Complaint Unlimited Fee AppliesCal. Super. - 6th Dist.May 4, 2021\OOONQUI-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHr-AHHr-AHHr-A OOQGUI-RUJNF-‘OKOOOQQUI-bUJNHO E-FILED KENNETH s. GAINES, ESQ. SBN 049045 5/4/2021 2153 PM ken@gaineslawfirm.com glerk 9f Ccourt f CADANIEL F. GAINES, ESQ. SBN 251488 ”Per'or 0U” 0 ’ daniel@gaineslawfirm.com County 0f santa Clara ALEX P. KATOFSKY, ESQ. SBN 202754 21 CV381 341 alex@gaineslawfirm.com Reviewed By: R. Walker EVAN S. GAINES, ESQ. SBN 287668 evan@gaineslawfirm.com GAINES & GAINES, APLC 27200 Agoura Rd., Suite 101 Calabasas, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 703-8985 Facsimile: (818) 703-8984 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Derek Downey and Adam Sardoni SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA DEREK DOWNEY, ADAM SARDONI, Case No.: 21 CV381 341 individually and on behalf 0f all similarly situated individuals, on behalf of the general CLASS AND REPRESENTATIVE public, and all “aggrieved employeeS” ACTION COMPLAINT FOR: pursuant to Labor Code § 2698 et seq. 1. FAILURE T0 PROVIDE REST Plaintiffs, PERIODS 0R COMPENSATION IN LIEU THEREOF (LABOR CODE § 226.7; IWC V. WAGE ORDER 4-2001) NATIONAL TECHNICAL SYSTEMS, INC., 2, FAILURE T0 PROVIDE MEAL a California corporation, and DOES 1 through PERIODS 0R COMPENSATION IN LIEU 10, 1ncluswe, THEREOF (LABOR CODE §§ 226.7, 510, 512, AND 1194; IWC WAGE ORDER 4- Defendants. 2001) 3. KNOWING AND INTENTIONAL FAILURE T0 COMPLY WITH ITEMIZED EMPLOYEE WAGE STATEMENT PROVISIONS (LABOR CODE § 226(a), (e)) 4. FAILURE T0 PAY WAGES DUE AT SEPARATION 0F EMPLOYMENT (LABOR CODE §§ 201-203) 5. VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 6. PENALTIES PURSUANT T0 LABOR CODE § 2699(1) FOR VIOLATIONS 0F LABOR CODE §§ 201-203, 226(a), 226.7, 510, 512, AND 1194 AND PURSUANT T0 LABOR CODE § 2699(a) FOR VIOLATIONS 0F LABOR CODE §§ 226.3 AND 558 -1- CLASS AND REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT \OOONQUI-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHr-AHHr-AHHr-A OOQGUI-RUJNF-‘OKOOOQQUI-bUJNHO DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs DEREKDOWNEY andADAM SARDONI (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), individually and 0n behalf 0f all similarly situated individuals (the “Class” 0r “Plaintiff Class”), and 0n behalf 0f the general public, and as “aggrieved employees” under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, complain 0f Defendants, and each 0f them, as follows: I. INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1. This is a Class Action and Representative Action, pursuant t0 Code 0f Civil Procedure § 382 and Labor Code § 2698 et seq. , on behalf of Plaintiffs and all other non-exempt employees who work 0r formerly worked for NATIONAL TECHNICAL SYSTEMS, INC., a California corporation, and any subsidiaries 0r affiliated companies (hereinafter collectively referred t0 as “Defendants”) within the State of California. 2. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing 0f this action and continuing to the present (the “liability period”) Defendants have had consistent policies of failing t0 provide legally compliant meal and rest periods 0r compensation in lieu thereof t0 Class Members (as defined below); provide accurately itemized wage statements to Class Members; and t0 timely pay wages upon separation of employment to Class Members. 3. Plaintiffs, 0n behalf0fthemselves and members ofthe Class, bring this action pursuant to Labor Code §§ 201-203, 226.3, 226(a), 226.7, 510, 512, 558, and 1194 seeking compensation for all unpaid wages, statutory penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 4. Plaintiffs, on behalf 0fthemselves and members of the Class and pursuant t0 Business & Professions Code §§ 17200-17208, also seek injunctive relief, restitution, and disgorgement 0f all benefits Defendants enjoyed from their failure t0 pay all wages to Class Members. -2- CLASS AND REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT \OOONQUI-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHr-AHHr-AHHr-A OOQGUI-RUJNF-‘OKOOOQQUI-bUJNHO 5. Plaintiffs, 0n behalf 0f themselves and all aggrieved employees pursuant t0 Labor Code §§ 2698 et seq, seek civil penalties for Defendants’ various Violations of the California Labor Code. 6. Venue is proper in this judicial district, pursuant to Code 0f Civil Procedure § 395 because Defendants employed Plaintiffs and Class Members in Los Angeles County, California. 7. Pursuant t0 the Judicial Council’s Emergency Rule 9 0f the California Rules 0f Court, Plaintiffs’ claims are subject t0 tolling from April 6, 2020 through October 1, 2020. II. PARTIES A. Plaintiffs 8. Plaintiff DEREK DOWNEY was employed by Defendants through September 2019 as a non-exempt employee in Los Angeles County, California. 9. PlaintiffADAM SARDONI was employed by Defendants through October 2020 as a non-exempt employee in Los Angeles County, California. 10. During their work with Defendants, Plaintiffs were: a. Willfully denied rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof; b. Willfully denied meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; c. Willfully denied accurately itemized wage statements; and d. Denied the timely payment of wages upon separation of their employment. B. Defendants 11. Defendant NATIONAL TECHNICAL SYSTEMS, INC. is a California corporation. Defendant NATIONAL TECHNICAL SYSTEMS, INC. employed Plaintiffs and Aggrieved Employees throughout the State of California, including Los Angeles County, California. 12. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, 0r otherwise, 0f Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 t0 10, inclusive, are currently unknown t0 Plaintiffs, who therefore sues Defendants by such fictitious names under Code 0f Civil Procedure § 474. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that each 0f the Defendants designated herein as a DOE is legally responsible in some manner for the unlawful acts referred t0 herein. Plaintiffs Will -3- CLASS AND REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT \OOONQUI-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHr-AHHr-AHHr-A OOQGUI-RUJNF-‘OKOOOQQUI-bUJNHO seek leave of court to amend this Complaint t0 reflect the true names and capacities 0f the Defendants designated hereinafter as DOES When such identities become known. 13. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that each Defendant acted in all respects pertinent to this action as the agent of the other Defendants, carried out a joint scheme, business plan 0r policy in all respects pertinent hereto, and the acts of each Defendant are legally attributable to the other Defendants. 14. The Defendants named herein as DOE 1 through DOE 10 are and were persons acting on behalf of, or acting jointly with, Defendants, Who violated, or caused to be violated, one 0r more provisions of the California Labor Code as alleged herein. III. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 15. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated as a Class Action pursuant t0 § 382 of the Code 0f Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs seek t0 represent the following class composed 0f and defined as follows: THE CLASS A11 persons employed by Defendants in California as non-exempt employees at any time since the date four years preceding the filing of this Action, plus any additional time tolled by the California State Judicial Council pursuant to Emergency Rule 9 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and continuing through the present. 16. Plaintiffs reserve the right under Rule 3.765, California Rules 0f Court, to amend 0r modify this class description With greater specificity 0r further division into subclasses 0r limitation to particular issues. 17. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action under the provisions 0f § 382 0f the Code of Civil Procedure because there is a well-defined community 0f interest in the litigation and the proposed Class is easily ascertainable. A. Numerosity -4- CLASS AND REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT \OOONQUI-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHr-AHHr-AHHr-A OOQGUI-RUJNF-‘OKOOOQQUI-bUJNHO 18. The potential members 0f the Class as defined are so numerous that joinder of all the members the Class is impracticable. While the precise number 0fmembers of the Class has not been ascertained at this time, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Defendants currently employ, and during the relevant time periods employed, over 50 persons in the State 0f California Who fall Within the Class definition. 19. Accounting for employee turnover during the relevant period necessarily increases this number. Plaintiffs allege Defendants’ employment records would provide information as t0 the number and location ofmembers of the Class. Joinder 0fmembers 0f the Class is not practicable. B. Communality 20. There are questions 0f law and fact common t0 the Class that predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class Members. These common questions 0flaw and fact include, without limitation: a. Whether Defendants failed t0 properly provide rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof t0 Plaintiffs and Class Members, in Violation 0f Labor Code § 226.7 and IWC Wage Order 4-2001; b. Whether Defendants failed t0 properly provide meal periods 0r compensation in lieu thereof to Plaintiffs and Class Members, in Violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7, 510, 512, and 1194, and IWC Wage Order 4-2001; c. Whether Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs and Class Members With accurately itemized wage statements, in accordance with Labor Code § 226(a) and (e); d. Whether Defendants failed t0 timely pay Plaintiffs and Class Members all wages due and owing at the separation of their employment, in Violation of Labor Code §§ 201-203; and e. Whether Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled t0 equitable relief pursuant t0 Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. \\\ C. Typicality -5- CLASS AND REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT \OOONQUI-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHr-AHHr-AHHr-A OOQGUI-RUJNF-‘OKOOOQQUI-bUJNHO 21. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical 0f the claims 0f members 0f the Class. Plaintiffs and members of the Class sustained injuries and damages arising out 0f and caused by Defendants’ common course 0f conduct in Violation 0f laws, regulations that have the force and effect of law, and statutes as alleged herein. D. Adequacy 0f Representation 22. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of members of the Class. Counsel Who represents Plaintiffs are competent and experienced in litigating large employment class actions. E. Superiority 0f Class Action 23. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication 0f this controversy. Individual joinder 0f all proposed members 0f the Class is not practicable, and questions of law and fact common to the proposed Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the proposed Class. Each member 0f the proposed Class has been damaged and is entitled t0 recovery by reason 0f Defendants’ illegal policies and/or practices. 24. Class action treatment Will allow those similarly situated persons t0 litigate their claims in the manner that is most efficient and economical for the parties and the judicial system. Plaintiffs are unaware of any difficulties that are likely t0 be encountered in the management 0f this action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action. \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ -6- CLASS AND REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT \OOONQUI-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHr-AHHr-AHHr-A OOQGUI-RUJNF-‘OKOOOQQUI-bUJNHO IV. CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION PLAINTIFFS AND THE CLASS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST PERIODS OR COMPENSATION IN LIEU THEREOF (LABOR CODE § 226.7 AND IWC WAGE ORDER 4-2001) 25. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 24 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 26. Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to one hour of pay for each day that Defendants failed t0 properly provide one or more rest periods as set forth in Labor Code § 226.7 and IWC Wage Order 4-2001. 27. Defendants failed to pay premium wages to Plaintiffs and Class Members who were denied rest periods, in Violation 0f Labor Code § 226.7 and IWC Wage Order 4-2001. Plaintiffs and Class Members were routinely unable, and not authorized, t0 take a 10-minute rest break for every four (4) hours 0fwork or maj or fraction thereof, but were not paid premium wages 0f one hour’s pay for each missed rest break. Plaintiffs and Class Members were simply too busy t0 take their rest periods and would be required to work through them. Further, Plaintiffs and Class Members were never provided With a second or third rest period for shift lengths that require them. This violates Labor Code § 226.7 and IWC Wage Order 4-2001. 28. Pursuant to Labor Code § 226.7 and IWC Wage Order 4-2001, Plaintiffs seek the payment of all rest period compensation which they and Class Members are owed, according to proof. Wherefore, Plaintiffs and the Class they seek t0 represent request relief as described below. \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ -7- CLASS AND REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT \OOONQUI-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHr-AHHr-AHHr-A OOQGUI-RUJNF-‘OKOOOQQUI-bUJNHO VI. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION PLAINTIFFS AND THE CLASS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIODS OR COMPENSATION IN LIEU THEREOF (LABOR CODE §§ 226.7, 510, 512, AND 1194 AND IWC WAGE ORDER 4-2001) 29. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 28 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 30. Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled t0 one hour 0f pay for each day that Defendants failed t0 properly provide one 0r more meal periods as set forth in Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512 and IWC Wage Order 4-2001. 31. Defendants failed t0 pay premium wages t0 Plaintiffs and Class Members Who were denied meal periods, in Violation 0f Labor Code §§ 226.7, 5 10, 5 12, and 1194 and IWC Wage Order 4-2001. Plaintiffs and Class Members were routinely denied, and not authorized t0 take, a proper, timely, uninterrupted, 30-minute meal period for every shift worked that exceeded five hours, 0r a second proper, timely, uninterrupted, 30-minute meal period for every shift worked that exceeded ten hours, but were not paid premium wages 0f one hour’s pay for each missed first 0r second meal period. When Plaintiffs and Class Members were provided with a meal period, they were late, cut short or they would be required to work through them (off-the-clock and without compensation). This violates Labor Code §§ 226.7, 5 10, 5 12, and 1194 and IWC Wage Order 4-2001. 32. Pursuant to Labor Code §§ 226.7, 510, 512, and 1194 and IWC Wage Order 4-2001, Plaintiffs seek the payment 0f all meal period compensation and unpaid wages that they and Class Members are owed for four years preceding the filing of this Action, according to proof. Wherefore, Plaintiffs and the Class they seek to represent request relief as described below. \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ -8- CLASS AND REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT \OOONQUI-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHr-AHHr-AHHr-A OOQGUI-RUJNF-‘OKOOOQQUI-bUJNHO VII. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION PLAINTIFFS AND THE CLASS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS KNOWING AND INTENTIONAL FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ITEMIZED EMPLOYEE WAGE STATEMENT PROVISIONS (LABOR CODE § 226(a), (e)) 33. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 32 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 34. Section 226(a) 0f the California Labor Code requires Defendants t0 provide wage statements t0 employees. In those wage statements, Defendants must provide an accurate itemized statement in writing showing (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee. . ., (3) the number ofpiece-rate units earned and any applicable piece rate if the employee is paid 0n a piece- rate basis, (4) all deductions, provided that all deductions made on written orders of the employee may be aggregated and shown as one item, (5) net wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates 0f the period for Which the employee is paid, (7) the name of the employee and only the last four digits of his or her social security number or an employee identification number other than a social security number, (8) the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer. . ., and (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number 0f hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee. Defendants have knowingly and intentionally failed to comply With Labor Code § 226(a). 35. Defendants failed t0 issue Plaintiffs and members 0f the Class wage statements that fully and accurately itemized the requirements set forth in Labor Code § 226(a). Plaintiffs and Class Members were not paid all wages due, including all minimum and overtime wages due and premium wages for unauthorized and denied meal and rest periods, as stated above. As such, the wage statements provided by Defendants failed t0 accurately state all gross wages earned, in Violation 0f Labor Code § 226(a)(1), total hours worked, in Violation 0f Labor Code § 226(a)(2), and net wages earned, in Violation 0f Labor Code § 226(a)(5). Further, and independent of the above allegations, the wage statements issued t0 Plaintiffs and other Aggrieved Employees failed to accurately set forth -9- CLASS AND REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT \OOONQUI-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHr-AHHr-AHHr-A OOQGUI-RUJNF-‘OKOOOQQUI-bUJNHO all applicably hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number 0f hours worked at each rate, in Violation of in Violation 0f Labor Code § 226(a)(9). 36. As a consequence 0f Defendants’ willful conduct in failing t0 provide Class Members with accurate itemized wage statements, Plaintiffs and members 0f the Class have been injured because they have not been paid all wages due and were issued wage statements Which do not reflect, and fail to state, all information required by Labor Code § 226(a). The missing information cannot be discerned at all from the face 0f the wage statements themselves. As a result, Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled t0 penalties pursuant t0 Labor Code § 226(6) 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 exceeding an aggregate penalty 0f $4,000 per employee, and are entitled t0 an award 0f costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant t0 Labor Code § 226(h). Wherefore, Plaintiffs and the Class they seek t0 represent request relief as described below. VIII. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION PLAINTIFFS AND THE CLASS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY WAGES DUE AT SEPARATION OF EMPLOYMENT (LABOR CODE §§ 201-203) 37. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 36 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 38. California Labor Code § 201 and § 202 require Defendants to pay employees all wages due Within 72 hours after resignation of employment 0r the day 0ftermination 0f employment. Labor Code § 203 provides that if an employer willfully fails to timely pay such wages, the employer must, as a penalty, continue t0 pay the subj ect employee’s daily wages until the back wages are paid in full 0r an action is commenced. The penalty cannot exceed 30 days 0f wages. 39. More than 3O days have passed since Plaintiffs and certain Class Members have left Defendants’ employ. 40. As a consequence 0f Defendants’ willful conduct in not paying wages owed timely upon separation 0f employment, Plaintiffs and certain Class Members are entitled t0 up t0 30 days’ -10- CLASS AND REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT \OOONQUI-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHr-AHHr-AHHr-A OOQGUI-RUJNF-‘OKOOOQQUI-bUJNHO wages as a penalty under Labor Code § 203 for Defendants’ failure t0 timely pay legal wages at separation of employment. Wherefore, Plaintiffs and the Class they seek to represent request relief as described below. IX. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION PLAINTIFFS AND THE CLASS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS UNFAIR COMPETITION PURSUANT TO BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 ET SEQ. 41. Plaintiffs incorporates paragraphs 1 through 4O of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 42. This is a Class Action for Unfair Business Practices. Plaintiffs, 0n their own behalf and on behalf of the general public, and on behalf 0f others similarly situated, bring this claim pursuant t0 Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. The conduct of all Defendants as alleged in this Complaint has been and continues t0 be unfair, unlawful, and harmful t0 Plaintiffs, the general public, and members of the Class. Plaintiffs seek t0 enforce important rights affecting the public interest Within the meaning 0f Code 0f Civil Procedure § 1021.5. 43. Plaintiffs are “persons” within the meaning 0f Business & Professions Code § 17204, and therefore has standing to bring this cause 0f action for injunctive relief, restitution, and other appropriate equitable relief. 44. Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. prohibits unlawful and unfair business practices. 45. Wage and hour laws express fundamental public policies. Properly providing employees with all wages due is a fundamental public policy of this State and 0f the United States. Labor Code § 90.5(a) articulates the public policies 0fthis State t0 enforce vigorously minimum labor standards, t0 ensure that employees are not required 0r permitted t0 work under substandard and unlawful conditions, and to protect law-abiding employers and its employees from competitors Who lower their costs by failing t0 comply with minimum labor standards. 46. Defendants have violated statutes and public policies. Through the conduct alleged -11- CLASS AND REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT \OOONQUI-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHr-AHHr-AHHr-A OOQGUI-RUJNF-‘OKOOOQQUI-bUJNHO in this Complaint, Defendants, and each 0f them, have acted contrary t0 these public policies, have violated specific provisions of the Labor Code, and have engaged in other unlawful and unfair business practices in Violation of Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. depriving Plaintiffs, and all persons similarly situated, and all interested persons of rights, benefits, and privileges guaranteed to all employees under law. 47. Defendants’ conduct, as alleged herein, constitutes unfair competition in Violation of §17200 ez‘ seq. of the Business & Professions Code. 48. Defendants, by engaging in the conduct herein alleged, either knew 0r in the exercise (finmwmmbeweflmfldmwehmwnmmflwcmflmfiwwuflmwm.Aswdhfimavmhmmof§ 17200 et seq. of the Business & Professions Code. 49. As a proximate result 0f the above-mentioned acts 0fDefendants, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated have been damaged in a sum as may be proven. 50. Unless restrained by this Court, Defendants Will continue t0 engage in the unlawful conduct, as alleged above. Pursuant t0 Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq., this Court should make such orders 0r judgments, including the appointment 0f a receiver, as may be necessary t0 prevent the use or employment, by Defendants, its agents, or employees, 0f any unlawful or deceptive practice prohibited by the Business & Professions Code, and/or, including but not limited to, disgorgement 0f profits which may be necessary to restore Plaintiffs and Class Members to the money Defendants have unlawfully failed t0 pay. \V \V V\ \V \V V\ \V \V V\ -12- CLASS AND REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT \OOONQUI-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHr-AHHr-AHHr-A OOQGUI-RUJNF-‘OKOOOQQUI-bUJNHO )(. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION PLAINTIFFS AND ALL AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS PENALTIES PURSUANT TO LABOR CODE § 2699(1) FOR VIOLATIONS OF LABOR CODE §§ 201-203, 226(a), 226.7, 510, 512, AND 1194 AND PURSUANT TO LABOR CODE § 2699(a) FOR VIOLATIONS OF LABOR CODE §§ 226.3 AND 558 51. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 50 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 52. As a result of the acts alleged above, including the Labor Code Violations set forth herein, Plaintiffs seek penalties pursuant t0 Labor Code § 2698 et seq. 53. For each such Violation, Plaintiffs and all other aggrieved employees are entitled t0 penalties in an amount t0 be shown at the time of trial subject t0 the following formula: a. Pursuant t0 Labor Code § 2699(f), $100 for each initial Violation and $200 for each subsequent Violation 0f Labor Code §§ 201-203, 226(a), 226.7, 510, 512, and1194;and b. Pursuant t0 Labor Code § 2699(a), the penalties set forth in Labor Code §§ 226.3 and 558. 54. Penalties recovered will be allocated 75% to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, and 25% to the affected employees. 55. On February 24, 2021 and March 9, 2021, Plaintiffs sent letters, by online submission to the LWDA and by certified mail, return receipt requested, t0 Defendants setting forth the facts and theories 0f the Violations alleged against Defendant, as prescribed by Labor Code § 2698 et seq. Pursuant to Labor Code § 2699.3(a)(2)(A), no notice was received by Plaintiffs from the LWDA within sixty-five (65) calendar days 0f February 24, 2021 or March 9, 2021. Plaintiffs may therefore commence this action to seek civil penalties pursuant t0 Labor Code § 2698 et seq. Wherefore, Plaintiffs and the Aggrieved Employees they seek t0 represent request relief as described below. \\\ -13- CLASS AND REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT \OOONQUI-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHr-AHHr-AHHr-A OOQGUI-RUJNF-‘OKOOOQQUI-bUJNHO XII. RELIEF REQUESTED WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief: 1. For compensatory damages in the amount 0f one hour ofwages for each day 0n which a meal and/or rest period was not properly provided t0 Plaintiffs and Class Members pursuant t0 Labor Code § 226.7; 2. For penalties pursuant t0 Labor Code § 226(6) for Plaintiffs and Class Members; 3. For penalties pursuant t0 Labor Code § 203 for Plaintiffs and Class Members Who are no longer employed by Defendants; 4. For compensatory damages pursuant t0 Labor Code §§ 5 10 and 1194 in the amount of all unpaid wages due t0 Plaintiffs and Class Members; 5. An award 0fprejudgment and post-judgment interest; 6. For restitution for unfair competition pursuant t0 Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. for Plaintiffs and Class Members; 7. For civil penalties pursuant t0 Labor Code § 2698 et seq. for Plaintiffs and all other Aggrieved Employees; 8. An award providing for payment of costs of suit pursuant to Labor Code § 2699(g)(1) and other applicable law; 9. An award 0f attorneys’ fees pursuant t0 Labor Code § 2699(g)(1) and other applicable law; and 10. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. Dated: May 4, 2021 Respectfully submitted, GAINES & GAINES A Professional Law Corporation By; BUM S. 6W DANIEL F. GAINES EVAN S. GAINES Attorney for Plaintiffs \\\ -14- CLASS AND REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT \OOONQUI-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHr-AHHr-AHHr-A OOQGUI-RUJNF-‘OKOOOQQUI-bUJNHO Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial of their claims by jury to the extent authorized by law. Dated: May 4, 2021 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Respectfully submitted, GAINES & GAINES A Professional Law Corporation By: Em S. 4W DANIEL FTGAINES EVAN s. GAINES Attorney for Plaintiffs -15- CLASS AND REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
