer for relief to seek a different amount. Class Certification 2. That this case be certified as a class action; 3. That Plaintiff be appointed as the representative 0f the Class and Subclass; Page 38 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. That counsel for Plaintiff be appointed as class counsel. As t0 the First Cause 0f Action 5. That the Court declare, adjudge, and decree that Defendants violated California Labor Code sections 510 and 1198 and the applicable IWC Wage Order by willfully failing to pay all overtime wages due t0 Plaintiff and 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, 0r as otherwise provided by law; 8. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and for costs 0f suit incurred herein pursuant t0 California Labor Code section 1194(a); and 9. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and appropriate. As t0 the Second Cause 0f Action 10. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendants violated California Labor Code sections 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198 and the applicable IWC Wage Order by willfully failing t0 pay minimum wages to Plaintiff and class members; 11. For general unpaid wages and such general and special damages as may be appropriate; 12. For pre-judgment interest 0n any unpaid compensation from the date such amounts were due, or as otherwise provided by law; 13. For reasonable attomeys’ fees and for costs of suit incurred herein pursuant to California Labor Code section 1194(a); 14. For liquidated damages pursuant t0 California Labor Code section 1194.2; and 15. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and appropriate. /// /// Page 39 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 As to the Third Cause 0f Action 16. That the Court declare, adjudge, and decree that Defendants violated California Labor Code sections 226.7, 512(a), 516, and 1198 and the applicable IWC Wage Order by willfully failing to provide all meal periods to Plaintiff and class members; 17. That the Court make an award to the Plaintiff and class members of one (1) hour of pay at each employee’s regular rate 0f pay for each workday that a meal period was not provided; 18. For all actual, consequential, and incidental losses and damages, according t0 proof; 19. For premiums pursuant t0 California Labor Code section 226.7(c); 20. For pre-judgment interest 0n any unpaid meal period premiums from the date such amounts were due, 0r as otherwise provided by law; 21. For attorneys’ fees pursuant t0 California Code 0f Civil Procedure section 1021.5, 0r as otherwise provided by law; and 22. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and appropriate. As t0 the Fourth Cause 0f Action 23. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendants violated California Labor Code sections 226.7, 516, and 1198 and the applicable IWC Wage Order by willfully failing to authorize and permit Plaintiff and class members t0 take all rest periods; 24. That the Court make an award to the Plaintiff and class members of one (1) hour 0f pay at each employee’s regular rate 0f pay for each workday that a rest period was not authorized and permitted; 25. For all actual, consequential, and incidental losses and damages, according t0 proof; 26. For premiums pursuant to California Labor Code section 226.7(0); 27. For pre-judgment interest on any unpaid rest period premiums from the date such amounts were due, 0r as otherwise provided by law; Page 40 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 28. For attorneys’ fees pursuant t0 California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, 0r as otherwise provided by law; and 29. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and appropriate. As t0 the Fifth Cause 0f Action 30. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendants violated the recordkeeping provisions of California Labor Code section 226(a) and the applicable IWC Wage Order as to Plaintiff and Subclass members, and willfully failed t0 provide accurate itemized wage statements thereto; 31. For all actual, consequential, and incidental losses and damages, according t0 proof; 32. For injunctive relief pursuant t0 California Labor Code section 226(h); 33. For statutory penalties pursuant to California Labor Code section 226©; 34. For attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant t0 California Labor Code section 226(c)(1); and 35. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and appropriate. As t0 the Sixth Cause 0f Action 36. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendants violated California Labor Code sections 201 and 202 by willfully failing to pay overtime wages, minimum wages, and/or meal and rest period premiums, owed at the time of termination of the employment of Plaintiff and other terminated class members; 37. For all actual, consequential and incidental losses and damages, according t0 proof; 38. For waiting time penalties according t0 proof pursuant t0 California Labor Code section 203 for all employees who have left Defendants’ employ; 39. For pre-judgment interest 0n any unpaid wages from the date such amounts were due, 0r as otherwise provided by law; Page 41 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 40. For attorneys’ fees pursuant t0 California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, 0r as otherwise provided by law; and 41. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and appropriate. As t0 the Seventh Cause 0f Action 42. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendants violated California Labor Code section 204 by willfully failing to timely pay Plaintiff and class members overtime wages, minimum wages, and/or meal and rest period premiums, during their employment; 43. For all actual, consequential and incidental losses and damages, according t0 proof; 44. For statutory penalties according t0 proof pursuant t0 California Labor Code section 210; 45. For pre-judgment interest on any unpaid wages from the date such amounts were due, 0r as otherwise provided by law; 46. For attorneys’ fees pursuant t0 California Code 0f Civil Procedure section 1021.5, 0r as otherwise provided by law; and 47. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and appropriate. As t0 the Eighth Cause 0f Action 48. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendants violated California Labor Code section 2802 by willfully failing to reimburse and/or indemnify all business-related expenses and costs incurred by Plaintiff and class members; 49. For unpaid business-related expenses and such general and special damages as may be appropriate; 50. For pre-judgment interest 0n any unpaid business-related expenses from the date such amounts were due, 0r as otherwise provided by law; 51. For all actual, consequential, and incidental losses and damages, according t0 proof; Page 42 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 52. For attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant t0 California Labor Code section 2802(0), 0r as otherwise provided by law; and 53. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and appropriate. As t0 the Ninth Cause 0f Action 54. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendants violated the following California Labor Code provisions as to Plaintiff and/or other aggrieved employees: 510 and 1198 (by failing t0 pay all overtime compensation); 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198 (by failing t0 pay at least minimum wages for all hours worked); 226.7, 512(a), 516, and 1198 (by failing t0 provide all meal periods); 226.7, 516, and 1198 (by failing to authorize and permit all rest periods); 226(a), 1174(d) and 1198 (by failing t0 provide accurate wage statements and maintain accurate payroll records); 201 and 202 (by failing t0 timely pay all earned wages upon termination); 204 (by failing t0 timely pay all earned wages during employment); 2802 (by failing t0 reimburse business expenses); and 2810.5 (by failing t0 provide written notice 0f material terms 0f employment); 55. For civil penalties pursuant t0 California Labor Code sections 210, 226.3, 256, 558, 1174.5, 1 197.1, and/or 2699(a), (f) and (g), for Violations 0f California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 204, 226(a), 226.7, 510, 512(a), 516, 1174(d), 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2802, and 2810.5; 56. For attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant t0 California Labor Code section 2699(g)(1), and any and all other relevant statutes, for Defendant’s Violations 0f California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 204, 226(a), 226.7, 510, 512(a), 516, 1174(d), 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2802, and 2810.5; 57. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law; and 58. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and appropriate. /// /// Page 43 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 As to the Tenth Cause 0f Action 59. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendants’ conduct of failing t0 provide Plaintiff and class members all overtime wages due t0 them, failing t0 provide Plaintiff and class members all minimum wages due to them, failing to provide Plaintiff and class members all meal periods, failing to authorize and permit Plaintiff and class members t0 take all rest periods, failing t0 provide Plaintiff and Class members accurate and complete wage statements, failing to maintain accurate payroll records for Plaintiff and class members, failing to timely pay Plaintiff and class members all earned wages during employment, failing to reimburse Plaintiff and class members for business-related expenses, and failing t0 provide written notice of information material t0 employment, constitutes an unlawful business practice in Violation of California Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.; 60. For restitution 0f unpaid wages t0 Plaintiff and all class members and prejudgment interest from the day such amounts were due and payable; 61. For the appointment of a receiver t0 receive, manage and distribute any and all funds disgorged from Defendants and determined t0 have been wrongfully acquired by Defendants as a result 0f Violations of California Business & Professions Code sections 17200, ez‘ seq; 62. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit incurred herein pursuant to California Code 0f Civil Procedure section 1021.5; and 63. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and appropriate. As t0 the Eleventh Cause 0f Action 64. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendants’ conduct of denying Plaintiff and class members the statutory benefits guaranteed under section 226. 7 constitutes an unfair business practice in Violation of California Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.; 65. For restitution of the statutory benefits under section 226.7 unfairly withheld from Plaintiff and class members and prejudgment interest from the day such amounts were due Page 44 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and payable; 66. For the appointment 0f 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 of Violations of California Business & Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.; 67. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit incurred herein pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5; 68. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law; and 69. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and appropriate. Dated: November 24, 2021 Respectfully submitted, Capstone Law APC By: gfi/JML Bevin Allen Pike Daniel S. Jonathan Trisha K. Monesi Attorneys for Plaintiff Maria Sanchez Page 45 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT EXHIBIT “1” Capstone LAW AFC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, California 90067 310.556.4811 Main | 310.943.0396 Fax ANTHONY CASTILLO 310.712.8169 Direct Anthony.Castillo@capstonelawyers.com May 4, 2021 VIA ONLINE SUBMISSION California Labor & Workforce Development Agency ATTN: PAGA Administrator (https://dir.tfaforms.net/308) Subject: Maria Sanchez v. Cortec Precision Sheet Metal, Ina, er al. Dear PAGA Administrator: This office represents Maria Sanchez in connection With her claims under the California Labor Code. Ms. Sanchez was an employee 0fCORTEC PRECISION SHEET METAL, INC. and/or CORTEC PRECISION INTERNATIONAL SALES CORPORATION. For the purpose 0f this letter, Ms. Sanchez collectively refers to these entities as “CORTEC.” The employers may be contacted directly at the addresses below: CORTEC PRECISION SHEET METAL, INC. 2231 WILL WOOL DRIVE SAN JOSE CA 951 12 CORTEC PRECISION INTERNATIONAL SALES CORPORATION 2231 WILL WOOL DRIVE SAN JOSE CA 951 12 Ms. Sanchez intends t0 seek civil penalties, attorney’s fees, costs, and other available relief for Violations 0f the California Labor Code, Which are recoverable under sections 2698, et seq., the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”). Ms. Sanchez seeks relief 0n behalf 0f herself, the State of California, and other persons Who are or were employed by CORTEC as a non-exempt, hourly paid employee in California and Who received at least one wage statement (“aggrieved employees”). This letter is sent in compliance With the notice and reporting requirements of California Labor Code section 2699.3. CORTEC employed Ms. Sanchez as an hourly paid, non-exempt employee from approximately October 2016 t0 August 2020. Ms. Sanchez worked as a Shipping Department Employee, Hardware Installer, and Inventory Department Employee for CORTEC at its location in San Jose, California. During her employment, Ms. Sanchez typically eight (8) to ten (10) hours 0r more per day, and five (5) 0r more days per week. At the time her employment ended, Ms. Sanchez was compensated approximately $19.25 per hour. Her job duties included, Without limitation, labelling inventory; installing screws, washers, and rivets t0 metal parts; operating hydraulic metal presses; reading blueprints; and performing inventory counts. CORTEC committed one 0r more of the following Labor Code Violations against Ms. Sanchez, the facts and theories 0f Which follow, making her an “aggrieved employee” pursuant t0 California Labor Code section 2699(c): 1 CORTEC’s Companv-Wide and Uniform Pavroll and HR Practices CORTEC PRECISION SHEET METAL, INC. and CORTEC PRECISION INTERNATIONAL SALES CORPORATION are California corporations and a leading sheet metal, assemblies, machining, and frames fabricator for technology-based companies. Upon information and belief, CORTEC maintains a single, centralized Human Resources (HR) department at its company headquarters in San Jose, California, for all non-exempt, hourly paid employees working for CORTEC in California, including Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees. At all relevant times, CORTEC issued and maintained uniform, standardized scheduling and timekeeping practices and procedures for all non-exempt, hourly paid employees in California, including Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees, regardless 0f their location 0r position. Upon information and belief, CORTEC maintains a centralized Payroll department at its corporate headquarters in San Jose, California, which processes payroll for all non-exempt, hourly paid employees working for CORTEC in California, including Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees. Further, CORTEC issues the same formatted wage statements in the same manner for all non-exempt, hourly paid employees working in California, including Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees, irrespective 0f their location, position, or manner in Which each employee’s employment ended. In other words, CORTEC utilized the same methods and formulas When calculating wages due to Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees in California. Violation 0f California Labor Code SS 510 and 1198 - Unpaid Overtime California Labor Code sections 510 and 1198 and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order require employers t0 pay employees working more than eight (8) hours in a day 0r more than forty (40) hours in a workweek at the rate 0f time-and-one-half (1 1/2) times the regular rate ofpay for all hours worked in excess 0f eight (8) hours in a day or more than forty (40) hours in a workweek. The applicable IWC Wage Order further provides that employers are required to pay employees working more than twelve (12) hours in a day overtime compensation at a rate 0f two (2) times their regular rate 0f pay. An employee’s regular rate ofpay includes all remuneration for employment paid to, or on behalf 0f, the employee, including nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive pay. 1 These facts, theories, and claims are based on Ms. Sanchez’s experience and counsel’s review 0f those records currently available relating to Ms. Sanchez’s employment. Discovery conducted in litigation 0f wage and hour claims such as these often reveals additional claims that the aggrieved employee was not initially aware 0f (because the aggrieved employee was not aware 0f the law’s requirements, the employer misinformed its employee 0f the law’s requirements, 0r because the employer effectively hid the Violations). Thus, Ms. Sanchez reserves the right t0 supplement this letter with additional facts, theories, and claims if she becomes aware ofthem subsequent t0 the submission of this letter. CORTEC willfully failed t0 pay all overtime wages owed t0 Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees. During the relevant time period, Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees were not paid overtime premiums for all of the hours they worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a day, in excess of twelve (12) hours in a day, and/or in excess 0f forty (40) hours in a week, because all hours that they worked were not recorded. First, during the relevant period, CORTEC had a company-wide policy and/or practice of improperly rounding employees’ clock-in and clock-out times in its timekeeping system t0 the nearest half (0.5) 0f an hour. CORTEC’S rounding policy resulted in the failure t0 compensate Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees fully for all hours worked, causing Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees to not be paid overtime wages for all of the overtime hours they actually worked. CORTEC’S policy 0f rounding is unfair and has, over time, resulted in the underpayment 0fwages t0 Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees. T0 the extent CORTEC’S rounding policy has taken away time worked that was eligible for overtime, Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees were denied overtime pay for all hours worked. Second, during the relevant period, CORTEC had a policy and/or practice 0f discouraging and impeding Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees from recording hours worked that were outside of their scheduled shifts, in order to limit the amount of overtime employees could accrue. On information and belief, this policy 0f limiting overtime, coupled With CORTEC’S practice of understaffing and assignment 0f heavy workloads (see infra), led Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees to work off-the-clock before and after their scheduled shift times in order t0 complete their assigned tasks. For example, approximately once per week, Ms. Sanchez was required t0 clock out and continue working for up to 15 minutes t0 complete a rush order at the request 0f management. In addition, several times a year, Ms. Sanchez spent 10 minutes getting an early start 0n her daily tasks 0r preparing a rush order before being permitted to clock in for her scheduled shift. Third, CORTEC implemented, on a company-Wide basis, an employer-imposed requirement that Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees undergo mandatory COVID-19 health screenings and temperature checks before their scheduled shifts. Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees were required to locate an authorized supervisor and undergo the mandatory health screenings, Which could take up t0 five (5) minutes each instance, before CORTEC permitted them to clock in for their shifts, but CORTEC did not compensate them for the time they remained under CORTEC’S control. Fourth, during the relevant period, CORTEC had, and continues t0 have, a company-wide policy and/or practice 0f understaffing its worksites While assigning heavy workloads, including pressuring employees t0 meet deadlines and productivity requirements. CORTEC also had a practice of strictly adhering t0 a schedule 0f meal periods, which further caused Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees to not be relieved of their duties for compliant meal periods. CORTEC’S policies and/or practices resulted in a failure t0 provide Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees With adequate meal period coverage, and thus, Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees were not always afforded uninterrupted 30-minute meal periods during shifts When they were entitled t0 receive a meal period. For example, CORTEC only permitted meal periods t0 be taken at 12:00 p.m., and if Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees were still working on their assigned tasks at that time, they were not permitted to take a later meal period and would therefore take a shortened meal or miss their meal period altogether. As another example, twice per week, Ms. Sanchez’s meal periods would be interrupted for five (5) minutes at a time, in order to complete rush orders or assist other departments. Thus, Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees missed and/or had meal periods interrupted or cut short in order to complete their assigned workloads and meet productivity requirements. CORTEC did not pay Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees for the time they continued t0 perform tasks during meal periods. Fifth, during the relevant time period, 0n information and belief, CORTEC implemented a company- Wide policy and practice 0f automatically deducting meal periods from Ms. Sanchez’s and other aggrieved employees’ time records. As a result of this policy, CORTEC deducted 30-minute meal periods from Ms. Sanchez’s and other aggrieved employees’ time records even when meal periods were missed, short, and/or interrupted. Thus, CORTEC did not record all hours worked during meal periods, and Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees performed work during meal periods for Which they were not paid. CORTEC knew 0r should have known that as a result of these company-wide practices and/or policies, Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees were performing their assigned duties off-the- clock before and after their shifts and during meal periods, and were suffered or permitted t0 perform work for Which they were not paid. Because Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees worked shifts 0f eight (8) hours a day or more 0r forty (40) hours a week 0r more, some 0f this off-the-clock work qualified for overtime premium pay. Therefore, Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees were not paid overtime wages for all of the overtime hours they actually worked. Furthermore, 0n information and belief, CORTEC did not pay other aggrieved employees the correct overtime rate for the recorded overtime hours that they generated. In addition t0 an hourly wage, CORTEC paid other aggrieved employees incentive pay, nondiscretionary bonuses, and/or other forms 0f remuneration. However, in Violation of the California Labor Code, CORTEC failed to incorporate all compensation, including incentive pay, nondiscretionary bonuses, and/or other forms 0f remuneration, into the calculation 0f the regular rate 0fpay for purposes 0f calculating the overtime wage rate. Therefore, during times When other aggrieved employees worked overtime and received these other forms 0f pay, CORTEC failed t0 pay all overtime wages by paying a lower overtime rate than required. For example, CORTEC paid other aggrieved employees annual nondiscretionary bonuses. During pay periods that other aggrieved employees were paid overtime wages, CORTEC did not always incorporate the nondiscretionary bonuses and/or incentive pay into other aggrieved employees’ regular rate ofpay and, as a result, paid them at incorrect and lower rates ofpay for overtime hours worked. Specifically, CORTEC paid other aggrieved employees 1.5 times their hourly rate ofpay instead of 1.5 times their regular rate of pay. CORTEC’S failure to properly calculate the overtime rates ofpay based on all remuneration paid has resulted in an underpayment 0f overtime wages to other aggrieved employees 0n a company-Wide basis. Accordingly, Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees were not paid overtime wages for all of the overtime hours they actually worked, in Violation of California Labor Code sections 5 10 and 1198. Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees are entitled to recover civil penalties, attorney’s fees, costs, and interest thereon, pursuant t0 Labor Code sections 558 and/or 2699(a), (f)-(g). Violation 0f California Labor Code $8 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198 - Unpaid Minimum Wages California Labor Code sections 1182. 12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198 require employers to pay employees the minimum wage fixed by the IWC. The payment of a lesser wage than the minimum so fixed is unlawful. Compensable work time is defined in Wage Order N0. 1-2001 as “the time during Which an employee is subject to the control of an employer, and includes all the time the employee is suffered 0r permitted to work, Whether or not required t0 d0 so.” Cal. Code. Regs. tit. 8, § 11010(2)(G) (defining “Hours Worked”). As stated, CORTEC had a company-Wide policy and/or practice of rounding Ms. Sanchez’s and other aggrieved employees’ hourly clock-in and clock-out times in its timekeeping system t0 the nearest half-hour, resulting in the failure to compensate them for all hours worked. Also, due to CORTEC’S restrictions 0n overtime accrual, CORTEC systematically failed t0 pay Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees for actual hours worked before and after scheduled shifts, because these hours were not accurately recorded. As stated, because CORTEC discouraged and impeded Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees from recording hours worked that were outside 0f their scheduled shifts, Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees were required t0 work off-the-clock before and/or after their scheduled shift start and end times, completing assigned job duties, and submitting themselves t0 off-the-clock health screenings. Additionally, as set forth above, due to CORTEC’S uniform practice of understaffing, assignment of heavy workloads, pressure t0 meet deadlines and productivity requirements, strict adherence t0 a schedule of meal periods, and the resulting lack of coverage, Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees were impeded from taking all uninterrupted meal periods to Which they were entitled and were required to work off-the-clock. Moreover, as stated, CORTEC had a company-Wide practice and/or policy of automatically deducting meal periods from Ms. Sanchez’s and other aggrieved employees’ time records, even when meal periods were missed, short, and/or interrupted. Thus, CORTEC systematically failed to pay Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees for actual hours worked during unpaid meal periods because these hours were not always correctly recorded. Thus, CORTEC did not pay at least minimum wages for all hours worked by Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees. Also, t0 the extent that these off-the-clock hours did not qualify for overtime premium payment, CORTEC did not pay at least minimum wages for those hours worked off-the- clock in Violation of California Labor Code sections 1182. 12, 1194, 1197, and 1197. 1. Accordingly, CORTEC regularly failed to pay at least minimum wages t0 Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees for all 0f the hours they worked in Violation of California Labor Code sections 1182. 12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1 and 1198. Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees are entitled to recover civil penalties, attorney’s fees, costs, and interest thereon, pursuant to Labor Code sections 1197.1 and/or 2699(a), (D-(g). Violation 0f California Labor Code $8 226.7, 512(a), 516, and 1198 - Failure to Provide Meal Periods California Labor Code sections 226.7, 5 12(3), 5 16, 1198 and the applicable IWC Wage Order require employers t0 provide meal periods and t0 pay an employee one (1) additional hour 0fpay at the employee’s regular rate for each work day that a meal 0r rest period is not provided. Pursuant to Labor Code sections 226.7 and 5 12(a) and the applicable IWC Wage Order, an employer may not require, cause or permit an employee t0 work for a period of 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 if the total work period per day of the employee is not more than six (6) hours, the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of both the employer and the employee. Under California law, first meal periods must start after n0 more than five hours. Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004, 1041-1042 (2012). Labor Code sections 226.7 and 5 12(a) and the applicable IWC Wage Order also require employers to provide a second meal period 0f not less than thirty (30) minutes if an employee works over ten (10) hours per day 0r t0 pay an employee one (1) additional hour 0fpay at the employee’s regular rate, except that if the total hours worked is no more than twelve (12) hours, the second meal period may be waived by mutual consent 0f the employer and the employee only if the first meal period was not waived. During the relevant time period, as stated, CORTEC had, and continues to have, a company-Wide policy and/or practice of understaffing While assigning heavy workloads, including pressure t0 meet deadlines and productivity requirements. Further, CORTEC had a company-Wide practice 0f strictly adhering t0 a schedule 0f meal periods for Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees, resulting in Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees having their meal periods cut short to finish completing tasks or return to work, or waiting extended periods of time before taking meal periods, due to the heavy workload and lack of coverage. CORTEC’S practices and policies prevented Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees from taking all compliant meal periods t0 Which they were entitled. As a result, Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees would be forced to work in excess of five (5) hours before taking a meal period and, at times, had their meal periods cut short and/or had to forgo their meal periods altogether. For example, because CORTEC only permitted meal periods t0 be taken at 12:00 p.m., Ms. Sanchez took her meal periods late, after the end 0f her sixth 0r seventh hour 0f work, when her shift started at 5:00 a.m. 0r 6:00 a.m. Furthermore, if Ms. Sanchez was still engaged in tasks t0 meet a deadline or CORTEC’S productivity expectations at the designated meal period start time, she was not afforded the opportunity t0 take a later meal period. In addition, Ms. Sanchez’s meal periods were interrupted or cut short twice per week by five (5) minutes per instance to complete rush orders or assist other departments. Furthermore, as stated, CORTEC implemented a company-Wide policy and practice of automatically deducting meal periods from Ms. Sanchez’s and other aggrieved employees’ time records. As a result 0f this policy, CORTEC deducted 30 minutes from Ms. Sanchez’s and other aggrieved employees’ time records even When meal periods were missed, short, and/or interrupted. Thus, CORTEC systematically failed to correctly record meal periods. Moreover, CORTEC did not provide Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees With second 30- minute meal periods on days that they worked in excess 0f ten (10) hours in one day. During her employment, Ms. Sanchez worked shifts in excess 0f ten (10) hours or more hours per day but was not provided an uninterrupted second 30-minute meal period. Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees did not sign valid meal period waivers on days that they were entitled to meal periods and were not relieved of all duties. At all times herein mentioned, CORTEC knew 0r should have known that, as a result of these policies, Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees were not actually relieved 0f all duties to take timely, uninterrupted meal periods. CORTEC further knew or should have known that it did not pay Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees meal period premiums When meal periods were late, interrupted, shortened, or missed. Moreover, CORTEC engaged in a company-Wide practice and/or policy 0f not paying all meal period premiums owed When compliant meal periods are not provided. Because 0f CORTEC’S practices and/or policies, Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees have not received premium pay for all missed, late, and interrupted meal periods. Alternatively, to the extent that CORTEC did pay other aggrieved employees premium pay for missed, late, and interrupted meal periods, CORTEC did not pay other aggrieved employees at the correct rate ofpay for premiums because CORTEC systematically failed to include all forms 0f compensation, such as incentive pay, nondiscretionary bonuses, and/or other forms 0f remuneration, in the regular rate 0f pay. Accordingly, CORTEC failed to provide all meal periods in Violation of California Labor Code sections 226.7, 5 12(a), 516, and 1198. Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees are entitled t0 civil penalties, attorney’s fees, costs, and interest thereon, pursuant t0 Labor Code sections 558 and/or 2699(a), (D-(g). Violation 0f California Labor Code $8 226.7, 516, and 1198 - Failure t0 Authorize and Permit Rest Periods California Labor Code sections 226.7, 516, 1198 and the applicable IWC Wage Order require employers to provide rest periods and t0 pay an employee one (1) additional hour 0fpay at the employee’s regular rate for each work day that a meal 0r rest period is not provided. California Labor Code section 226.7 provides that no employer shall require an employee to work during any rest period mandated by an applicable order of the California IWC. The applicable IWC Wage Order provides that “[e]very employer shall authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods, Which insofar as practicable shall be in the middle of 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 maj0r fraction thereof” unless the total daily work time is less than three and one-half (3 1/2) hours. To comply with its obligation to authorize and permit rest periods under California Labor Code section 226.7 and the applicable IWC Wage Order, an employer must “relinquish any control over how employees spend their break time, and relieve their employees of all duties-including the obligation that an employee remain on call. A rest period, in short, must be a period of rest.” Augustus, et al. v. ABM Security Services, Ina, 2 Cal. 5th 257, 269-270 (2016). During the relevant time period, CORTEC regularly failed to authorize and permit Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees to take a ten (10) minute rest period per each four (4) hour period worked or major fraction thereof. As with meal periods, CORTEC’S company-wide practices, including understaffing and assigning heavy workloads, prevented Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees from being relieved 0f all duty to take rest periods. Additionally, CORTEC strictly adhered to a schedule of rest periods, which, coupled With CORTEC’S failure t0 provide adequate rest period coverage, further led t0 Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees not being authorized and permitted to take compliant rest periods. For example, CORTEC scheduled rest periods at 9: 15 a.m. and 2:00 pm. each day, and if Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees were still engaged in time-sensitive tasks 0r tasks that could not be immediately paused at the designated times, they would receive a shortened rest period 0r miss their rest period altogether. Additionally, on information and belief, during the relevant time period, CORTEC maintained and implemented a company-wide on-premises rest period policy, which mandated that Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees remain on the work premises during their rest periods. Because Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees were restricted from leaving the premises during rest periods, they were denied the ability t0 use their rest periods freely for their own purposes, such as running personal errands. Thus, CORTEC effectively maintained control over Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees during rest periods. As a result 0f CORTEC’S practices and policies, Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees worked shifts in excess 0f 3.5 hours, in excess of 6 hours, and in excess of 10 hours Without receiving all uninterrupted 10-minute rest periods to which they were entitled. For example, Ms. Sanchez’s rest periods were interrupted twice per week and she missed rest periods 1-3 times per month because of the heavy workload and lack of coverage. Further, Ms. Sanchez did not receive a third rest period When she worked shifts in excess of 10 hours. CORTEC also has engaged in a company-wide practice and/or policy of not paying all rest period premiums owed When compliant rest periods are not authorized and permitted. Because of this practice and/or policy, Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees have not received premium pay for all missed rest periods. Alternatively, to the extent that CORTEC did pay other aggrieved employees one (1) additional hour 0fpremium pay for missed rest periods, CORTEC did not pay other aggrieved employees at the correct rate ofpay for premiums because CORTEC failed to include all forms of compensation, such as incentive pay, nondiscretionary bonuses, and/or other forms 0f remuneration, in the regular rate 0f pay. Accordingly, CORTEC failed to authorize and permit all rest periods in Violation of California Labor Code sections 226.7, 516, and 1198. Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees are entitled t0 civil penalties, attorney’s fees, costs, and interest thereon, pursuant t0 Labor Code sections 558 and/or 2699(60: (D-(g)- Violation 0f California Labor Code SS 226(a), 1174(d), and 1198 - Non-Compliant Wage Statements and Failure t0 Maintain Accurate Pavroll Records California Labor Code section 226(a) requires employers t0 make, keep and provide true, accurate, and complete employment records. CORTEC has not provided Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees With properly itemized wage statements. Labor Code section 226(6) provides that if an employer fails to comply with providing an employee With properly itemized wages statements as set forth in 226(a), then the employee is entitled t0 recover the greater 0f all actual damages 0r $50 for the initial pay period in which a Violation occurs and $100 per employee for each Violation in a subsequent pay period, not t0 exceed $4,000. Further, Labor Code section 226.3 provides that any employer who violates section 226(3) shall be subject to a civil penalty in the amount of $250 per employee per Violation in an initial citation and $1,000 per employee for each Violation in a subsequent citation, for Which the employer fails t0 provide the employee a wage statement or fails to keep the required records pursuant to Section 226(a). During the relevant time period, CORTEC has knowingly and intentionally provided Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees With uniform, incomplete, and inaccurate wage statements. For example, CORTEC issued uniform wage statements t0 Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees that fail t0 correctly list: gross wages earned; total hours worked; net wages earned; and all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period, including overtime rates 0f pay, and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate. Specifically, CORTEC violated sections 226(a)(1), 226(a)(2), 226(a)(5), and 226(a)(9). Because CORTEC did not record the time Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees spent working off-the-clock, improperly rounded their total hours worked, and deducted time from their records for meal periods that were interrupted and/or missed (and therefore time for Which they should have been paid), CORTEC did not list the correct amount 0f gross wages and net wages earned by Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees in compliance With section 226(a)(1) and section 226(a)(5), respectively. For the same reason, CORTEC failed to accurately list the total number 0f hours worked by Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees, in Violation of section 226(a)(2), and failed to list the applicable hourly rates 0fpay in effect during the pay period and the corresponding accurate number 0f hours worked at each hourly rate, in Violation 0f section 226(a)(9). Also, because CORTEC did not calculate other aggrieved employees’ regular rate 0fpay correctly for purposes of paying overtime, CORTEC did not list the correct amount of gross wages in compliance With section 226(a)(1). For the same reason, CORTEC also failed to list the correct amount of net wages in Violation 0f section 226(a)(5). CORTEC also failed to correctly list all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period, namely, correct overtime rates of pay, in Violation 0f section 226(a)(9). The wage statement deficiencies also include, among other things, failing to list the number of piece- rate units earned and any applicable piece rate if the employee is paid 0n a piece-rate basis; failing to list all deductions; failing t0 list the name 0f the employee and only the last four digits of his or her social security number or an employee identification number other than a social security number; failing to list the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer; failing t0 list the inclusive dates 0f the period for Which aggrieved employees were paid; and/or failing to state all hours worked as a result 0f not recording or stating the hours they worked off-the-clock. California Labor Code section 1174(d) provides that “[e]very person employing labor in this state shall . . . [k]eep a record showing the names and addresses 0f all employees employed and the ages 0f all minors” and “[keep, at a central location in the state 0r at the plants or 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 or establishments. . . .” Labor Code section 1174.5 provides that employers are subject to a $500 civil penalty if they fail to maintain accurate and complete records as required by section 1174(d). During the relevant time period, and in Violation of Labor Code section 1174(d), CORTEC willfully failed to maintain accurate payroll records for Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees showing the daily hours they worked and the wages paid thereto as a result 0f failing to record the off-the-clock hours that they worked and improperly rounding Ms. Sanchez’s and other aggrieved employees’ total hours worked. California Labor Code section 1198 provides that the maximum hours of work and the standard conditions 0f labor shall be those fixed by the Labor Commissioner and as set forth in the applicable IWC Wage Orders. Section 1198 further provides that “[t]he employment 0f any employees for longer hours than those fixed by the order or under conditions of labor prohibited by the order is unlawful.” Pursuant to the applicable IWC Wage Order, employers are required to keep accurate time records showing When the employee begins and ends each work period and meal period. During the relevant time period, CORTEC failed, on a company-Wide basis, t0 keep accurate records 0f work period and meal period start and stop times for Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees, in Violation 0f section 1198. As stated, CORTEC engaged in a company-Wide practice and/or policy 0f automatically deducting meal periods from Ms. Sanchez’s and other aggrieved employees’ time records regardless 0f if 0r when meal periods were actually taken, and thereby failed to keep accurate records 0f meal start and end times for Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees. Furthermore, in light of CORTEC’s failure to provide Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees With second 30- minute meal periods to Which they were entitled, CORTEC kept no records of meal start and end times for second meal periods. Because CORTEC failed t0 provide the correct net and gross wages earned, applicable rates of pay, and number of total hours worked on wage statements, Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees have been prevented from verifying, solely from information on the wage statements themselves, that they were paid correctly and in full. Instead, Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees have had to 100k t0 sources outside 0f the wage statements themselves and reconstruct time records to determine whether in fact they were paid correctly and the extent of underpayment, thereby causing them injury. Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees are entitled t0 recover civil penalties, attorney’s fees, costs, and interest thereon pursuant t0 Labor Code sections 226.3, 1174.5, and/or 2699(a), (D-(g). Violation 0f California Labor Code 8 204 - Failure t0 Timelv PaV Wages During Emplovment California Labor Code section 204 requires that all wages earned by any person in any employment between the lst and the 15th days, inclusive, 0f any calendar month, other than those wages due upon termination 0f an employee, are due and payable between the 16th and the 26th day of the month during Which the labor was performed, and 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. California Labor Code section 204 also requires 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. Alternatively, California Labor Code section 204 provides that the requirements 0f this section are deemed satisfied by the payment 0fwages for weekly, biweekly, 0r semimonthly payroll if the wages are paid not more than seven (7) calendar days following the close of the payroll period. During the relevant time period, CORTEC failed t0 pay Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees all wages due t0 them, including, but not limited to, overtime wages, minimum wages, and/or meal and rest period premiums Within any time period specified by California Labor Code section 204. Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees are entitled t0 recover civil penalties, attorney’s fees, costs, and interest thereon, pursuant t0 Labor Code sections 210 and/or 2699(a), (D-(g). Violation 0f California Labor Code SS 201, 202, and 203 - Failure to Timelv Pav Final Wages Upon Termination California Labor Code sections 201, 202, and 203 provide that if an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the time 0f discharge are due and payable immediately, and that if an 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 0f his 0r her intention to quit, in Which case the employee is entitled to his 0r her wages at the time 0f quitting. CORTEC willfully failed t0 pay Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees who are n0 longer employed by CORTEC all their earned wages, including, but not limited to, overtime wages, 10 minimum wages, and/or meal and rest period premiums either at the time of discharge, or within seventy-two (72) hours 0f their leaving CORTEC’s employ. Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees are entitled t0 recover civil penalties, attorney’s fees, costs, and interest thereon, pursuant t0 Labor Code sections 256 and/or 2699(a), (D-(g). Violation of California Labor Code 8 2802 - Unreimbursed Business Expenses California Labor Code section 2802 requires employers to pay for all necessary expenditures and losses incurred by the employee in the performance 0f his or her job. The purpose of Labor Code section 2802 is t0 prevent employers from passing off their cost 0f doing business and operating expenses on t0 their employees. Cochran v. Schwan ’s Home Service, Ina, 228 Cal. App. 4th 1137, 1144 (2014). The applicable wage order, IWC Wage Order 1-2001, provides that: “[w]hen tools 0r equipment are required by the employer or are necessary to the performance 0f a job, such tools and equipment shall be provided and maintained by the employer, except that an employee whose wages are at least two (2) times the minimum wage provided herein may be required to provide and maintain hand tools and equipment customarily required by the trade or craft.” CORTEC, 0n a company-wide basis, required that Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees use their own personal cellular phones and/or cellular data t0 carry out their job duties, but failed to reimburse them for the costs of their work-related cellular phone expenses. For example, Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees were required t0 use their personal cellular phones t0 complete their work-related tasks, such as communicating With supervisors and third-party vendors about the status of orders. Although CORTEC required Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees to utilize their personal cellular phones t0 carry out their work-related responsibilities, CORTEC failed to fully reimburse them for this cost. Additionally, CORTEC required Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees t0 purchase their own supplies and tools, such as pencils, Post-It Notes, toolboxes, screwdrivers, and cutters. For example, Ms. Sanchez was required t0 spend approximately $240.00 0n these supplies in order t0 carry out her work-related duties. Although CORTEC required Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees t0 purchase their own supplies and tools for use on the job, CORTEC did not reimburse them for these expenses. CORTEC could have provided Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees With the actual tools for use 0n the job, such as company phones, and supplies and tools. Or, CORTEC could have fillly reimbursed employees for their cellular phone and supplies and tools expenses. Instead, CORTEC passed these operating costs off onto Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees. At all relevant times, Ms. Sanchez did not earn at least two (2) times the minimum wage. Thus, CORTEC had, and continues to have, a company-Wide policy and/or practice of not reimbursing employees for expenses necessarily incurred in Violation 0f California Labor Code section 2802. Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees are entitled t0 recover civil penalties, attorney’s fees, costs, and interest thereon, pursuant t0 Labor Code sections 2699(a), (D-(g). 11 Violation 0f California Labor Code 8 2810.5(a)(1)(A)-(C) - Failure t0 Provide Notice 0f Material Terms 0f Emplovment California’s Wage Theft Prevention Act was enacted to ensure that employers provide employees With basic information material to their employment relationship at the time of hiring, and to ensure that employees are given written and timely notice 0f any changes t0 basic information material t0 their employment. Codified at California Labor Code section 2810.5, the Wage Theft Prevention Act provides that at the time 0f hiring, an employer must provide written notice to employees of the rate(s) ofpay and basis thereof, Whether paid by the hour, shift, day, week, salary, piece, commission, or otherwise, including any rates for overtime, the regular payday designated by the employer, and any allowances claims as part of the minimum wage, including meal or lodging allowances. Effective January 1, 201 5, an employer’s written notice pursuant to section 2810.5 must also include a statement that the employee may accrue and use sick leave; has a right to request and use accrued paid sick leave; may not be terminated 0r retaliated against for using or requesting the use 0f accrued paid sick leave; and has the right t0 file a complaint against an employer Who retaliates. CORTEC failed to provide Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees written notice that lists all the requisite information set forth in Labor Code section 2810.5(a)(1)(A)-(C). CORTEC’S failure t0 provide Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees With written notice 0f basic information regarding their employment with CORTEC is in Violation 0f Labor Code section 2810.5. Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees are entitled t0 recover civil penalties, attorney’s fees, costs, and interest thereon, pursuant t0 Labor Code sections 2699(a), (D-(g). California Labor Code 8 558(a) California Labor Code section 558(a) provides “[a]ny employer 0r other person acting 0n behalf of an employer Who violates, 0r causes to be violated, a section 0f this chapter or any provision regulating hours and days 0fwork in any order of the Industrial Welfare Commission shall be subj ect 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 ($100) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid. . . .” Labor Code section 558(0) provides that “[t]he civil penalties provided for in this section are in addition to any other civil or criminal penalty provided by law.” CORTEC, at all relevant times, was an employer or person acting on behalf 0f an employer(s) Who violated Ms. Sanchez’s and other aggrieved employees’ rights by Violating various sections 0f the California Labor Code. Accordingly, Ms. Sanchez seeks the remedies set forth in Labor Code section 558 for herself, the State of California, and all other aggrieved employees. Specifically, pursuant t0 PAGA, and in particular California Labor Code sections 2699(a), 2699.3(a) and 2699.3(0), 2699.5, and 558, Ms. Sanchez, acting in the public interest as a private attorney general, seeks assessment and collection of civil penalties for herself, all other aggrieved employees, and the State 0f California against CORTEC for Violations of California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 226(a), 226.7, 510, 512(a), 516, 1174(d), 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2802, and 2810.5. 12 Therefore, on behalf 0f all aggrieved employees, Ms. Sanchez seeks all applicable civil penalties related to these Violations 0f the California Labor Code pursuant t0 PAGA. Thank you for your attention t0 this matter. Ifyou have any questions, please contact me at the phone number 0r address below: Anthony Castillo Capstone Law APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 (310) 556-4811 Best Regards, Anthony? iastillo Copy: CORTEC PRECISION SHEET METAL, INC. (Via U.S. Certified Mail); CORTEC PRECISION INTERNATIONAL SALES CORPORATION (Via U.S. Certified Mail) 13 B* c{lr -:'6Hkr t:r;a :': fi$ffiE c"r.;; m*f;E *#i ii ffifllHI -d'l ., s-"ff$H" ,.:& L '" rr.dt- '+-*.# u .". - i*.a # " r'=l "sof,rN$ ,-''' :., I Complete items 1, 2, and 3. r Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. r Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. r 1. Adi0l6 Addres$.ed-to: ,i conrrc pREclstoN SHEET METAL, tt!c, .. 2237 WILL WOOL DRIVE SAN JOSE CA 95112 illtHt I]r ffi il rr ilffill ill lrril ilil ilil lil 3. ServiceType tr PriorityMailExptd gss 9408 0424 51e$ s686 76 7[eE ],P5U nE01 BS?1 3?5? suredMair RestriciedDerivery Restrioted Delivery B. Received by (Prtnbd Name) D, ls delivery address different from item 'l? lf YES, enter delivery address below: tr rlult Signature E Registered MailrM tr/f,dult Signature Re.stricted Delivery tr Registered Mail Resbictra Mcertified Mail@ Deiivery tr Certified Mail Restricted Delivery tr Heturn Fleceiptfor E Collect on Delivery - Merchandise' tr coll*t on Delivery Restricted Delivery tr Signature Confirmat'tofiB -sured Mail - tr Signature Confirmation Domestic Return Receipt1 PS Form 381 1, April 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Qz .f FH rrl >i= i+ (-.!A *.* !--l/. llJ -A = -,4 CA SJV2 Fn7 -(h a1- i.>4 llt- \&;a Or C.l.c\ HF U trtfl lr m r r! Etr Etr Ft EI EI E E Ir ru rq trf, ru E r! r! m IT fq EO EA r-'l EI E E ETr ru ri Ef ru trf, f- o C)I o+ U) ;nrnrO 'YO {da. L- -^' lIReturnBeceipt(hardcopy) $ Z.o ) E Return Receipt (electronic) $ - I Cenified Mail Restrict€d Delivery $ - EAdult Signatur€ Roquired $ _ EAdult Signatur€ Restricted Oelivery $ - 2231WILL WOOL DRIVE ii- st"-rie'zF+a6 I oN lo ;i cA r;: ;:ii;' - " -' I Complete items 1, 2, and 3, I Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. I Attach this cad to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article AddresseQ to: i CORTEC PRECISION INTERNATIONAL ] SALES CORPORATION 2231WILL WOOL DRIVE SAN JOSE CA 95112 illlulr ut ffi il il llflil fi r il I il illlfi t ilt 3. ServiceType tr Adult Signature tr/rdult Signature Bestricted Delivery ffcenified Mait@ tr Certirled Mail Restricted Delivery n Colleot on Delivery g5g0 9403 0424 516& s66e 83 2. Article Number (fransfer from seruice label) E Collect on Delivery Besirioted Delivery*rsured Mail ?EeE lE5U EnEl 8s?5 3?'+E rsured Mail Restricted Delivery)ver $500) tr Pfority Mail Expre$ tr Registered MailtM tr Hegisiered Mail Reticte Delivery Il Return R$eiot for Merchandise' n Signature Confi rmaiions tr Signature Conf irmatidl Resiricied Delivery B. Received by (Printed Name) D. ls delivery address different from item 1? If YES, enter delivery address below: Domestic Return Receipt: PS Form 381 1 , Aprlt 201 5 PSN 7530-02-o0o-eos3 a\ rrl J <.], (n J ZEI F Lr a.lt< *,/ a4ZA-!-j '^ - [nAQ ro\ t!,A-1 -tril!,V\gr^,i r* -\ LJ !,/ z5> * - A, JXa^) \v }ir)>-zal)77 ? c.a ill d d, c'.1 U H- U E :f rr m IT rr ED EO rl E E E E IT ru r{ E ru E rr LIs $UrI H r! m TT rL€ EB rq Erf EI Elr ru rl E ru E:] r! O OI () rn EI ., LU !{ ?-\l rN 3F < 5*- -t :4rJl/liervrces & l-ees (ch@k box, add fqaas e9prypliate) KBeturn F@etpt (hardcopy) S Z r tf S E Returh Receipt (electronic) $ - E Cedlfiod Mail Restriclod Dolivery $ _ EAdutt Signature Required $ _ EAdult Signature Restricted Deilvery $ _ Y? Gtr{.. i riar. Jn'(ctftc"fsrr {es $nrporovtq ,:3;-r;r,.zp+.4*2231-WtttWOOI-DRlVE.--------- VT. Article Address_fid'h: ‘SAN JOSE CA 95112 COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION A. Signature X l Complete items 1, 2, and 3. I Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. l Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece. or on the front if space permits. D Agent E3 Addressee _ B. ceived by (Printed Name) C. Dte of Deilvary 4) 12M C x3 "7- 2/2 D. ls delivery addness different from item 1? El Yes fl. Article Addressed to: -w‘ f If YES, enter delivery address below: D NoCORTEC PRECISION INTERNATIONAL 1SALES CORPORATION i 2231 WILL WOOL DRIVE SAN JOSE CA 95112 7 nullllulmlmuImmm um IIIuImII fin 9590 9403 0424 5163 3666 33 u 32$:flfimmm mum, u Mm'ynmmrD Gallant on Daflvay Marchmdlse - U S' nature Confirmationm2. Article Number {Transfer from serwce label) E figmfl‘afidmw “59mm De‘lvery D Sggnature Confirmaflon ed Merl Restricted Delive Restricted Delivery ?nen lean nnnl 35H 37L”: 53m, w u, PS Form 381 1, April 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt l: SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Signature D Agentx CO [ML E3 AddrassesB finafved by (Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery IVLR (pm 9’! '24 D. ls delivery address different from item 1? D Yes If YES. enter delivery address below: D No I Complete items 1, 2, and 3. I Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. I Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. CORTEC PRECISION SHEET METAL, INC. 2231 WILL WOOL DRIVE 3- Servffie Ema u Priority Mail Express® llllllll!llllllllllllllllllllllllllIllllllllll U WD caifiiigfl‘atgg Hewleth Delivery D gelgistered Mail Restrictedau e tvery9590 9403 0424 5163 3666 76 El canineu MannesmmdMary n Rama RenarpuorU Called un Deilvety Merchandise2. Article Number (Tmfer from service lama U 001m onWM“WWI Delivery D S‘Qna‘U’e 0°"firma*'°"""“ 'mmd Man D Signature Confirmation7 l] E' El l E “i El U U l] l a a 7 =1 3 ? 5 7 3%“ Restricted Denvery Rammed Delivery PS Form 381 1, April 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt , 1 EXHIBIT “2” Capstone LAW AFC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, California 90067 310.556.4811 Main | 310.943.0396 Fax ANTHONY CASTILLO 310.712.8169 Direct Anthony.Castillo@capstonelawyers.com August 4, 2021 VIA ONLINE SUBMISSION California Labor & Workforce Development Agency ATTN: PAGA Administrator (https://dir.tfaforms.net/3 10) Subject: Maria Sanchez v. Cortec Precision Sheet Metal, Ina, er al. LWDA Case N0. LWDA-CM-83I I 67-21 -AMENDED NOTICE Dear PAGA Administrator: This office represents Maria Sanchez in connection With her claims under the California Labor Code. Ms. Sanchez was an employee 0fCORTEC PRECISION SHEET METAL, INC. and/or CORTEC PRECISION INTERNATIONAL SALES CORPORATION. For the purpose of this letter, Ms. Sanchez collectively refers to these entities as “CORTEC.” We previously provided notice of Ms. Sanchez’s claims t0 the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) on May 4, 2021, and submitted the applicable filing fee pursuant t0 Labor Code section 2699.3(a)(1)(B). This amended notice supplements Ms. Sanchez’s prior LWDA notice and is intended to clarify the facts and theories supporting her claims. The employers may be contacted directly at the addresses below: CORTEC PRECISION SHEET METAL, INC. 2231 WILL WOOL DRIVE SAN JOSE CA 951 12 CORTEC PRECISION INTERNATIONAL SALES CORPORATION 2231 WILL WOOL DRIVE SAN JOSE CA 951 12 Ms. Sanchez intends to seek civil penalties, attorney’s fees, costs, and other available relief for Violations 0f the California Labor Code, Which are recoverable under sections 2698, et seq., the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act 0f 2004 (“PAGA”). Ms. Sanchez seeks relief 0n behalf 0f herself, the State 0f California, and other persons who are or were employed by CORTEC as a non-exempt, hourly paid employee in California and Who received at least one wage statement (“aggrieved employees”). This letter is sent in compliance With the notice and reporting requirements of California Labor Code section 2699.3. CORTEC employed Ms. Sanchez as an hourly paid, non-exempt employee from approximately October 2016 t0 August 2020. Ms. Sanchez worked as a Shipping Department Employee, Hardware Installer, and Inventory Department Employee for CORTEC at its location in San Jose, California. During her employment, Ms. Sanchez typically eight (8) to ten (10) hours 0r more per day, and five (5) 0r more days per week. At the time her employment ended, Ms. Sanchez was compensated approximately $19.25 per hour. Her job duties included, Without limitation, labelling inventory; installing screws, washers, and rivets t0 metal parts; operating hydraulic metal presses; reading blueprints; and performing inventory counts. CORTEC committed one 0r more of the following Labor Code Violations against Ms. Sanchez, the facts and theories 0f Which follow, making her an “aggrieved employee” pursuant t0 California Labor Code section 2699(0): 1 CORTEC’s Companv-Wide and Uniform Pavroll and HR Practices CORTEC PRECISION SHEET METAL, INC. and CORTEC PRECISION INTERNATIONAL SALES CORPORATION are California corporations and a leading sheet metal, assemblies, machining, and frames fabricator for technology-based companies. Upon information and belief, CORTEC maintains a single, centralized Human Resources (HR) department at its company headquarters in San Jose, California, for all non-exempt, hourly paid employees working for CORTEC in California, including Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees. At all relevant times, CORTEC issued and maintained uniform, standardized scheduling and timekeeping practices and procedures for all non-exempt, hourly paid employees in California, including Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees, regardless 0f their location or position. Upon information and belief, CORTEC maintains a centralized Payroll department at its corporate headquarters in San Jose, California, which processes payroll for all non-exempt, hourly paid employees working for CORTEC in California, including Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees. Further, CORTEC issues the same formatted wage statements in the same manner for all non-exempt, hourly paid employees working in California, including Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees, irrespective 0f their location, position, or manner in Which each employee’s employment ended. In other words, CORTEC utilized the same methods and formulas When calculating wages due to Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees in California. Violation 0f California Labor Code $8 510 and 1198 - Unpaid Overtime California Labor Code sections 510 and 1198 and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order require employers t0 pay employees working more than eight (8) hours in a day 0r more than forty (40) hours in a workweek at the rate 0f time-and-one-half (1 1/2) times the regular rate ofpay for all hours worked in excess 0f eight (8) hours in a day or more than forty (40) hours in a workweek. The applicable IWC Wage Order further provides that employers are required 1 These facts, theories, and claims are based on Ms. Sanchez’s experience and counsel’s review 0f those records currently available relating to Ms. Sanchez’s employment. Discovery conducted in litigation of wage and hour claims such as these often reveals additional claims that the aggrieved employee was not initially aware 0f (because the aggrieved employee was not aware 0f the law’s requirements, the employer misinformed its employee 0f the law’s requirements, 0r because the employer effectively hid the Violations). Thus, Ms. Sanchez reserves the right t0 supplement this letter with additional facts, theories, and claims if she becomes aware ofthem subsequent t0 the submission of this letter. to pay employees working more than twelve (12) hours in a day overtime compensation at a rate 0f two (2) times their regular rate of pay. An employee’s regular rate ofpay includes all remuneration for employment paid to, or on behalf 0f, the employee, including nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive pay. CORTEC willfully failed t0 pay all overtime wages owed t0 Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees. During the relevant time period, Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees were not paid overtime premiums for all of the hours they worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a day, in excess of twelve (12) hours in a day, and/or in excess 0f forty (40) hours in a week, because all hours that they worked were not recorded. First, during the relevant period, CORTEC had a company-Wide policy and/or practice of improperly rounding or underreporting employees’ clock-in and clock-out time durations in its timekeeping system t0 the nearest half (0.5) 0f an hour. CORTEC’S rounding policy resulted in the failure t0 compensate Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees fully for all hours worked, causing Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees t0 not be paid overtime wages for all 0f the overtime hours they actually worked. CORTEC’S policy of rounding is unfair and has, over time, resulted in the underpayment 0fwages t0 Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees. To the extent CORTEC’S rounding policy has taken away time worked that was eligible for overtime, Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees were denied overtime pay for all hours worked. Second, during the relevant period, CORTEC had a policy and/or practice 0f discouraging and impeding Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees from recording hours worked that were outside of their scheduled shifts, in order t0 limit the amount of overtime employees could accrue. On information and belief, this policy 0f limiting overtime, coupled With CORTEC’s practice of understaffing and assignment 0f heavy workloads (see infra), led Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees to work off-the-clock before and after their scheduled shift times in order t0 complete their assigned tasks. For example, approximately once per week, Ms. Sanchez was required t0 clock out and continue working for up to 15 minutes to complete a rush order at the request of management. In addition, several times a year, Ms. Sanchez spent 10 minutes getting an early start 0n her daily tasks 0r preparing a rush order before being permitted to clock in for her scheduled shift. Third, CORTEC implemented, on a company-Wide basis, an employer-imposed requirement that Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees undergo mandatory COVID-19 health screenings and temperature checks before their scheduled shifts. Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees were required t0 locate an authorized supervisor and undergo the mandatory health screenings, Which could take up t0 five (5) minutes each instance, before CORTEC permitted them to clock in for their shifts, but CORTEC did not compensate them for the time they remained under CORTEC’s control. Fourth, during the relevant period, CORTEC had, and continues t0 have, a company-wide policy and/or practice 0f understaffing its worksites While assigning heavy workloads, including pressuring employees to meet deadlines and productivity requirements. CORTEC also had a practice 0f strictly adhering t0 a schedule 0f meal periods, which further caused Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees to not be relieved of their duties for compliant meal periods. CORTEC’S policies and/or practices resulted in a failure to provide Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees with adequate meal period coverage, and thus, Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees were not always afforded uninterrupted 30-minute meal periods during shifts When they were entitled t0 receive a meal period. For example, CORTEC only permitted meal periods t0 be taken at 12:00 p.m., and if Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees were still working on their assigned tasks at that time, they were not permitted to take a later meal period and would therefore take a shortened meal or miss their meal period altogether. As another example, twice per week, Ms. Sanchez’s meal periods would be interrupted for five (5) minutes at a time, in order t0 complete rush orders 0r assist other departments. Thus, Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees missed and/or had meal periods interrupted or cut short in order to complete their assigned workloads and meet productivity requirements. CORTEC did not pay Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees for the time they continued t0 perform tasks during meal periods. Fifth, during the relevant time period, 0n information and belief, CORTEC implemented a company- Wide policy and/or practice 0f automatically deducting meal periods from Ms. Sanchez’s and other aggrieved employees’ time records. As a result of this policy, CORTEC deducted 30-minute meal periods from Ms. Sanchez’s and other aggrieved employees’ time records even When meal periods were missed, short, and/or interrupted. Thus, CORTEC did not record all hours worked during meal periods, and Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees performed work during meal periods for Which they were not paid. CORTEC knew 0r should have known that as a result of these company-wide practices and/or policies, Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees were performing their assigned duties off-the- clock before and after their shifts and during meal periods, and were suffered or permitted t0 perform work for which they were not paid. Because Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees worked shifts of eight (8) hours a day or more 0r forty (40) hours a week 0r more, some 0f this off-the-clock work qualified for overtime premium pay. Therefore, Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees were not paid overtime wages for all of the overtime hours they actually worked. Furthermore, 0n information and belief, CORTEC did not pay other aggrieved employees the correct overtime rate for the recorded overtime hours that they generated. In addition t0 an hourly wage, CORTEC paid other aggrieved employees incentive pay, nondiscretionary bonuses, and/or other forms 0f remuneration. However, in Violation of the California Labor Code, CORTEC failed to incorporate all compensation, including incentive pay, nondiscretionary bonuses, and/or other forms of remuneration, into the calculation of the regular rate 0fpay for purposes 0f calculating the overtime wage rate. Therefore, during times When other aggrieved employees worked overtime and received these other forms 0f pay, CORTEC failed to pay all overtime wages by paying a lower overtime rate than required. For example, CORTEC paid other aggrieved employees annual nondiscretionary bonuses. During pay periods that other aggrieved employees were paid overtime wages, CORTEC did not always incorporate the nondiscretionary bonuses and/or incentive pay into other aggrieved employees’ regular rate ofpay and, as a result, paid them at incorrect and lower rates ofpay for overtime hours worked. Specifically, CORTEC paid other aggrieved employees 1.5 times their hourly rate ofpay instead 0f 1.5 times their regular rate 0f pay. CORTEC’S failure to properly calculate the overtime rates 0fpay based on all remuneration paid has resulted in an underpayment 0f overtime wages to other aggrieved employees 0n a company-Wide basis. Accordingly, Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees were not paid overtime wages for all 0f the overtime hours they actually worked, in Violation of California Labor Code sections 5 10 and 1198. Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees are entitled to recover civil penalties, attorney’s fees, costs, and interest thereon, pursuant t0 Labor Code sections 558 and/or 2699(a), (f)-(g). Violation 0f California Labor Code $8 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198 - Unpaid Minimum Wages California Labor Code sections 1182. 12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198 require employers to pay employees the minimum wage fixed by the IWC. The payment of a lesser wage than the minimum so fixed is unlawful. Compensable work time is defined in IWC Wage Order N0. 1-2001 as “the time during which an employee is subj ect to the control 0f an employer, and includes all the time the employee is suffered 0r permitted to work, Whether or not required t0 d0 so.” Cal. Code. Regs. tit. 8, § 11010(2)(G) (defining “Hours Worked”). As stated, CORTEC had a company-Wide policy and/or practice of rounding or underreporting Ms. Sanchez’s and other aggrieved employees’ hourly clock-in and clock-out time durations in its timekeeping system to the nearest half-hour, resulting in the failure t0 compensate them for all hours worked. Also, due t0 CORTEC’S restrictions 0n overtime accrual, CORTEC systematically failed t0 pay Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees for actual hours worked before and after scheduled shifts, because these hours were not accurately recorded. As stated, because CORTEC discouraged and impeded Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees from recording hours worked that were outside 0f their scheduled shifts, Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees were required t0 work off-the-clock before and after their scheduled shift start and end times, completing assigned job duties, and submitting themselves to off-the-clock health screenings. Additionally, as set forth above, due to CORTEC’S uniform practice of understaffing, assignment of heavy workloads, pressure t0 meet deadlines and productivity requirements, strict adherence t0 a schedule of meal periods, and the resulting lack of coverage, Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees were impeded from taking all uninterrupted meal periods to Which they were entitled and were required to work off-the-clock. Moreover, as stated, CORTEC had a company-Wide practice and/or policy of automatically deducting meal periods from Ms. Sanchez’s and other aggrieved employees’ time records, even When meal periods were missed, short, and/or interrupted. Thus, CORTEC systematically failed to pay Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees for actual hours worked during unpaid meal periods because these hours were not always correctly recorded. Thus, CORTEC did not pay at least minimum wages for all hours worked by Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees. Also, t0 the extent that these off-the-clock hours did not qualify for overtime premium payment, CORTEC did not pay at least minimum wages for those hours worked off-the- clock in Violation of California Labor Code sections 1182. 12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198. Accordingly, CORTEC regularly failed to pay at least minimum wages to Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees for all 0f the hours they worked in Violation of California Labor Code sections 1182. 12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1 and 1198. Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees are entitled to recover civil penalties, attorney’s fees, costs, and interest thereon, pursuant t0 Labor Code sections 1197.1 and/or 2699(a), (D-(g). Violation 0f California Labor Code $8 226.7, 512(a), 516, and 1198 - Failure to Provide Meal Periods California Labor Code sections 226.7, 5 12(3), 5 16, and 1198, and the applicable IWC Wage Order require employers to provide meal periods and t0 pay an employee one (1) additional hour 0fpay at the employee’s regular rate for each work day that a meal 0r rest period is not provided. Pursuant to Labor Code sections 226.7 and 5 12(a) and the applicable IWC Wage Order, an employer may not require, cause or permit an employee t0 work for a period of more than five (5) hours per day Without providing the employee with an uninterrupted meal period of not less than thirty (3 0) minutes, except that if the total work period per day of the employee is not more than six (6) hours, the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of both the employer and the employee. Under California law, first meal periods must start after n0 more than five hours. Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004, 1041-1042 (2012). Labor Code sections 226.7 and 5 12(a) and the applicable IWC Wage Order also require employers to provide a second meal period 0f not less than thirty (30) minutes if an employee works over ten (10) hours per day 0r t0 pay an employee one (1) additional hour 0fpay at the employee’s regular rate, except that if the total hours worked is no more than twelve (12) hours, the second meal period may be waived by mutual consent 0f the employer and the employee only if the first meal period was not waived. During the relevant time period, as stated, CORTEC had, and continues to have, a company-Wide policy and/or practice of understaffing While assigning heavy workloads, including pressure t0 meet deadlines and productivity requirements. Further, CORTEC had a company-Wide practice 0f strictly adhering t0 a schedule 0f meal periods for Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees, resulting in Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees having their meal periods cut short to finish completing tasks or return to work, or waiting extended periods of time before taking meal periods, due to the heavy workload and lack of coverage. CORTEC’S practices and policies prevented Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees from taking all compliant meal periods t0 Which they were entitled. As a result, Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees would be forced to work in excess of five (5) hours before taking a meal period and, at times, had their meal periods cut short and/or had to forgo their meal periods altogether. For example, because CORTEC only permitted meal periods t0 be taken at 12:00 p.m., Ms. Sanchez took her meal periods late, after the end 0f her sixth 0r seventh hour 0f work, when her shift started at 5:00 a.m. 0r 6:00 a.m. Furthermore, if Ms. Sanchez was still engaged in tasks t0 meet a deadline or CORTEC’S productivity expectations at the designated meal period start time, she was not afforded the opportunity t0 take a later meal period. In addition, Ms. Sanchez’s meal periods were interrupted or cut short twice per week by five (5) minutes per instance to complete rush orders or assist other departments. Furthermore, as stated, CORTEC implemented a company-Wide policy and practice of automatically deducting meal periods from Ms. Sanchez’s and other aggrieved employees’ time records. As a result 0f this policy, CORTEC deducted 30 minutes from Ms. Sanchez’s and other aggrieved employees’ time records even When meal periods were missed, short, and/or interrupted. Thus, CORTEC systematically failed to correctly record meal periods. Moreover, CORTEC did not provide Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees With second 30- minute meal periods on days that they worked in excess 0f ten (10) hours in one day. During her employment, Ms. Sanchez worked shifts in excess 0f ten (10) hours or more hours per day but was not provided an uninterrupted second 30-minute meal period. Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees did not sign valid meal period waivers on days that they were entitled to meal periods and were not relieved of all duties. At all times herein mentioned, CORTEC knew 0r should have known that, as a result of these policies, Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees were not actually relieved 0f all duties t0 take timely, uninterrupted meal periods. CORTEC further knew or should have known that it did not pay Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees meal period premiums When meal periods were late, interrupted, shortened, or missed. As described above, CORTEC’S company-Wide policy and/or practice 0f rounding 0r underreporting employee clock-in and clock-out time durations in its timekeeping system prevented Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees from receiving meal period premiums When they took late and/or shortened meal periods. CORTEC’S rounding policy rounded employees’ clock-in and clock-out times in its timekeeping system t0 the nearest half (0.5) of an hour. Thus, to the extent that CORTEC’S timekeeping system reported that Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees were provided with timely, full 30-minute meal periods when, in fact, the meal periods were taken after the fifth hour 0f work or were less than 30 minutes, Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees were entitled to a meal period penalty. Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees did not receive meal period penalties for these improperly rounded meal periods. Moreover, CORTEC engaged in a company-Wide practice and/or policy 0f not paying all meal period premiums owed When compliant meal periods are not provided. Because 0f CORTEC’S practices and/or policies, Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees have not received premium pay for all missed, late, and interrupted meal periods. Alternatively, to the extent that CORTEC did pay other aggrieved employees premium pay for missed, late, and interrupted meal periods, CORTEC did not pay other aggrieved employees at the correct rate 0fpay for premiums because CORTEC systematically failed to include all forms of compensation, such as incentive pay, nondiscretionary bonuses, and/or other forms 0f remuneration, in the regular rate of pay. Accordingly, CORTEC failed to provide all meal periods in Violation of California Labor Code sections 226.7, 5 12(a), 516, and 1198. Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees are entitled t0 civil penalties, attorney’s fees, costs, and interest thereon, pursuant t0 Labor Code sections 558 and/or 2699(a), (D-(g). Violation 0f California Labor Code $8 226.7, 516, and 1198 - Failure t0 Authorize and Permit Rest Periods California Labor Code sections 226.7, 516, and 1198, and the applicable IWC Wage Order require employers to provide rest periods and t0 pay an employee one (1) additional hour 0fpay at the employee’s regular rate for each work day that a meal 0r rest period is not provided. California Labor Code section 226.7 provides that no employer shall require an employee to work during any rest period mandated by an applicable order of the California IWC. 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 of 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 or major fraction thereof” unless the total daily work time is less than three and one-half (3 1/2) hours. To comply with its obligation to authorize and permit rest periods under California Labor Code section 226.7 and the applicable IWC Wage Order, an employer must “relinquish any control over how employees spend their break time, and relieve their employees of all duties-including the obligation that an employee remain on call. A rest period, in short, must be a period of rest.” Augustus, et al. v. ABM Security Services, Ina, 2 Cal. 5th 257, 269-270 (2016). During the relevant time period, CORTEC regularly failed to authorize and permit Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees t0 take a ten (10) minute rest period per each four (4) hour period worked or major fraction thereof. As with meal periods, CORTEC’S company-wide practices, including understaffing and assigning heavy workloads, prevented Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees from being relieved 0f all duty to take rest periods. Additionally, CORTEC strictly adhered to a schedule of rest periods, which, coupled With CORTEC’S failure t0 provide adequate rest period coverage, further led t0 Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees not being authorized and permitted to take compliant rest periods. For example, CORTEC scheduled rest periods at 9: 15 a.m. and 2:00 pm. each day, and if Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees were still engaged in time-sensitive tasks 0r tasks that could not be immediately paused at the designated times, they would receive a shortened rest period 0r miss their rest period altogether. Additionally, on information and belief, during the relevant time period, CORTEC maintained and implemented a company-wide on-premises rest period policy, which mandated that Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees remain on the work premises during their rest periods. Because Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees were restricted from leaving the premises during rest periods, they were denied the ability t0 use their rest periods freely for their own purposes, such as running personal errands. Thus, CORTEC effectively maintained control over Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees during rest periods. As a result 0f CORTEC’S practices and policies, Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees worked shifts in excess of 3.5 hours, in excess of 6 hours, and in excess 0f 10 hours Without receiving all uninterrupted 10-minute rest periods to which they were entitled. For example, Ms. Sanchez’s rest periods were interrupted twice per week and she missed rest periods 1-3 times per month because of the heavy workload and lack of coverage. Further, Ms. Sanchez did not receive a third rest period When she worked shifts in excess of 10 hours. CORTEC also has engaged in a company-wide practice and/or policy 0f not paying all rest period premiums owed When compliant rest periods are not authorized and permitted. Because of this practice and/or policy, Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees have not received premium pay for all missed rest periods. Alternatively, to the extent that CORTEC did pay other aggrieved employees one (1) additional hour 0fpremium pay for missed rest periods, CORTEC did not pay other aggrieved employees at the correct rate ofpay for premiums because CORTEC failed to include all forms of compensation, such as incentive pay, nondiscretionary bonuses, and/or other forms 0f remuneration, in the regular rate 0f pay. Accordingly, CORTEC failed to authorize and permit all rest periods in Violation of California Labor Code sections 226.7, 516, and 1198. Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees are entitled t0 civil penalties, attorney’s fees, costs, and interest thereon, pursuant t0 Labor Code sections 558 and/or 2699(60: (D-(g)- Violation 0f California Labor Code SS 226(a), 1174(d), and 1198 - Non-Compliant Wage Statements and Failure t0 Maintain Accurate Pavroll Records California Labor Code section 226(a) requires employers t0 make, keep and provide true, accurate, and complete employment records. CORTEC has not provided Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees With properly itemized wage statements. Labor Code section 226(6) provides that if an employer fails to comply with providing an employee With properly itemized wages statements as set forth in 226(a), then the employee is entitled t0 recover the greater 0f all actual damages 0r $50 for the initial pay period in which a Violation occurs and $100 per employee for each Violation in a subsequent pay period, not t0 exceed $4,000. Further, Labor Code section 226.3 provides that any employer who violates section 226(3) shall be subject to a civil penalty in the amount of $250 per employee per Violation in an initial citation and $1,000 per employee for each Violation in a subsequent citation, for Which the employer fails t0 provide the employee a wage statement or fails to keep the required records pursuant to Section 226(a). During the relevant time period, CORTEC has knowingly and intentionally provided Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees With uniform, incomplete, and inaccurate wage statements. For example, CORTEC issued uniform wage statements t0 Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees that fail to correctly list: gross wages earned; total hours worked; net wages earned; and all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period, including rates ofpay for overtime and/or meal and rest period premiums, and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate. Specifically, CORTEC violated sections 226(a)(1), 226(a)(2), 226(a)(5), and 226(a)(9). Because CORTEC did not record the time Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees spent working off-the-clock, improperly rounded their total hours worked, and deducted time from their records for meal periods that were interrupted and/or missed (and therefore time for Which they should have been paid), CORTEC did not list the correct amount 0f gross wages and net wages earned by Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees in compliance With section 226(a)(1) and section 226(a)(5), respectively. For the same reason, CORTEC failed to accurately list the total number 0f hours worked by Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees, in Violation of section 226(a)(2), and failed to list the applicable hourly rates 0fpay in effect during the pay period and the corresponding accurate number 0f hours worked at each hourly rate, in Violation 0f section 226(a)(9). Also, because CORTEC did not calculate other aggrieved employees’ regular rate 0fpay correctly for purposes of paying overtime and/or meal and rest period premiums, CORTEC did not list the correct amount 0f gross wages in compliance With section 226(a)(1). For the same reason, CORTEC also failed t0 list the correct amount of net wages in Violation of section 226(a)(5). CORTEC also failed t0 correctly list all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period, namely, correct rates 0fpay for overtime and/or meal and rest period premiums, in Violation 0f section 226(a)(9). The wage statement deficiencies also include, among other things, failing to list the number of piece- rate units earned and any applicable piece rate if the employee is paid 0n a piece-rate basis; failing to list all deductions; failing t0 list the inclusive dates 0f the period for Which aggrieved employees were paid; failing to list the name of the employee and only the last four digits 0f his 0r her social security number 0r an employee identification number other than a social security number; failing t0 list the name and address 0f the legal entity that is the employer; and/or failing t0 state all hours worked as a result 0f not recording or stating the hours they worked off-the-clock. California Labor Code section 1174(d) provides that “[e]very person employing labor in this state shall . . . [k]eep a record showing the names and addresses of all employees employed and the ages 0f all minors” and “[k]eep, 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 or establishments. . . .” Labor Code section 1174.5 provides that employers are subject to a $500 civil penalty if they fail to maintain accurate and complete records as required by section 1174(d). During the relevant time period, and in Violation of Labor Code section 1174(d), CORTEC willfully failed to maintain accurate payroll records for Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees showing the daily hours they worked and the wages paid thereto as a result 0f failing to record the off-the-clock hours that they worked and improperly rounding Ms. Sanchez’s and other aggrieved employees’ total hours worked. California Labor Code section 1198 provides that the maximum hours of work and the standard conditions 0f labor shall be those fixed by the Labor Commissioner and as set forth in the applicable IWC Wage Order. Section 1198 further provides that “[t]he employment 0f any employees for longer hours than those fixed by the order or under conditions of labor prohibited by the order is unlawful.” Pursuant to the applicable IWC Wage Order, employers are required to keep accurate time records showing When the employee begins and ends each work period and meal period. During the relevant time period, CORTEC failed, on a company-Wide basis, t0 keep accurate records 0f work period and meal period start and stop times for Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees, in Violation 0f section 1198. As stated, CORTEC engaged in a company-Wide practice and/or policy 0f automatically deducting meal periods from Ms. Sanchez’s and other aggrieved employees’ time records regardless 0f if 0r when meal periods were actually taken, and thereby failed t0 keep accurate records 0f meal start and end times for Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees. Furthermore, in light of CORTEC’s failure to provide Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees With second 30- minute meal periods to Which they were entitled, CORTEC kept no records of meal start and end times for second meal periods. Because CORTEC failed t0 provide the correct net and gross wages earned, applicable rates of pay, and number of total hours worked on wage statements, Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees have been prevented from verifying, solely from information on the wage statements themselves, that they were paid correctly and in full. Instead, Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees have had to 100k t0 sources outside of the wage statements themselves and reconstruct time records t0 determine whether in fact they were paid correctly and the extent of underpayment, thereby causing them injury. Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees are entitled t0 recover civil penalties, attorney’s fees, costs, and interest thereon pursuant t0 Labor Code sections 226.3, 1174.5, and/or 2699(a), (f)-(g). Violation 0f California Labor Code 8 204 - Failure t0 Timelv PaV Wages During Emplovment California Labor Code section 204 requires that all wages earned by any person in any employment between the lst and the 15th days, inclusive, 0f any calendar month, other than those wages due upon termination 0f an employee, are due and payable between the 16th and the 26th day of the month during Which the labor was performed, and 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 0f the following month. California Labor Code section 204 also requires 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. Alternatively, California Labor Code section 204 provides that the requirements 0f this section are deemed satisfied by the payment 0fwages for weekly, biweekly, 0r semimonthly payroll if the wages are paid not more than seven (7) calendar days following the close 0f the payroll period. During the relevant time period, CORTEC failed t0 pay Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees all wages due t0 them, including, but not limited to, overtime wages, minimum wages, and/or meal and rest period premiums Within any time period specified by California Labor Code section 204. Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees are entitled t0 recover civil penalties, attorney’s fees, costs, and interest thereon, pursuant t0 Labor Code sections 210 and/or 2699(a), (D-(g). 10 Violation 0f California Labor Code $8 201, 202, and 203 - Failure t0 Timelv Pav Final Wages Upon Termination California Labor Code sections 201, 202, and 203 provide that if an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the time 0f discharge are due and payable immediately, and that if an 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 0f his or her intention to quit, in which case the employee is entitled to his 0r her wages at the time 0f quitting. CORTEC willfully failed t0 pay Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees Who are n0 longer employed by CORTEC all their earned wages, including, but not limited to, overtime wages, minimum wages, and/or meal and rest period premiums either at the time 0f discharge, or within seventy-two (72) hours of their leaving CORTEC’s employ. Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees are entitled t0 recover civil penalties, attorney’s fees, costs, and interest thereon, pursuant t0 Labor Code sections 256 and/or 2699(a), (D-(g). Violation 0f California Labor Code S 2802 - Unreimbursed Business Expenses California Labor Code section 2802 requires employers t0 pay for all necessary expenditures and losses incurred by the employee in the performance 0f his or her job. The purpose of Labor Code section 2802 is t0 prevent employers from passing off their cost 0f doing business and operating expenses on t0 their employees. Cochran v. Schwan ’S Home Service, Inc., 228 Cal. App. 4th 1137, 1144 (2014). The applicable wage order, IWC Wage Order No. 1-2001, provides that: “[W]hen tools or equipment are required by the employer or are necessary to the performance of a job, such tools and equipment shall be provided and maintained by the employer, except that an employee Whose wages are at least two (2) times the minimum wage provided herein may be required t0 provide and maintain hand tools and equipment customarily required by the trade or craft.” CORTEC, on a company-Wide basis, required that Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees use their own personal cellular phones and/or cellular data to carry out their job duties, but failed to reimburse them for the costs of their work-related cellular phone expenses. For example, Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees were required t0 use their personal cellular phones t0 complete their work-related tasks, such as communicating With supervisors and third-party vendors about the status of orders. Although CORTEC required Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees to utilize their personal cellular phones t0 carry out their work-related responsibilities, CORTEC failed t0 fully reimburse them for this cost. Additionally, CORTEC required Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees to purchase their own supplies and tools, such as pencils, Post-It Notes, toolboxes, screwdrivers, and cutters. For example, Ms. Sanchez was required t0 spend approximately $240.00 0n these supplies in order t0 carry out her work-related duties. Although CORTEC required Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees t0 purchase their own supplies and tools for use on the job, CORTEC did not reimburse them for these expenses. CORTEC could have provided Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees With the actual tools for use 0n the job, such as company phones, and supplies and tools. Or, CORTEC could have fully reimbursed employees for their cellular phone and supplies and tools expenses. Instead, CORTEC 11 passed these operating costs off onto Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees. At all relevant times, Ms. Sanchez did not earn at least two (2) times the minimum wage. Thus, CORTEC had, and continues to have, a company-Wide policy and/or practice of not reimbursing employees for expenses necessarily incurred in Violation 0f California Labor Code section 2802. Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees are entitled t0 recover civil penalties, attorney’s fees, costs, and interest thereon, pursuant to Labor Code sections 2699(a), (D-(g). Violation 0f California Labor Code 8 2810.5(a)(1)(A)-(C) - Failure t0 Provide Notice 0f Material Terms 0f Emplovment California’s Wage Theft Prevention Act was enacted to ensure that employers provide employees With basic information material to their employment relationship at the time of hiring, and to ensure that employees are given written and timely notice 0f any changes t0 basic information material to their employment. Codified at California Labor Code section 2810.5, the Wage Theft Prevention Act provides that at the time of hiring, an employer must provide written notice to employees of the rate(s) 0fpay and basis thereof, Whether paid by the hour, shift, day, week, salary, piece, commission, or otherwise, including any rates for overtime, the regular payday designated by the employer, and any allowances claims as part of the minimum wage, including meal or lodging allowances. Effective January 1, 201 5, an employer’s written notice pursuant to section 2810.5 must also include a statement that the employee may accrue and use sick leave; has a right to request and use accrued paid sick leave; may not be terminated 0r retaliated against for using or requesting the use 0f accrued paid sick leave; and has the right t0 file a complaint against an employer Who retaliates. CORTEC failed t0 provide Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees written notice that lists all the requisite information set forth in Labor Code section 2810.5(a)(1)(A)-(C). CORTEC’S failure t0 provide Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees With written notice 0f basic information regarding their employment with CORTEC is in Violation 0f Labor Code section 2810.5. Ms. Sanchez and other aggrieved employees are entitled t0 recover civil penalties, attorney’s fees, costs, and interest thereon, pursuant t0 Labor Code sections 2699(a), (D-(g). California Labor Code 8 558(a) California Labor Code section 558(a) provides “[a]ny employer 0r other person acting 0n behalf of an employer Who violates, 0r causes to be violated, a section 0f this chapter or any provision regulating hours and days 0fwork in any order 0f 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. . . .” Labor Code section 558(0) provides that “[t]he civil penalties provided for in this section are in addition t0 any other civil 0r criminal penalty provided by law.” CORTEC, at all relevant times, was an employer or person acting on behalf 0f an employer(s) Who violated Ms. Sanchez’s and other aggrieved employees’ rights by Violating various sections 0f the California Labor Code. Accordingly, Ms. Sanchez seeks the remedies set forth in Labor Code section 558 for herself, the 12 State of California, and all other aggrieved employees. Specifically, pursuant to PAGA, and in particular California Labor Code sections 2699(3), 2699.3(a) and 2699.3(0), 2699.5, and 558, Ms. Sanchez, acting in the public interest as a private attorney general, seeks assessment and collection of civil penalties for herself, all other aggrieved employees, and the State 0f California against CORTEC for Violations 0f California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 226(3), 226.7, 510, 512(a), 516, 1174(d), 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2802, and 2810.5. Therefore, on behalf 0f all aggrieved employees, Ms. Sanchez seeks all applicable civil penalties related to these Violations of the California Labor Code pursuant to PAGA. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Ifyou have any questions, please contact me at the phone number 0r address below: Anthony Castillo Capstone Law APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 (310) 556-4811 Best Regards, Anthony? iastillo Copy: CORTEC PRECISION SHEET METAL, INC. (Via U.S. Certified Mail); CORTEC PRECISION INTERNATIONAL SALES CORPORATION (Via U.S. Certified Mail) 13 i z I l Complete items 1, 2, and 3. A' Signature l Print your name and address on the reverse x D Agem so that we can return the card to you. D Addm B. Received by (Printed Name) C. Date of Deliveryl Attach this card to the back of the mallpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: D. Is delivery address dlfierent from item 1? U Yes If YES. enter delivery address below: D No 7y l-x-v.‘ x i - qr”, O 03 aa 3, a 3O r1 CORTEC PRECISION SHEET METAL, INC. 2231 WILL WOOL DRIVE y SAN JOSE CA 95112 3. Service Type D Priority Mall Express® D A It Signature D Registered Mall” D uIt Signature Restricted Delivery D R Istared Mail Restricted Certified Mall® Del very 9590 9402 151 2 5362 2497 10 D Cenmed Mail Restricted Delivery D hRfleturl? Rgloeipt for , erc an seD Collect on Delivery a Collect on Denvery Restricted Denvery D Signature Confirmation”_ ifirflcje Number (Transfer fro'm service label) g Insured Ma" D Signam Confirmation ?UED 1:330 DUB]; 56?”! 3351 InsuredMaimesmmeaDenvery RestdctedDeIivery - (9WW , I i Ps Form 381 1, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt L5 Z é“ ~ ~f 5%Egg .-'I EOE:gm ,__)=g §o<* mOO=m r-4 OEco mgw 5 z=3 LawnD Mmm= UN_DD_ Lugm E=H O=TUmm p- r4 Lnmm U“ g Certified MabFeem Extr?‘ervices & Fees ( h kb ddf ‘ )c ac ox,a sa ro i a Return Receipt(hardcopy) $ 9EL,Te77-\ D D Return Receipt (electronic) $__ Postmark O D D Certified Mail Restricted Delivery s_____.__ HereD D Adult Signature Requlred $ 8 DAdult Slgnature Restricted Dellvery $_-_ $Ach ez v‘ arhc "0-) E P073966 3 fired 3?cm Shed $ c 3-) g Total Post? and Fees flw‘wl I IAC‘ “:7; r\ D $ f O 8 m Sent To Q) E :1: g E Streera‘fidAptNo'cgr‘gggggyREClSloNSHEET'METALVJ'NC' """ L ________________Z231,WlLL__\A/_QQ_L._D.R_IV.E_______________________________C g O < Clty, State, ZIP+4*»o 2. vArrthle Numge[ (Transfer fromiemiperlaggoir 7 Ell ggflfggflafie'wew Resmc‘ed 0°"V9’Y g 3:322:32 ggflggggzm 7 D E D l E 9 D D D D l 5 E 7 “I 3 3 E B ' :"sug‘gffogi' Resume“ WWW “95mm“ °°""°'y OVGY 1 g PS Fgrm 381 1, July 2015 PSN 7530.02-000-9053 > Domestlc Return Receipt CORPORATION 2231 WILL WOOL DRIVE SAN JOSE CA 951 12 lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll|||||||ll ?DBD lEHD BUD]: 5679 33EE CORTEC PRECISION INTERNATIONAL SALES ED , .fl IT! [Tl T g Cen‘rfied MaiIFea =0 $ ‘ 0 Extr rvices&FeeS (chackbox,addf as p rlate) H eturn Recelpt (hardcopy) $m 1/- 7 D DReturn ReceipHalsmronic) $___ PostmarkD Usanmed Maimestricted Delivery $___ ~ Here . O D DAduhSignature Required $___ $c1ul‘ez V. Cofia Ad ItS' t Restr' tedD II $____- t8 D Poflsjage Igna ure 1c every ?rfcefl‘ay‘ Enferflqfi‘m .-- r ~ q) m s ‘63 bodes Kory. a.) r4 Totglfés eand Fees ‘ $ ' 17, $ a Sen! ToU U Lu 8 E ‘s'ir'e'éiEfia‘Ab’tiNbférAAggiggRRORAl-JON """"""""""""""""""""" (D mg a “6mg._____Z_I_P___i_2__2_3,1._w,I_L.L_y~_/_Q,Q_L__pmy£_ _____________________________ ity, tare, +4‘ 8 <3: Cg 5 SAN JOSE CA 95112 >~ . -l L n: Ps Form sgoo April 2015‘ésu‘1‘sso-02-Oooeo47_ See Reverse for Instructions L \OWNQU‘I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the State 0f California, County of Los Angeles. I am over the age of 18 and not a party t0 the Within suit; my business address is 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, California 90067. On November 24, 2021, I served the document described as: FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT & ENFORCEMENT ACTION UNDER THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT, CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §§ 2698, ET SEQ. on the interested parties in this action by sending [ ] the original [or] [V] a true copy thereof [V] to interested parties as follows [or] [ ] as stated 0n the attached service list: Susan E. Bishop, (SBN: 187253) Attorneysfor Defendant susan.bish0p@berliner.com CORTEC PRECISION SHEET METAL, Iris C. Chiu, (SBN: 327467) INC., and CORTEC PRECISION iris.chiu@berliner.com INTERNATIONAL SALES BERLINER COHEN, LLP CORPORATION 10 Almaden Boulevard, 11th Floor San Jose, CA 951 13-2233 Tel.: (408) 286-5800 Fax: (408) 998-5388 [ ] BY MAIL (ENCLOSED IN A SEALED ENVELOPE): I deposited the envelope(s) for mailing in the ordinary course ofbusiness at Los Angeles, California. Iam “readily familiar” with this firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, sealed envelopes are deposited with the U.S. Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course 0f business with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California. [ ] BY E-MAIL: I hereby certify that this document was served from Los Angeles, California, by e-mail delivery on the parties listed herein at their most recent known e- mail address 0r e-mail 0f record in this action. [ ] BY FAX: Ihereby certify that this document was served from Los Angeles, California, by facsimile delivery on the parties listed herein at their most recent fax number 0f record in this action. [ ] BY PERSONAL SERVICE: Idelivered the document, enclosed in a sealed envelope, by hand t0 the counsel for Defendant. [X] BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: I caused the document(s) to be transmitted electronically Via One Legal eSerVice to the individuals listed above, as they exist on that database. This Will constitute service of the document(s). I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November 24, 2021, at Los Angeles, California. Xochitl Tapia MA7‘ Type/Print Name Signature Page 46 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
