HARRIS v. PAC ANCHOR TRANSPORTATIONRespondents’ Request for Judicial NoticeCal.October 25, 2011IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLEex rel. KAMALA D. HARRIS, as Attorney General, etc., Plaintiff and Respondent, V. PAC ANCHOR TRANSPORTATION, INC., et al., Defendants and Petitioners. Case Number S194388 . After a Decision by the Court of Appeal Second Appellate District, Division Five [Case No. B220966] Appeal from a Judgmentofthe Superior Court for Los Angeles County Hon. Elizabeth A. White, Judge [Case No. BC397600] PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Neil S. Lerner (SBN 134031) Arthur A. Severance (SBN 246691) SANDS LERNER 12400 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1300 Los Angeles, CA 90603 Tel.: (310) 979-9144 Fax: (310) 979-9244 Email: nsl@sandslerner.com; aas(@sandslerner.com Attorneysfor Alfredo Barajas and Pac Anchor Transportation, Inc. Service on the Office of the Attorney General andthe District Attorney of the County of Los Angeles required by Bus. & Prof. Code § 17209 Defendants-Petitioners Pac Anchor Transportation, Inc., and Alfredo Barajas (“Petitioners”) hereby request that, pursuant to Section 459 of the Evidence Code and Rule 8.252 of the Rules of Court, the Court take judicial notice of the following matters for the following reasons: 1. Petitioners request that the Court take judicial notice of the Complaint for Injunction, Civil Penalties and Other Equitable Relief (“Complaint”) filed by the Attorney General of the State of California on March 9, 1989, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, in the matter People of the State of California v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., No. 609941. Furthermore, Petitioners move the Court to find that in the Complaint, the State asserts a claim under the UCL for unfair competition, Compl. {{ 5-7, and that the UCL wasoneof the “general consumerprotection statutes” that the U.S. Supreme Court was considering in its opinion in Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 378 (1992); see Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Mattox (“TWA”), 712 F. Supp. 99, 105 (W.D. Tex. 1989) and id., 897 F.2d 773, . 776, 788 (W.D. Tex. 1990), aff'd in relevant part, Morales, 504 U.S. 374. The Complaintis attached as Exhibit “A”to this Request. a. This request is being made because this case involves the - interpretation of the interaction between the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., and the preemptive provision of the Federal Aviation Administration Act of 1994 (“FAAAA”), 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1). b. The Complaint is relevant, because it demonstrates that the claim that the Attorney General filed, which is discussed in Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 383 (1992), Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Mattox, 897 F.2d 773, 776, 788 (W.D. Tex. 1990), and Trans World Airlines, Inc. 2. v. Mattox, 712 F. Supp. 99, 105 (W.D. Tex. 1989), the seminal case regarding FAAAA preemption, was a claim for unfair competition under the UCL. The Complaint was not presented to the trial court or the Court of Appeal. | The Complaint does not relate to proceedings occurring after the order and judgment that are the subject of this appeal, but ratherrelate to the interpretation of the FAAAA. Petitioners request that the Court take judicial notice of House Conference Report 103-677, H.R. Conf. Rep.. 103-677 (1993), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1715. The relevant sections of the Report are included in Appellant’s Appendix (“A.A.”), Vol. 1, at 214, 265-271. a. This request is made becausethe interpretation of Congress’ purpose is an essential step in analyzing preemption under the FAAAA. . The Report is relevant because it sets forth the legislative history of the FAAAA. The legislative history of the FAAAA is relevant because Congress’ purpose in enacting a preemption statute is essential to determining the statute’s preemptive effect in every case. Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), 11 Cal. 4th 138, 147 (1995), aff'd 517 U.S. 735 (1996). The Report was presentedto the trial court and the Court of Appeal. (1 A.A. 103 9 4, Ex. D.) Thetrial court did not take judicial notice of it. (1 A.A. 428.) The Court of Appealdid. 3. The Complaint does not relate to proceedings occurring after the order and judgment that are the subject of this appeal Respondents request that the Court take judicial notice of Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm’n Regulation of Intermodal Small Package Carriers in Interstate & Intrastate Commerce: Hearing on AB 2015 Before the Assembly Comm. on Utils. & Commerce at 3 (1993) (the “AB 2015 Bill Analysis”), which compromisespart of the legislative history of AB 2015. The AB 2015 Bill Analysis is included in Appellant’s Appendix, Vol. 1, at 119-122. a. This request is made because this case involves the interpretation of the FAAAA. The legislative history regarding the FAAAA indicates that. Congress specifically sought to preempt AB 2015 when it enacted the FAAAA. H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 103-677 (1994), reprinted in 1994 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 1715 (1 A.A. 270). The legislative history of the FAAAA is relevant because Congress’ purpose in enacting a preemption statute is essential to determining the statute’s preemptive effect in every case. Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), 11 Cal. 4th - 138, 147 (1995), aff'd 517 U.S. 735 (1996). The legislative history of AB 2015 is relevant to the legislative history of the FAAAA because it demonstrates the intended effect of a particular state statute Congress intendedto preemptin enacting the FAAAA, and how that intent might apply to preemption in this matter. The legislative history of AB 2015 is also relevant to rebut any assertion that Plaintiff-Respondent the People of the State of California ex rel. Kamala D. Harris, as Attorney 4. General of the State of California’s (the “State”) may make that the State has no interest in whether Petitioners use employee drivers rather than independent contractordrivers. The AB 2015 Bill Analysis was presented to the trial court and the Court of Appeal. (1 A.A. 103 § 2, Ex. B.) Thetrial court did not take judicial notice of it. (1 A.A. 428.) The Court of Appeal did. The legislative history does not relate to proceedings occurring after the order and judgment that are the subject of this appeal. Petitioners request that the Court take judicial notice of the Orders to Appear Before Labor Commissioner (“Orders”) that the Deputy Labor Commissioner of the State of California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, issued on July 26, 2011, to various individuals. The Orders, with personal identifiers redacted, are attached as Exhibit “B” to this Request. Petitioners further request that the Court find the Deputy Labor Commissioner has been investigating the employment of drivers and that such investigation is another means the State has available, other than the UCL, to address alleged misclassifications. a. This request is made because this case involves resolution of a conflict between the State of California’s policy favoring the use of employee drivers over independent contractor drivers and the policy that Congress announced in enacting the FAAAA prohibiting the State from regulating motorcarriers. The Orders are relevant because they demonstrate one of the tactics the State has used to attempt to force motor carriers to use employee drivers rather than independent 5, contractor drivers, as. well as one of the other means the State has available, other than the UCL, to address alleged misclassifications. The Orders were not presented to the trial court or the Court of Appeal. The Orders relate to proceedings occurring after the order and judgment that are the subject of this appeal, but those proceedings unrelated to the proceedingsin this case. Petitioners request that the Court take judicial notice of the Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Civil Penalties (“Complaint”) filed by the Attorney General of the State of California on October 28, 2008, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles in the matter People of the State of California v. Edmundo Jose Lira, No. Bc400654. Furthermore, Petitioners move the Court to find that in the Complaint the State asserts a claim under the UCL for unfair competition and seeks injunctive relief. Compl. at 3-4. The Complaintis attached to this Request as Exhibit C. a. The Complaint is relevant because it demonstrates that the | State filed an action under the UCL against another motor carrier seeking an injunction under the UCL, and therefore is evidence of a State policy that disfavors the use of independentcontractor drivers. The Complaint was not presented to the trial court or the Court of Appeal. The Complaint does not relate to proceedings occurring after the order and judgment that are the subject of this appeal, but rather relate to the interpretation of Section 14501(c)(1). 6. The Complaint was filed prior to the order and judgment that are the subject of this appeal. However, it relates to proceedings occurring after the order and judgment. Nevertheless, the proceedings to which it relates are unrelated to this case. Petitioners request that the Court take judicial notice of the Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction (“Injunction”) filed on December 14 2009, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles in the matter People ofthe State of California v. Edmundo Jose Lira, No. Bc400654. Furthermore, Petitioners move the Court to find that Injunction enjoins the defendant in that case from “[mJisclassifying truck drivers as independent contractors including, but not limited to, classifying drivers who operate trucks that are provided, owned, or leased by [the defendants] as independent contractors.” Inj. at 2. The Injunction is attached to this Request as Exhibit D. a. The Injunction is relevant because it demonstrates the nature of the permanent injunctions the State has sought and obtained in similar cases. The nature of such injunctions is relevant to determining the logical effect of the State’s UCL claim for the purpose of determining whether the FAAAA preemptsit. The Injunction was not presented to the trial court or the Court of Appeal. The Injunction relates to proceedings occurring after the order and judgment that are the subject of this appeal. Nevertheless, the proceedings to which it relates are unrelated to this case. 7. The Injunction relates to proceedings occurring after the order and judgmentthat are the subject of this appeal, but those proceedings unrelated to the proceedingsinthis case. Petitioners request that the Court take judicial notice of the Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Civil Penalties (“Complaint”) filed by the Attorney General of the State of California on December 29, 2009, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles in the matter People ofthe State ofCalifornia v. Pacifica Trucks, LLC, No. BC428934. Furthermore, Petitioners move the Court to find © that in the Complaint the State asserts a claim under the UCL for unfair competition and seeks injunctive relief. Compl. at 3-4. The Complaintis attached to this Request as Exhibit E. a. The Complaint is relevant because it demonstrates that the State filed an action under the UCL against another motor carrier seeking an injunction under the UCL, andtherefore is evidence of a State policy that disfavors the use of independent contractor drivers. The Complaint was not presented to the trial court or the Court of Appeal. The Complaint does not relate to proceedings occurring after the order and judgment that are the subject of this appeal, but rather relate to the interpretation of Section 14501(c)(1). The Injunction relates to proceedings occurring after the order and judgment that are the subject of this appeal, but those proceedings unrelated to the proceedingsin this case. Petitioners request that the Court take judicial notice of the Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction (“Injunction”) filed on January 5, 2010, in the Superior Court of the State 9. of California for the County of Los Angeles in the matter People of the State ofCalifornia v. Pacifica Trucks, L.L.C., No. BC428934. Furthermore, Petitioners move the Court to find that Injunction enjoins the defendant in that case from “{mlisclassifying as independent contractors truck drivers who operate trucks that are provided, owned, or leased by Pacifica Trucking.” Inj. at 2. The Injunction is attached to this Request as Exhibit F. . The Injunction is relevant because it demonstrates the nature of the permanent injunctions the State has sought and obtained in similar cases. The nature of such injunctions is relevant to determining the logical effect of the State’s UCL claim for the purpose of determining whether the FAAAA preemptsit. The Injunction was not presented to the trial court or the Court of Appeal. The Injunction relates to proceedings occurring after the order and judgment that are the subject of this appeal. Nevertheless, the proceedings to which it relates are unrelated to this case. Petitioners request that the Court take judicial notice of the Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Civil Penalties (“Complaint”) filed by the Attorney General of the State of California on October 27, 2008, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles in the matter People of the State of California v. Moreno, No. BC400655. Furthermore, Petitioners move the Court to find that in the Complaint the State asserts a claim under the UCL for unfair competition and seeks injunctive relief. Compl. at 3-4. The Complaint is attached to this Request as Exhibit G. 10. The Complaint is relevant because it demonstrates that the State filed an action under the UCL against another motor carrier seeking an injunction under the UCL, and therefore is evidence of a State policy that disfavors the use of independentcontractor drivers. The Complaint was not presented to the trial court or the Court of Appeal. | | The Complaint was filed prior to the order and judgment that are the subject of this appeal. However, it relates to proceedings occurring after the order and judgment. Nevertheless, the proceedings to which it relates are unrelated to this case. Petitioners request that the Court take judicial notice of the Final Judgment and PermanentInjunction (“Injunction”) filed on January 8, 2010, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles in the matter People of the State of California v Moreno, No. BC400655. Furthermore, Petitioners move the Court to find that Injunction enjoins the defendantin that case from “[mlisclassifying truck drivers as independent contractors including, but not limited to, classifying drivers who operate trucks that are provided, owned, or leased by [the defendants] as independent contractors.” Inj. at 2. The Injunction is attached to this Request as Exhibit H. a. The Injunction is relevant because it demonstrates the nature of the permanent injunctions the State has sought and obtainedin similar cases. The nature of such injunctions is relevant to determining the logical effect of the State’s UCL claim for the purpose of determining whether the FAAAA preempts it. 11. The Injunction was not presented to the trial court or the Court of Appeal. The Injunction relates to proceedings occurring after the order and judgment that are the subject of this appeal. Nevertheless, the proceedings to which it relates are unrelated to this case. | Petitioners request that the Court take judicial notice of the Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Civil Penalties (“Complaint”) filed by the Attorney General of the State of California on September 5, 2008, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles in the matter People of the State of California v. Jose Maria Lira, No. BC397601. Furthermore, Petitioners move the Court to find that in the Complaint the State asserts a claim under the UCL for unfair competition and seeks injunctive relief. Compl. at 3-4. The Complaintis attached to this Request as ExhibitI. a. 12. The Complaint is relevant because it demonstrates that the State filed an action under the UCL against another motor carrier seeking an injunction under the UCL,and therefore is evidence of a State policy that disfavors the use of independent contractor drivers. | The Complaint was not presented to the trial court or the Court of Appeal. The Complaint was filed prior to the order and judgment that are the subject of this appeal. However, it relates to proceedings occurring after the order and judgment. Nevertheless, the proceedings to which it relates are unrelated to this case. Petitioners request that the Court take judicial notice of the Final Judgment and PermanentInjunction (“Injunction”) filed on January 10 8, 2010, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles in the matter People of the State of California v Jose Maria Lira, No. BC397601. Furthermore, Petitioners move the Court to find that Injunction enjoins the defendant in that case from “{m]isclassifying truck drivers as independent contractors including, but not limited to, classifying drivers who operate trucks that are provided, owned,or leased by [the defendant] as independent contractors.” Inj. at 2. The Injunction is attached to this Request as Exhibit J. a. The Injunction is relevant because it demonstrates the | nature of the permanent injunctions the State has sought and obtainedin similar cases. b. The nature of such injunctions is relevant to determining ~ the logical effect of the State’s UCL claim for the purpose of determining whether the FAAAA preemptsit. C. The Injunction was not presented to the trial court or the Court of Appeal. d. The Injunction relates to proceedings occurring after the order and judgment that are the subject of this appeal. Nevertheless, the proceedings to which it relates are unrelated to this case. 13. Petitioners request that the Court take judicial notice of the Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Civil Penalties (“Complaint”) filed by the Attorney General of the State of California on October 27, 2008, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles in the matter People of the State of California v. Guasimal Trucking, LLC, No. BC400653. Furthermore, Petitioners move the Court to find that in the Complaint the State asserts a claim under the UCL for unfair competition and seeks injunctive relief. Compl. at 3-4. The Complaint is attached to this Request as Exhibit K. 1] 14. The Complaint is relevant because it demonstrates that the . State filed an action under the UCL against another motor carrier seeking an injunction under the UCL, and therefore is evidence of a State policy that disfavors the use of independentcontractor drivers. The Complaint was. not presented to the trial court or the Court of Appeal. The Complaint was filed prior to the order and judgment that are the subject of this appeal. However, it relates to proceedings occurring after the order and judgment. Nevertheless, the proceedings to which it relates are unrelated to this case. Petitioners request that the Court take judicial notice of the Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction (“Injunction”) filed on September 4, 2009, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles in the matter People of the State of California v Guasimal Trucking, LLC, No. BC400653. Furthermore, Petitioners move the Court to find that Injunction requires the defendant to “classify and 39 oepay” “any drivers who operate trucks owned or ‘leased by [the defendant]” as employees. Inj. at 2. The Injunction is attached to this Request as Exhibit L. a. The Injunction is relevant because it demonstrates the nature of the permanent injunctions the State has sought and obtainedin similar cases. The nature of such injunctions is relevant to determining the logical effect of the State’s UCL claim for the purpose of determining whether the FAAAA preemptsit. The Injunction was not presentedto the trial court or the Court of Appeal. 12 d. The Injunction does not relate to proceedings occurring after the order and judgment that are the subject of this appeal. Dated: October 24, 2011 Respectfully submitted, SANDS LERNER (o— NeilS. Lerner Arthur A. Severance Attorneysfor Defendant-Petitioners Alfredo Barajas and Pac Anchor Transportation, Inc. 13 Exhibit A GENT BYSFULBRIGHT © UAWORBKI ‘gy1co'paw o w n 6s th lU lU lU OP lC U h l l l l l l l O O e e e e e e e e * JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP, i HERSCHEL 7. ELKINS, uM. 1120 West A Street, Suite 700 j Telephones (629) 237-7765 jAttorneys for Plaintifé e e r n m w h e w wn w ( Attorney, General | Senior Assistant“attorney General. ALBERT HN. SHELDEN, 8u rvisingDDeputy Attorney General Deputy aetoraey General San Diego, California $2101 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 943 | PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 603? Plaintifs, COMPLAIN? FOR We INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, IMC., @ ) AND OTHER EQUITABLE Delaware Corporation, and RELI? ,DOR8 1 - 10, inclusive, Defendants. The People of the State of California, by and through F John K. Yan de Kemp, Attorney General of the State of California, ellege: *. 1. Defendants transact Business within the County of San Diego and other countizs of the State of California. The violations of lew hereinafter described are being and have bean | carried out within the County of San Diego, and other counties in the State of California. The eetions of the defendants, 22 set out below, are in violation of the Jews and public policies of the Gtate of Californias. . 4 g e e e e t a ! c o m m eee SENT BY-FULBRIGHT @ JARC RSAI t eg” , giggew : OF od HOUSTON wo1 O 4NR6U1S10121988008 a. a e q 4 2 3 4 5 6 7 @ 9 10 41 12 | place of business at Mount Kisco, New York. T WA does basiness as i4 43 ié 16 18 20 a1 a3 23 a4 25 26 2) ito petronise defendan t TWA’s business and p urchase defendant [WA's passenger ais t ravel. ‘ 2. Shenever in this complain t reference is nade to any act of a corporate defends nt, euch allegation shall be d eened {to mean that said corporate defendant and the officers, 7 | directors, agents, servan ts and employees of gaid c orporate defendant aid ox do author ise such act ox acts, whil e actively Fengaged in the managgns nt, direction, operation oF ecentzrol of the affeira of said coxporat e defendant and while ac ting within the | course and scope of thei z employment. 3. Plaintitéis informed and believes, and upon euc h information and belict alleges that Trans Worl d Airlines Inc. (hereinafter *qwa"), is a Delaware corporation with its principal throughout California. pefendant TWA, at ail t ines nentioned iperein, wes and is engage d in the business of selli ng passenger fair travel. in the cou rse and conduct ef each business, | defendant SMA advertises ite eix travel by placing, or by causiag 7 | to be placed, advertisexents in the media, including, ba t not Limited to newspapers, r adio, and television. S aid | advertisasents have bee n and are being dissemin ated by defendant THA throughout the Coun ty of San Diege and oth er counties of the State of California for the purpose of indveing the buying public 4. The true naces an d capacities, whether individual, corporate, ot otherwise, of defendants named here inas Does le 10 are unknown £0 pla intist, who therefore sues said éefendents by such fictitious nano s. Pleintité will gnen d this complaint to Sth? BY: TrULBRIGNT @ JARURDAL ft oOo 1 VIRRERF w e § h e l l O e ~ ~ n w k e u w kh Uu rS hl UC ol Ul tw Wl Ul UC ce Ml Ul U NC U U C U U l a U U O sahew the true names arid. capacitiesof.twichdet dante’ | reference all of parigraphe one» eheoughfourofthi om ithough set forth in full. | Bs w e w o o f F & W w W H F H ito be placed display newspaper advertisementswhich jvary large type: "$219 LONDON.* isize used to disclose the $219 price; the advertisenent sta "each way based on roundtrip purchase.* | print, in @ lower portion of the. advertisenent,.under:the 10.8. departure tax, security surcharges, fedexal inspection fe fand othergov’t taxes.* hereto as Exhibit 1. FRVWIOE aase have been. ascertained, - 5. Platocit? restates and,Ancorpe 6. In Pebruary of‘909, defendantsplacedoF: In. typeleas.than 3/25the “Also, inequally "Fare Conditions,“ was the language "Tare does not.include A wares thisadvertisanent is a 7. Defendants TWA and Does 1 « 210, the following, anong other, acts of upfate competition osdefi in Business and Professions Code section 17200 in.‘thats. A. Defendants have violated Business and.Profen Code section 17504, subdivision (a) which prohibitsany a engaged in bueiness in California that pelle any. consumer:good or services which are sold only in multiple units and whieha advertised by price from advertising such ‘goods orborvicesat have engaged any price other than the minisum multiple unit price atwhich: they are offered. ‘Snasauch as THA's advertisedtare‘oanonly T BY: FULBRIGHT & JAR a wee ee SENT. BYFUL IGHI 6 runonsg y C wg 1 purchased 1aspart of a roundtelptare,m a,byby advertising«one| 2 lway fare, hes‘engaged in:ectsofwnfal e‘competition. a oy 3 a ‘Refendantehaveengagedi nects ofunfair 4 competitionby failingto‘tnelod eintheadvertioedpeice 5 I charges aid:defendantaddsto the adve: reisedti cket:pr: 6 Ce Defendants haveviolatedcatiternteu st ne 9 [professionsCode-‘gection 27500, anworer articularly 8 ithe Second and third. Canses.of:Act ion. oe § } 10 (Violation of Business‘and rrofessica s:codesection2 100) ii 8. Pisintiff. resta tes,andAncerporates,herein 12 | reference all of paragraphsone throughainofthe Pomp 13 Ethough set forth infll . oo 14 a. Defendants, with theintent1to., snduce penba re of. 15 [the public to purchase déf endant’s pussenger,aiz ‘travel,’ 16 | engaged in making oz dissenin ating, or causing‘tobe nade 27 [disseninated before the pub lic, untrue or ‘nisleading stat passenger aix travel, which are nadeania 18 l concerning such 19 | prohibited by California Business : andProfessions Code6 90 §.17800 and which defendan ts at the tine these statenent s.‘ 21 [knew, ox by the exercise of re asonable care.“ahould have. kn¢ 22 [be untrue or misleading, in that d efendantsmadethe. foil 23 Janong other, untrue OF mi sleading statanentst. Defendants made misrepresentations co ncernin THAT 24 a. 98 fare to London (see exhi bit 2) An. that:the advertised pr. ‘ 96 [the London fare failed to disc loseadequately that the.to for the transportation isfin fa ct. $462 and notthe | price Lit BYiFULARIGAT 6 UAORSKE T S@gynd® + StSUPH YF OJ HOUSTON Tagg@to4azoerstantzvaeuai@6 a. 10 11 12 13 | the public to. purchase: defendant's passenger:air ‘travel,has ; engaged in making or disseminating, orcausingtobemade:or 14 15 16 17 18 is. 20 21 22 | 23 24 2s 26 w o e w z 8 W w > t w D F H . price advertisedby defendantsandthat,no:eonmumex purnuan te ithe fee is a governzent | tnponed1tax. ithough set forth in full. i concerning the actual cost of the ‘ear rental service, which© thieadvertisexent could. pixchase.a“theret toLondon: for $21 B. Defendantsmadeadarepresentations:‘once ning: TWA’s fara to London (seeExhibit 1p. in.that:the.advertisesen implies that the entiretyofthe $23additionalfee is.Le government tax, whenin truth andinfact onlyamall portia (Violation of PosinessandProfessions code:section17500 10. Plaintif® xrestates andAnooxperates herein by. reference all of paragraphs¢onethroughaof‘thie» Coiplaiat 11. Defendants,with the intent te) induce nesher ° disseminated before the public, untrue. or.alsleading statement lrepresentations are made unlewfal and prohibited by. california | Business and Professions Code section 27500.and. which defendant s : fat the time these statements vere made knew, orbytheexercis of reasonable care should have known, to beuntrue. ormisleadi : Defendants made the following, anong other,wntrae:or miaieading . claims in thats | A. In February of 1989, defendants. placedor cause: | ba placed newspaper advertisexents (see Exhibit a)wa tch stated in bold prints "Drive an Alaxo rental car; 3dasfree! 7 20 SENT BYSFULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI w e e w n a w ee we w e u1 12 | 13 14 15 16 17 | 18 | is 20 21 22 23 24 25 261 the advertisenentcontinued‘int he1 body ithe following misrepresents that. the rental istree. | consumeruses any we:ga PR copyBy|atating?. “Startingentheaay.youarzive ta London, youeas. three daysfree.useofanaso :eoonemy‘eax with| " unlinited.aileage «. 1. - i . . Lon. "Just3reserve.the.carinadva nce,-dbrestlywith2am TWAS snonden2 Special. PA footnote in the advert isementsete,forthin “Car offer: relytaxes,o petena)ste included... +" oo. Said advertisement isuntr ueorz mtelendingis hnfact,‘thecons required to pay a mandatoryfoo tor“ goad‘whether, oeaot automobile is ceturned with: a full tank‘and‘whether oF nt substantialyortion©of the f uelopps (Violation of Business:andProfes sions ‘cotesection 12. plaintiff restates:and, incorporates:herein reference ail of paragraphs one through aix’of: this.Co mp lenough set forthinfd , 43. Defendants have violat edauainens.andProfe Code section 17504, subdivis ion(on which prohibits any . ° lengaged in business in c alifornia.that: sells any: consumer code lor services which are so ldonly in multiple unite and.whichace advertised by price fro m advertising“puch good sor servic any price other than theaini munmultipleandt peiceatw itch SENT BYSFULBRLONT & AWORGKL1Sggede s SiBEPK 1 FBdHOUSTON TaggavOdazeetsyaeyataeegiaB w e f h e e l e ee e k e S a e : = B e a e e e e e e heyareoffered. Jas follows: £27504. | tive hundred dollars ($2,509.90) for.each:actofunfair | | competition as defined in-BusinessandProfessions Code:sec on findirectly, any and all of the following acter PORE, Plaintite5paystor fodgnant4sasoat det de “that underbusiness.andProfessions Code:section 17836, defendants be assessed acivil penaltyof‘two the five hundreddollars.(421800. 00).for.eachviolation of Bust and Professions. Coda®section:27800and‘each, violationof.es , 2. That under businessand:Professions codesec on. 17206, defendants be.assesseda eividpenalty.of two:‘thouse 17200. oS . 3. That under ‘Business: andProfessions Codesec on 17203 and 17535, defendants be permanently enjoined and. . restrained from engaging in or performing, directly or aA. Advertising the price ofite passenger airet at any price other than the piniaum mitipleunitpriceat.™ they are offered. we - B. In advertising any. fares 1. YPailing to. include: in‘the advertised.pr for airfare any taxes, fees, orotherfixedanount.ef money wnieh the purchaser is required to pay to.purchase:the‘ticket. a 2s Representing thatany fee.that: a porcha required ‘to pay 4s a condition of purchasing:aticket is.for: government imposed tax, unless itis true. oo SENT BY:PULBRIGHT& JawOREKco;SHBE PH “FOUHOUBTONTpercevaeniaraiziecenie& in ssvartintonthepeiceofany¢consumeras goede ox. i 2 3 4 5 é 7 8 deens proper. 9 10 | California. | 11 12 | somx.van xa | . - - AttorneyGeneral: 13 HERSCHELEL KINS, | --gentorAssistant.[AttorneyGanee 14 ALBERTMoSH ELDEN, 0. 5 | Supervising: ‘DeputyAttorney ‘Gen 16 Mn. Four) We MBHOWARD.WAYRE a7 De puty: Attorney.,General 18 . Attor neys forPlaintité 20 4 <7 21 | ara 24 25 | 26 | 27 Exhibit B Jul. 29. 20401 10:20AM - STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS _ DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT ' 7575 Metropolitan Dr, — Suite 210 San Diego, CA 92108 -(619)767-2032 fax(619)767-2035 ORDER TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LABORCOMMISSIONER To: Jose Angel Lomeli YOU ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR _ Place: 7575 Metropolitan Drive . Suite 210 San Diego, CA 97108 Date: —- August 18, 2011 Time: 8:30 AM | Concerning: Compliance with the Industrial Welfare Commission Orders and the California Labor Code. You are required to present all documents or copies thereof in your possession or held by others for you,- which will clarify or define the following: for all past and present employees (drivers) employed by you for the periods of January 1, 2010. thrucurrent: 1. X Full name of each employee (driver) for Pacer Cartage employed by you, home address, socialsecurity number, and all employmentapplications,rate of pay and date of hiré/term for each.2. X Timerecords for allemployees showing when the employee begins and ends each work period,including split shift, meal periods and total daily hours worked. Please provide the employees actual time cards. 3. X Payroll records showingtotal wages paid each payroll period, total hours worked in the payrollperiod, and applicable rate of pay. 4. X 2010-2011 EDD Quarterly Wage & Withholding Reports 5 X Check stubs and/or Itemized wage statements and copies of business checks paid to allemployees. _ 6 X Acopy of a valid Certificate of Liability from your Workers’ Compensation Insurance Companyfor the period of January 1, 2010 to current. OO AN APPEARANCEIS NECCESSARY ON THE DATE INDICATED Failure to comply with the requirements of this notice will make necessary appropriate legal action bythe Division (Sections 74 and 92, California Labor Code). © oe STATE LABOR COMMISSIONER Date: 07/26/2011 - »(fe CH» paid Rhiannon M. Rogers QO Deputy Labor Commissioner - ORDER TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LABOR COMMISSIONER AUG-NA110 a7 stt FROM- 700 P.0Ot/O01 “F w N n E e e y a d T e t v C O P e e shal] mean that Lira, through his agents, employees, or representatives, performed or authorized such acts while they were acting within the actual or ostensible scope oftheir authority. 6. Whenever reference-is madein this complaintto any act of the defendants, including those named herein as Doe defendants, such allegations shall mean that each defendant and/or Doe defendant acted individually and jointly with the other defendants, including the Doe defendants, named in this complaint. | : FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATIONS OF BUSINESS ANDPROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 (UNFAIR COMPETITION) (Against All Defendants ) | 7. The People reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 6 ofthis complaintas if set fully herein. ) _ 8. | Defendants have violated and continuetoviolate Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq. by engaging in acts ofunfair competition including, but not limited to, the following: . a. failing to pay Unemployment Insurance taxes as required by Unemployment Insurance Code section 976; b. failing to pay Employment Training Fund taxes asrequired by Unemployment Insurance Code section 976,6; _¢. failing to withhold and transmit State Disability Insurance taxes as required by Unemployment Insurance Code section 986; d. failing to withhold State incometaxes and file a withholding return as required by Unemployment Insurance Code sections 13020 and13021; | e. failing to provide workers’ compensation as required by Labor Code section 3700;- _£. andfailing to provide employees with itemized written statements as required | by Labor Code section 226. . | if . 3 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION AND CIVIL PENALTIES. s e w e n s =, S o o d m e m e m e d A n t p e e o y a . W A S h e t ) bh w oO o O o ~ T N D W A 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 | 26 27 28 o @ PRAYER FORRELIEF WHEREFORE, the Peoplepray for the following relief: _ 1. Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17203, that defendants, their SUCCESSOFS, agents, fepresentatives, employees and all persons who act in concert with defendants be permanently enjoined from engaging in unfair competition as defined in Business and Professions Code section 17200, including, but not limited to, acts and practices alleged in this complaint; | 2. Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17206, that the Court assess a civil penalty oftwo thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) against Defendants for each violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, the total amount being no less than $50,000.00 or as provedattrial; 3. That the People recovertheir costs of suit; and 4. Such other and furtherrelief that the Court deems appropriate andjust. Dated: October ZT, 2008 Respectfully submitted, EDMUNDG, BROWN JR. . Attorney Generalofthe State of California - MARK J. BRECKLER Senior Assistant Attorney General JON M. ICHINAGA Supervising Deputy Attorney General - MAURICE JOURDANE. Deputy Attorney General CAROLYN Y. LA Deputy Attorney General CAROLYNY. LA. Deputy Attomey General Attorneys for Plaintiff, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel. EDMUND G. BROWN JR., as Attorney General of the State of California 4 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION AND CIVIL PENALTIES - Exhibit D HEC-14-2009 02:08 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE a13 697 N71 P.002 S P w w W w w n CONFORNED Ebb} EDMUND G. BROWN JR. , REC’ wo lao Attorney General of Califorma eC'D bal ae : oe MARK J, BRECKLER LOS Abel Jiis ob ladOR CQURT Scnior Assistant Attomey General net a 2009 JON M.ICHINAGA /04 BEE j iq 2808 Supervising pepaty Aworey Genera! 4089 MAURICE R. JOURDANE, State Bar No, 42893 AHN A CheeRE CLERK Deputy Attorocy General . FILING WINDOW era ‘eedWeBUTY CAROLYN Y. LA,State Bar No, 162945 BY, ANTORIOUe R EBE Deputy Attorney General 300 8. Spring Strect, Suite 1702 Los Angeles, CA 90033 Telephone: (213) 620-2333 Fax: (213) 897-7605 E-mail; carolyn.Ja@doj.ca.gov Attorneysfor Plaintiff. The People ofthe State of California SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA - FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CASE NO. BC400654 CALIFORNIA ex rel. EDMUND G. BROWNJR., Attorney Genera!of the State ] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ° of Culifornia, PERMANENT INJUNCTION Plaintiff, |Date: N/A Time: N/A Ye ret 17 Judge: The Honorable Richard E. Rico Trial Date: January 19,2010 a " EDMUNDO JOSE LIRA, an Individual, Action Filed: October 27, 2008 and DOES1 through 450, inclusive, Defendants. PleintiZy, the People of theState of California, ("Plaintiff’), appcaring through California Attorney Gencral Edmund G. Brown Jr., by Deputy Attorneys General Maurice R. Jourdane and Carolyn La, and Defendant Edmundo Jose Lira (“Defendant”) appearing through. his arttomey Law Offices ofPélaster & Berman, by Martin B, Berman, having stipulated that this Final 1 24 1 | | [PROPOSED] FINAL JUOGMENT ANDPERMANENT INJUNCTION (8C-400654) DEC-14-2009 02:08 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 213 B37 1071 F.003 1 | Judgment and Permanent Injunction (“Judgment”) may be ent ered, with each party waiving the w right to an adjudicative trial, without the taking ofevidence on an yissue offact or law,or any factual finding by the Court or any admission or denial of wrongdoing o r guih, w e 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED T HAT: 3 1. ‘This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matic of this action and ofthe parties. 6 | Venue as to all matters between the parties relating to this action is proper in this Court. — 7 2. For purposes ofthe injunctive language set forth in paragraphs3 and 4 below ,the 8 | party identified as Edhrnundo Jose Lira includes any agents or parties acting in concert with or in 9 participation with Edmundo Jose Lira, 10 ; INJUNCTION il 3. Pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections 17203 and 17535, Edmundo Jose 12 {| Lira, is hereby enjoined permanently from the followingact: . 13 4, Misclassifying truck drivers as independent contractors including, but not limited to, 14 classifyingdrivers who operate trucks that arc provided, owned, or leased by Edmundo Jose Lira 15 | as independent contractors. 16 | . CIVIL PENALTIES 17 5. Payment having been madein the sum ofFOUR THOUSAND,FIVE HUNDRED 38 | DOLLARS($4,500.00) as a penalty, and FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS($500.00) for Plaintiff's 19 |nttomey fees and costs as set forth in the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment, Defendantis deemed 20 to have satisfied all requirements for monetary payments for any matters actually alleged in the | 21 | Complaint. 22] 6. This Judgmentis to be entered by the Clerk only after Plaintiffinforms the Courtthat 23 | EdnmundoJoseLira has made all payments specified in the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment. 24 7. The Court retains jurisdiction as the ends ofjustice mayrequire for the purpose of 25 | enabling any party to this Jvdgment 10 epply to the Court at anytime for such futher orders and 26 | directions as may be necessary or appropriate for: (a) the construction or carrying outofthis 27 |. Judgment; (b) the enforcement of any provision ofthis Judgment; (c) the modification of the 28 ff Ped 2 a. {PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENTINJUNCTION (80400634) " ted DEC-18-2009 02:09 a w o W e O o o O N Y H N 10 i 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 27 28 . jnjunctive provisions of this Judgment; and (d) the punishment ofany violations ofthis Judgment, | TT 18 SO ORDERED: Dated:__ 6 Q DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 4 213 897 1071 P,004 JSUBGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT RICHARDE. RICO [PROPOSED] FINAL, RJDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION (BC400654 Exhibit E H n A & | W W N }-—2.0--Box-85266- og © A fy-- a 6e . *E ILED EDMUND G. BROWN Jr, Los Angeles Superior Court Attomey General of California MARK BRECKLER Senior Assistant Attorney General DEC 29 2009 JON M, ICHINAGA Supervising Deputy Attomey General . dohn A. Clarke 6 Officar/Clark CAROLYN La By Deputy MAURICE R.JOURDANE . SHA Deputy Attorneys General : State Bar No. 42898 110 West A Street, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92101 San Diego, CA 92186-5266 Telephone: (619) 645-2218 . Fax: (619) 645-2271 E-mail; Maurice.Jourdane@doj.ca.goy Attorneys for Plaintiff The People ofthe State ofCalifornia . SUPERIOR COURTOF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES BC428934 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CASE NO. CALIFORNIA ex rel. EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Attorney General of the State AND CIVIL PENALTIES Plaintiff, (Business & Professions Code sections 17200 et seq.) PACIFICA TRUCKS,L.L.C.,, a limited Hiability corporation and DOES 1 throug! 50,inclusive, Defendant. Plaintiff, the People ofthe State ofCalifornia, by and through Edmund G. Brown Jr., as Attomey General ofthe State of Califomia, is informed and believes, andan such information and belief alleges: Wt it I COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL. PENALTIES --[-employees;By-misclassifyingthe-drivers-asindependent-contractors,Pacificahas-illegally_— INTRODUCTION 1. This action is brought byPlaintiff, the People ofthe State of California, ex rel, Edmund G. Brown Jr, Attomey General ofthe State of California, against Defendant Pacifica Trucks LLC (Pacifica), a sonthem California fleet operator, to stop Pacifica from engaging in unfair competition, Pacifica hes engaged in a pattem and practice ofviolating state and federal law by misclassifying truck drivers working forit as independent contractors rather than as lowered his cost ofdoing business by failing to pay state employmentrelated taxes, failing to contribute to Social Security and Medicare, and failing to provide employee drivers with W-2 forms, Pacifica’s unlawful conduct not only harmslaw abiding transportation companies, but also injures his employees and the taxpayers of California. This action seeks to compel Pacifica . to cease engaging in unfair competition and topay applicable penalties, . PARTIES 2. ‘PlaintiffEdmund G, Brown Jr,is the Attommey General ofthe State ofCalifomia and - is the chief law officer ofthe State. (Cal. Const.art. V, § 13.) The Attomey General is empowered bythe California Constitution to take whatever action is necessary to ensure thet the laws ofthe State are uniformly and adequately enforced. Heis statutorily authorized to bring _ actions in the nameofthe People ofthe State ofCalifomia to enforce California’s statutes governing unfair competition. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17204.) 3. Defendant Pacifica is a limited liability company doing business in the State of California, including in the county ofLos Angeles. Pacifica is a flect operator, owning sight to ten trucks, It hires truck drivers to transport cargo from the Ports ofLos Angeles and Long Beach, . , ; 4, The true names and capacities ofdefendants sued in the complaint under thefictitious names DOES through 50,inclusive, presently are unknown to plaintiff, whotherefore sues such defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffwill seck to amend this cormplaintto allege the truc names ofDOES 1 through 50 when the same have been ascertained. Plaintiffis informed and 2 COMPLAINTFOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL PENALTIES believes, and based thereonalleges, that cach ofthefictitiously named defendants participated in someor part ofthe acts alleged herein. , . 5. | Whenever reference is made in thiscomplaint to any actofPacifica, such allegations shal] mean that Pacifica through his agents, employees, or representatives, performed or authorized such acts while they were acting within the actual or ostensible scopeoftheir authority. | __-_6,—Wheneverreference-ismadeinthiscomplaintte-any-actofthedefendants,including those named herein as Doe defendants, suchallegations shall mean that each defendant and/or Doe defendant acted individually and jointly with the other defendants, including the Doe defendants, named im this complaint. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION BUSINESS ANDPROFESSIONS CODESECTION 17200 (Against All Defendants) 7. The People re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 6 ofthis complaint as if set fully herein. - 8. The Defendants’ truck drivers are employees whoare misclassified as independent contractors. Defendants have absolute contro] over their track drivers, Driving trucks which the defendants own, the drivers work exclusively for defendants. Without the use of defendants’ trucks, their drivers cannot work. Defendants pay for all business expenses including liability and cargo insurance, operating expenses for the trucks, e.g. ‘gas, Tepairs, and parking fees. - Defendants" truck drivers do not have their own Department ofTransportation permit and instead tely on Defendants’ to ensure proper authorization to drive their tracks. 9, Defendants’ pay their drivers without deducting income taxes, Social Security taxes, Medicare,orstate disability insurance, Instead, defendants issue the employee drivers federal tax forra1099 rather than a form W-2, | "10, Defendants do not contribute to the unemployment insurance fund for their driver employees, and do not contribute to finds for their employee drivers’ Social Security, Medicare and state disability insurance, 3 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVB RELIEF AND CIVILPENALTIES - _ a n w e > Ww W W w B Ny P a t e W t T h e a o h y r e e m 11. Defendants do not provide their employee drives with a written record ofthe _ employee drivers hours worked, hourly rate, and social security umber. 12. Defendants have violated and continueto violate Business and Professions Code section 17200,et seq. by engaging in acts ofunfair competition including, but not limited to, the following: a. failing to pay Unemployment Insurance taxes as required by Unemployment ~f—InsuranceCodesection 976; b, failing to pay EmploymentTraining Fond taxes as required by Unemployment Insurance Code section 976.6; oS c, failing to withhold State Disability Insurance taxes as required by . Unemployment Insurance Code section 984; | d, failing to withhold State income taxes as required by UnemploymentInsurance Code section 13020; e, failing to provide employees with itemized written statements as required by Labor Code section 226, and, | f. failing to provide exnployees with federal W-2 forms. | PRAYER FORRELIEF WHEREFORE,the Peoplepray for the following relief: 1.‘ Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17203, that defendants, their SUCCeSSOrs, agents, representatives, employees and all persons who act m concert with defendants be permanently enjoined from engaging in unfair competition as defined in Business and Professions Code section 17200, including, but not limited to, acts and practices alleged in this vomplaint; . 2. Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17206, that the Court assess a civil penalty oftwo thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) against Defendants for each violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, the total amount being no Jess than $50,000.00 or as proved at trial; 3. That the People recover their costs of suit; and, 4 . ‘COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL PENALTIES na na W w & W w N a l 4, Such other and further reliefthat the Court deems appropriate andjust. Dated: December 29, 2009 Respectfully Submitted, EDMUND G. BRown Jr, Attorney General of Califomia MARKBRECKLER Senior Assistant Attorney General ‘ JON M. ICHINAGA — Supervising Deputy Attorney General CAROLYN LA Deputy AttorneyGeneral m r , y e h e b h BTRct LA2009603515 70223 138.doc 5 COMPLAINTFOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL PENALTIES Exhibit F ™ ” i DEC-30-2009 WED 02:13 PH DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FAX NO, siscose P, 08 1 EpMunp G.BRown JR. . OMT Ty. _ | Attomey General of Califomia . ’ a4 - ! 2 MARK BRECKLER ra LOS Amar LY DRE as COURT Senior Assistant Attorney General 3. JON M.ICHINAGA dan % 4 2813 SupervisinisingFDeputy Attomcy General * HOHICR CET bart MAURICER. JOURDANE OHI. 5 S Deputy Attomeys General . BYdANGan ee pele State Bar No, 42898 6 110 West A Street, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92101 7 P.O, Box 85266 San Diego, CA 92186-5266 8 Telephone: (619) 645-2218 Fax: (619) 645-2271 9 E-mail: MauriceJourdane@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff 10 The People ofthe State ofCalifornia 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 13 7 14 THE PEOPLE OF THESTATE OF | Case No. BC428934 | 15 CALIFORNIA ex rel. EDMUND G. : BROWN JR., Attorney General of the State [FROQROSED] FINAL JUDGMENT 16 of California, Plaintiff, 17 ve 18 PACIFICA TRUCKS, L.L.C,, a limited liability corporation and DOES | through 19 |50, inclusive, 20 . Defendant. 21 22 . . . 23 Plaintiff, the People ofthe State of California, ("Plaintiff"), appearing through Califomia 24 Attorney General Edmund.G, Brown Jr., by Deputy Attorneys General Maurice R. Jourdane and 25 Defendant Pacifica Trucks L.L.C, ("Defendant") represented byits attorney Mark Valencia 26 havingstipulated thatthis J’inal Judgment (“Judgment”) may be entered, with each party waiving 27° the right to an adjudicativetrial, without the taking ofevidence on any issue offact or law, or any 28 factual finding by the Court or any admission or denial of wrongdoingor guilt. €K l on 7 | 1 Br FINAL JUDGMENT r DEC-30-2009 WED 02:13 PH see OF JUSTICE FAX NO. 6198452669 OP 09° 1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADIUDGED; AND DE CREED THAT: 2 1. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter ofthis action andofthe part ies. 31 Venueas to all matters between the parties relating to this action is proper in this Court. 4 2. For purposes ofthe injunctive langu age set forth in paragraphs 3 below, the party 5 | identified as Pacifica Trucks includes any agents or part ies acting in concert with or in 6 participation with Pacifica Trucks. 7 INJUNCTION . . 8 3. Pursuant to Business and Professions Cod e sections 17203 and 17535, Pacifica 9 | Trucksis hereby enjoined permanently from misclassifying as i ndependentcontractors truck 10 drivers who operate trucks that are provided,ewned, or lea sed by Pacifica Trucking. 1 - CIVIL PENALTIES | 12 .4, Payment having been madein the sum ofFIVE THO USAND DOLLARS ($5,000) as 3 _ set forth in the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment, Defendantis deemed to h ave satisfied all 14 | requirements for monetary payments for any matters actuallyalle ged in the Complaint. 15 5. The Court retains jurisdiction as the ends ofjustic emay require for thepurpose of 16 enabling anyparty to this Judgmentto apply to the Court at a ny time for such further orders and 17 directions as may be necessary or appropriate for: (a) the constructio n or carrying outofthis 18 } Judgment; (b) the enforcementofany provisionofthis Judgment; (¢) ‘the modificat ion ofthe 19 | injunctive provisions ofthis Judgment, and (d) the punishment for.any violat ion ofthis Judgment. 20 6. The action against the defendants identified as DOB1 through 50 is dismissed. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED: | 22 | 2| me pA YO 24 r GT 25 26 27 ee 2 ie: . FINAL JUDGMENT Exhibit G _ 0 © 1 A vA & Ww W WN — _ o S n N N O N Y N O D H W N n N w N n N — _ — — — — _ — — _ o m — _ j , ; ; t j 3e e B L , EDMUNDG.BROWNIR, Attorney Generalofthe State of California . FILED . MARK BRECKLER. L OSANGELES SUPERIOR COURT Senior Assistant Attorney General / JON ICHINAGA . oe Supervising Deputy Attorney General OCT 27 2008 MAURICE JOURDANE,State Bar No. 49349 ; oo Deputy Attorney General. 7 CAROLYN Y.LA,State Bar No.162945 JOHIYZYCLARKE, CLERK Deputy Attorney General 300 South Spring Street, Suite 1702 BY MARY GARCIA, DEPUTY Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 620-2333 -Y/ Fax: (213)-897-7605 r . Attorneys for Plaintiff ON{A M. Sohig(Gh THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel, EDMUND G. BROWN JR., as Attorney General ofthe State of California ~ SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ~ | ~ BC400655 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATEOF CALIFORNIAex CASENO.— - - rel. EDMUND G. BROWN JR., as Attorney General of the State of California, COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND Plaintiff, CIVIL PENALTIES (Business & Professions Code vs. , - | sections 17200 et seq.) - NOEL A. MORENO,an Individual; EMMA R. . MORENO,an Individual; DOES 1 through 50, - inclusive, , . Defendants. Plaintiff, the People of the State of California, by and through EdmundG. Brown Jr., as 7 Attorney Generalofthe State of California, is informed and believes, and on such information andbelief alleges: | i | Hf Mt. COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION AND CIVIL PENALTIES e s C R P E S , u e A T S , S a t a r e r e So ke C h a \ o c o ~ ] A m y b h w w N e — _ N o W M N R NH N R Q D O R D D w i m e e m m l m t l l e o SN A M W BR W D NH KF OS OO Oo HD DH NH B R Ww W HH + 2S 2 & INTRODUCTION 1, This action is brought by Plaintiff, the People ofthe State of California, exrel. Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney Generalofthe State of California, against Defendants Noel A. ._Moreno and Emma R. Moreno,(“the Morenos”), who operate a trucking companycalled Moreno Trucking, in order to stop the Morenos from engaging in unfair competition. The Morenos have engaged in a pattern and practice of violating state law by misclassifying truck drivers working for them as independent contractors rather than as employees. By misclassifying the drivers as independent contractors, the Morenos haveillegally lowered their cost of doing business by failing to pay state employment-related taxes, failing to provide workers’ compensation insurance, and byfailing to provide employees with itemized wage statements, The Morenos’ unlawful conduct not only harms law-abiding transportation companies, butalso injures their employees and the taxpayers of California. This action seeksto compel the Morenos to cease engaging in unfair competition and to pay applicable penalties. - | | | PARTIES 2. PlaintiffEdmund G, BrownJr, is the Attorney General of the State of California and is the chief law officer of the State, (Cal. Const., art. V, § 13.) The Attorney Generalis empowered by the California Constitution to take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the laws ofthe State are uniformly and adequately enforced. Heis statutorily authorized to bring actions in the nameofthe Peopleofthe State of California to enforce California’s statutes governing unfair competition. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17204.) — . 3. Defendant Noel A. Morenoisan individual, andat all times relevant herein was doing business in the County of Los Angeles. . 4, Defendant Emma R. Moreno is an individual, and at all times relevant herein was doing business in the County of Los Angeles. Emma R. Morenois married to Noel A. Moreno, The Morenos ownseveraltrucks and hire drivers to transport cargo for their trucking company . from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. 5. The true names and capacities of defendants sued in the complaint under the _ fictitious names DOES 1 through 50,inclusive, presently are unknownto plaintiff, who therefore 2 “COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIONAND CIVIL PENALTIES CR AM ER B R I S — 0 Oo N A UW BP WY WD o a r y D n D n P R Ww W N o - & © @& @ y A v A f F W W N — _ © sues such defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek to amend this complaint to allege the true names of DOES1 through 50 when the same havebeenascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereonalleges, that each of the.fictitiously named defendants participated in someorpart of the acts alleged herein. . . . 6. Whenever reference is madein this complaintto any act of the Morenos, such allegations shall mean that the Morenos through their agents, employees, or representatives, performed or authorized sach acts while they were acting within the actual or ostensible scope of their authority: | 1, Whenever reference is madein this complaintto any act of the defendants, including those named herein as Doe defendants, such allegations shall mean that each defendant and/or Doe defendantacted individually andjointly with the other defendants, including the Doe defendants, named in this complaint. | | FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATIONS OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 (ONFAIR COMPETITION) - (Against All Defendants) 8. The People reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 7 ofthis complaint as if set fully herein. | “9. Defendants have violated and continue to violate Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq. by engaging in acts of unfair competition including, but not limited to, the ‘following: a. failing to pay Unemployment Insurance taxes as required by Unemployment Insurance Code section 976, | ; b.failing to pay Employment Training Fundtaxes as required by Unemployment Insurance Codesection 976.6; c. failing to withhold and transmit State Disability Insurance taxes as required by .|| UnemploymentInsurance Codesection 986; d. failing to withhold State incometaxes andfile a withholding return as required 3 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION AND CIVIL PENALTIES S O C N I N N c o a a o “ I a n 7 ) o S t a N — O O © o o ~~ ] n N ~ & Ma d N R — O o 0 . Oo WI A W D Bh Ww W WY by UnemploymentInsurance Code sections 13020 and 13021; e. failing to provide workers’ compensation ds required by Labor Code section 3700, . f. and failing to provide employees with itemized written statements as required byLabor Code section 226. | PRAYER FOR RELIEF ‘WHEREFORE,the People pray for the followingrelief: . 1, Pursuantto Business and Professions Code section 17203,that defendants,their successors, agents, representatives, employees andall persons who act in concert with defendants be permanently enjoined from engaging in unfair competition as defined in Business and Professions Code section 17200, including, but not limited to, acts and practices alleged in this complaint; 2. Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section17206, that the Court assess a civil penalty oftwo thousandfive hundred dollars ($2,500) against Defendants for each violation of Business and Professions Codesection 17200, the total amount being no less than $50,000.00. or as proved attrial; 3. That the People recovertheir costs of suit; and 4, Such other and furtherrelief that the Court deems appropriate and just. “ | Hf M H HM fl Hf f Hf If ; 4 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION AND CIVIL PENALTIES — Oo co ~~ A A FF WG N M A h n w N o — o S © a o ~ a n w a - u a N S — o O S n R A f i e , e h T e n n e y A A i m A h N ~ “ L e , " M M a d “ * . “ d Y a po em t e N G e Dated: October2’7, 2008 Respectfully submitted, EDMUND G.BROWN JR. Attorney General ofthe State of California MARK J. BRECKLER Senior Assistant Attorney General JON M. ICHINAGA Supervising Deputy Attorney General MAURICE JOURDANE Deputy Attorney General CAROLYN Y. LA Deputy Attorney General . wrpeha GRROL Y.LA Deputy Attomey General - Attomeysfor Plaintiff, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel. EDMUND G. BROWN JR., as Attomey General of the State of California : __3 _ COMPLAINTFOR INJUNCTION AND CIVIL PENALTIES Exhibit H b h W W N 0 o F SI DB D Ww EDMUND G. BROWNJR. Attorney General of California MARK J, BRECKLER ’ Senior Assistant Attorney General JON M.ICHINAGA Supervising Deputy Attorney General "MAURICE R. JOURDANE,State Bar No, 42898 Deputy Attomey General CAROLYN Y. LA, State Bar No. 162945 Deputy Attomey General 300 8. Spring Street, Suite 1702 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone! (213) 620-2333 Fax: (213) 897-7605 E-mail: carolyn.la@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff The People ofthe State of Californ:‘a LESu riotft! of(Califomia Angelesounty of Los SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF - CALIFORNIA ex rel. EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Attorney Generalof theState of California, Plaintiff, NOEL A, MORENO,an Individual;EMMA R. MORENO,an Individual; and DOES1 through 50, inclusive, . Defendants, CASE NO. BC400655 FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Date: N/A _| Time: N/A Dept: 41 Judge: The Hon, Ronald M, Sohigian Trial Date: January 19, 2010 _Action Filed: October 27, 2008 Plaintiff, the People of the State of California, ("Plaintiff’), appearing through California Attorney General Edmund G. BrownJr., by Deputy Attorneys General Maurice R. Jourdane and ‘Carolyn La, and Defendants Noel .A4. Moreno and Emma R. Moreno ("Defendants") appearing’ ” [RRS¥SSS53 FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION (BC400655) D o C O O N D H F F Y H M Y — _ a n _ n m m t a e — — _ = Be de at 27 - 28 e through their attorney Law Offices of Pflaster & Berman, by Martin B. Berman,havingstipulated that this Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction (“Judgment”) may beentered, with each party | waiving the right to an adjudicativetrial, without the taking of evidence on any issue offact or aw,or any factual finding by the Court or any admission or denial of wrongdoingor guilt, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,AND DECREED THAT: 1, This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and ofthe parties, "Venueasto all mattersbetween the parties relating to this action is proper in this Court, 2. For purposesofthe injunctive language set forth in paragraphs 3 and 4 below,the parties identified as Noel A. Moreno and EmmaR. Moreno include any agents or parties acting in concert with or in participation with Noel A, Moreno and/or Emma R. Moreno, | INJUNCTION - 3, Pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections 17203 and 17535, Noel A. | Moreno and Emma R. Moreno,are hereby enjoined permanently from the followingact: | 4. Misclassifying truck drivers as independent contractors including, but not limited to, classifying drivers whooperate trucks thatare provided, owned, or leased by Noel A. Moreno | and/or Emma R Morenoas independent contractors. | | CIVIL PENALTIES | 5, Payment having been rade in the sum ofFOUR THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED _ DOLLARS($4,500.00)as a penalty, and FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS($500.00)for Plaintiff's attorney fees and costs as set forth in the Stipulation for Entry ofJudgment, Defendants are . deemed to have satisfied all requirements for monetary payments for any matters: actually alleged in the Complaint.. | | | | 6. This Judgmentis to be entered by the Clerk only after Plaintiff informs the Court that Defendants have madeall payments specified in the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment. Te The Court retains jurisdiction as the ends ofjustice may require for the purpose of enabling any party to this Judgmertit to apply to the Court at any time for such further orders and . directions as may be necessary or appropriate for: (a) the construction or carrying out of this Judgment: (b) the enforcement of any provision of this Judgment; (c) the modification ofthe (PRSESSED) FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION (BC400655) — Y 5 © wa DQ A HA FP Y N H O oC «c o DN A HA F& F W N . injunctiveprovisionsofthis Judgment; and (d) the punishmentofany violations of this Judgment. IT IS SO ORDERED: tesa = HQNALDDM, SOHIGIANDated: ‘JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT . 3 . (PRSROSEIYFINAL SUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION (BC400655) Exhibit I u IN BN 35 0N r YS 3H OD 3g AL NV d SH I +4 OL GF ND S9 0N t N o n 3 X SA US I N I W O Y Sp y N H ! M nd C0 19 04 o 9 ¢ O5 Y IN N $ 0 LA HL AN OY Sn p y J y A t t n B i n s O W 0 9 33 4 0 N £0 19 03 8 a q0 9 e ORIGINAL 1 | EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General ofthe State of California 21} MARK BRECKLER Senior Assistant Attorney General 3 JON ICHINAGA RT Supervising Deputy Attorney General LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COU 4|| MAURICE JOURDANE,State Bar No. 49349 “9 5 2008 Deputy Attorney General SER 5|| CAROLYN Y.LA,State Bar No.162945 JOHN A. CLARKE, CLERK Deputy Attorney General / 6|| 300 South Spring Street, Suite 1702 BY SHAU SLEY, DEPUTY Los Angeles, CA 90013 7\| Telephone: (213) 620-2333 Fax: (213) 897-7605 Attorneys for Plaintiff 9 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex re], EDMUND G. BROWN JR., as Attorney General 101 of the State of California 11 . SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12], COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 13 B0397 60! 14 ; THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex | CASE NO. 15|| rel. EDMUND G. BROWN JR., as Attorney General of the State of California, COMPLAINT FOR 16 ; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND Plaintiff, CIVIL PENALTIES | 17 (Business & Professions Code "VS, sections 17200 et seq.) 18 JOSE MARIALIRA,an Individual and DOESI 19|| through 50, inclusive, ; 20 . Defendants. 21 22 . 23 Plaintiff, the People ofthe State of California, by and through EdmundG,BrownJr,, as 24 Attomey General of the State of California, is informed and believes, and on such information 25} and belief alleges: 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION AND CIVIL PENALTIES C O P e r L P o s , Bh Ww W N - , oO o «o Oo n s D H 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 @ @ | INTRODUCTION 1. This action is broughtby Plaintiff, the People ofthe State of California,ex rel, Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney Generalofthe State ofCalifornia, against Defendant Jose Mar ia Lira, (“Lira”), a southem Califomia fleet operator, to stop Lira from engaging in unfair competition. Lira has engaged in a pattern and practice of violating state law by misclassif ying truck drivers working for him as independent contractors rather than as employees. By misclassifying the drivers as independent contractors, Lira has illegally lowered his cost of doing business by failing to pay state employment-related taxes and by failing to provide workers’ compensation insurance. Lira’s unlawful conduct not only harms law-abiding transportation companies, but also injures his employees and the taxpayers of California. This action seeks to compelLira to cease engaging in unfair competition and to pay applicablepenalties. PARTIES 2. Plaintiff Edmund G. Brown Jr, is the Attorney General ofthe State of California and is the chief law officer of the State. (Cal. Const., art. V, § 13.) The Attorney Generalis empowered by the California Constitution to take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the lawsofthe State are uniformly and adequately enforced. Heis statutorily. authorized to bring . actions in the nameofthe People ofthe State of California to enforce California’s statutes governing unfair competition. (Bus, & Prof. Code, § 17204.) 3. Defendant Jose Maria Lira is an individual, and at al] times relevant herein was doing business in the county of Los Angeles. Lira is a fleet operator, owning several trucks. He hires truck drivers to transport cargo from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, 4. The true names and capacities of defendants sued in the complaint under the fictitious names DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, presently are unknown to plaintiff, who therefore sues such defendants by such fictitious names,. Plaintiff will seek to amend this complaintto allege the true names ofDOES | through 50 when the same have been ascertained, Plaintiff is informed andbelieves, and based thereon alleges, that each ofthe fictitiously named defendants participated in someorpart of the acts alleged herein. 5. Whenever reference is madein this complaint to any act of Lira, such allegations ; 2 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION AND CIVIL PENALTIES S t a ! U S I L I E S . 10 ||: 7 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 |\ 25 26 27 28 o o O N M D N H N F S shall mean that Lira through his agents, employees, or representatives, performed or authorized such acts while they were acting within the actual or ostensible scope of their authority. 6. Whenever reference is made in this complaint to any act of the defendants, including those named herein as Doe defendants, such allegations shall mean that each defendant and/or Doe defendant acted individually and jointly with the other defendants, including the Doe defendants, named in this complaint. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATIONS OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 (UNFAIR COMPETITION) (Against All Defendants) 7. The People reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs | through 6 ofthis complaintas if set fully herein. 8, Defendants have violated and continue to violate Business and Professions Code ‘section 17200, et seq. by engaging in acts of unfair competition including,but notlimited to, the following: a. failing to pay UnemploymentInsurancetaxes as required by Unemployment ‘Insurance Code section 976; b. failing to pay Employment Training Fund taxes as required by Unemployment Insurance Code section 976.6; . | c. failing to withhold State Disability Insurance taxes as required by Unemployment Insurance Code section 984; d. failing to withhold State incometaxes as required by Unemployment Insurance Codesection 13020; e. failing to provide workers’ compensation as required by Labor Code section 3700; f. and failing to provide employees with itemized written statements as required by Labor Codesection 226, Mf 3 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION AND CIVIL PENALTIES CU B C e L I C E s d a d “P F N n M N W w C O 10. 11 12 13 14 15 16 | 17 18 19 20 21 22, 23 24 25 26 27 28 PRAYERFOR RELI F WHEREFORE,the People prayforthe followingrelief: 1. Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17203, that defendants,their successors, agents, representatives, employees and all persons whoact in concert with defendants be permanently enjoined from engaging in unfair competition as defined in Business and Professions Code section 17200,including, but not limited to, acts and practices alleged in this complaint; | 2. Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17206, that the Court assess a civil penalty oftwo thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) against Defendants for each violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, the total amount being noless than $50,000.00 or as proved attrial; 3. That the People recovertheir costs of suit; and 4, Such other and further relief that the Court deems appropriate and just, Dated: September $, 2008 Respectfully submitted, | EDMUNDG, BROWN JR. Attorney Generalof the State of California MARK J. BRECKLER Senior Assistant Attorney General JON M. ICHTINAGA Supervising Deputy Attorney General MAURICE JOURDANE Deputy Attorney General CAROLYN Y. LA Deputy Attorney General By: Luangn. . CAROLYN Y. of Deputy Mtoniey General Attomeysfor Plaintiff, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel. EDMUND G. BROWN JR., as Attorney General] of the State of California 4 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION AND CIVIL PENALTIES Exhibit J o O o - . n N t n > , @ 1< EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of California. MARK J, BRECKLER Senicr Assistant Attorney General - JON M.ICHINAGA Supervising Deputy Attomey General] MAURICE R. JOURDANE,State Bar No. 42898 * Deputy Attorney General CAROLYN Y, LA, State Bar No. 162945 Deputy AttorneyGeneral 300.8. Spring Street, Suite1702 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 620-2333 Fax: (213) 897-7605 E-mail: carolyn.la@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for.Plaintiff, _The People ofthe State of.Califefornia FOR THE COUNTY THEPEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ‘CALIFORNIA exrel. EDMUND G. of California, Plaintiff, JOSE MARIA LIRA,an Individual and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. . 1 FEB 01 2010 “FUNGwow © onan REC'D eLEDawcourt 75s § re at Cc } sors OhEr on BY Ss SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OF LOS ANGELES ‘CASE NO. BC397601 - BROWN JR., Attorney General of the State [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND . PERMANENT INJUNCTION Date: N/A | . ‘Time: = N/A Dept: 14 Judge: The Honorable Terry A. Green. . Trial Date: March 8, 2010 Action Filed: September 5, 2008 ” Plaintiff, the Peopleof the State of California, ("Plaintiff’), appearing through California _Attorney General Edmund G. BrownJr., by Deputy Attorneys General Maurice R. Jourdane and “Carolyn La, and Defendant Jose Maria Lira ("Defendant") appearing through his attorney Law — Offices of Pflaster & Berman, by Martin B. Berman, having stipulated that this Final Judgment . [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION (BC397601) “a 1] ® : @ and Permanent Injunction (“Judgment”) may be entered, with each party waiving the right to an adjudicative |trial, withoutthe taking ofevidenceon any issue offactor law, or anyfactual finding by the Courtor any admissionor denial of wrongdoing or guilt, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT: 1, This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and of the patties. Venueas to all matters between the parties relating to this action is proper in this Court. 2. _ For purposesofthe injunctive language set forth in paragraphs 3 and 4 below,the party identified as Jose Maria Lira includes any agents or parties acting in concert with or in ‘participation with Jose Maria Lira, . . | INJUNCTION 3. Pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections 17203 and 17535, Jose Maria Lira,1is hereby enjoined permanently from the following act: 4, Misclassifying truck drivers as independent contractors including, but not limited to,” classifying drivers who operate trucks that are provided, owned, or leased by Jose Maria Lira-as independent contractors. | oe CIVIL PENALTIES - 5. Payment having been madeinthe sum ofFOUR THOUSAND,FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS(54,500.00) as a penalty, and FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00) for Plaintiff's . attorney fees and costs as set forth in theStipulation for Entry ofJudgment, Defendantis deemed. to have satisfied all requirements for monetary paymenits for any matters actually alleged in the Complaint. . Oe i | 6. - This Judgmentis to be entered by tthe Clerki only after Plaintiff informs the Court that Jose Maria Lira has madeall payments specified in the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment. 7. The Court retains jurisdiction as the ends of justice may require for the purpose‘of enabling any party to this Judgmentto applyto the Court at any time for such further orders and directions as may be necessary or appropriate for: (a) the construction or carrying out ofthis Judgment; (b) the enforcement of any provision of this Judgment; (c) the modification of the MH: 2 [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION (BC397601) 19] “injunctive provisions of this Judgment; and (d) the punishment of any violationsofthis Judgment. IT IS SO ORDERED: ou | 10. 7 { 3 _ ‘ [PROPOSED] FINALJUDGMENT ANDPERMANENT INJUNCTION (BC397601) Exhibit K- 10 il 12 13 14 13: 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EDMUND G. BROWN JR. | Attorney General of the State of California MARK BRECKLER c . Senior Assistant Attorney General LO JON M. ICHINAGA OLORMED COP, Supervising Deputy Attorney General LOS Angeles SuperitED MAURICE JOURDANE,State Bar No. 49349 T Court Deputy Attorney General OCT 27 ong SATOSHI YANAI, State Bar No. 186355. om Deputy Attorney General John A. Cl i 300 South Spring Street, Suite 1702 Jonna. Clarkedy oe Officer/ Clerk Los Angeles,CA 90013 . ’ Telephone: (213) 897-0015 : BYMARY GARCIA, Deputy Fax: (213) 897-2801 . E-mail: satoshi.yanai@doj.ca.gov Attorneysfor Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA ,, , .av PC AMPORNEL 400653 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES THE PEOPLE OF THE THE STATE OF CASE NO. CALIFORNIAex rel, EDMUND G. BROWN JR.,as AttorneyGeneral ofthe State of California, ~ COMPLAINT FOR _ INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND Plaintiff, CIVIL PENALTIES | a (Business & Professions Code. Vs. sot Sections 17200, et seq.) - GUASIMAL TRUCKING,LLC,a Limited Liability Company, and DOES | through 50, inclusive, Defendants. | Plaintiff, the People of the State of California, by and through Edmund G, BrownJr., as Attorney General of the State of Califoriia, is informed and believes, and on such informatio n and belief alleges: INTRODUCTION . 1, This action is brought by Plaintiff, the People of the State of California, ex rel, Edmund G. Brown Jr., as Attorney General of theState of California (‘the People”), against ; Defendant Guasimal Trucking, LLC (‘‘Guasimal”) in order to stop Guasimal from continuing to 1 COMPLAINT FOR INIUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL PENALTIES ( 0 O U N D 10 ou 12 13 14 15 16 q7 184, 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 | engage in ‘unfair competition. Guasimal has engaged in a pattern and practice of violating state law by misclassifying truckdrivers working for it as independent contractors rather than as employees. By misclassifying the drivers as independent contractors, Guasimal has illegally lowered its cost of doing businessby failing to pay state employment-related taxes and to provide workers’ compensation insurance for the drivers. Guasimal also fails to provide employees with a written statement ofhours worked, earnings per hour, and deductions taken, Guasimal’s unlawfal conduct gives it an unfair competitive advantage over law-abiding transportation corhpanies, deprives its employeesof the benefits of employment, and harmsthe taxpayers of California, This action seeks to compel Guasimal to cease engaging in unfair competitionand to payapplicable penalties. . | | PARTIES 2. Plaintiff Edmund G. Brown Jr: is the Attorney General of the State of California andis the chief law officer of the State. (Cal. Const., art. V, § 13.) The Attorney Generalis - | | empowered by the California Constitution to take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced, Heis statutorily authorized to bring actions in the name ofthe People of the State of California to enforce Califomia’s statutes governing unfair competition. (Bus. &Prof. Code § 17204.) 3. Defendant Guasimalis a limited liability company authorized to do business in the State of California, and at all times relevant herein was doing business in the County of Los Angeles. Guasimal is a fleet operator, owning approximately six trucks, It hires truck drivers to transport cargo fromthe Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. | 4. The true namesand capacities of defendants sued in the Complaint underthe fictitious names DOES1 through 50, inclusive, presently are unknownto the People, who therefore sues such defendants by such fictitious names. . The People will seek to amend this complaintto allege the true names of DOES1 through 50 whenthe same have beenascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each of the fictitiously named defendants _ participated in someor part of the acts alléged herein. 2 . ~ COMPLAINT FOR INTUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL PENALTIES Rh Ww W WN a G F W N 10 11. 12 13 14 15 |]. 16 17 18 19 2] 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5. Wheneverreference is made in this Complaint to any act of Guasimal, such allegations ~ shall mean that Guasimal, through its agents, employees, or representatives, performed or authorized such acts while they were acting within the actual or ostensible scope of their authority. | 6. Wheneverreference is made in this Complaint to any act of the defendants, including those namedherein as DOE defendants, such allegations shal] mean that each defendant and/or . DOEdefendant acted individually and jointly with the other defendants, including the DOE defendants, namedin this Complaint. . | ' FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATIONS OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 (UNFAIR COMPETITION) (Against All Defendants) 7. The People reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 6 of this Complaintasif set forth fully herein. | , | . 8. ‘Defendants have violated and continue to violate Business andProfessions Code Section 17200, et seq., by engaging in acts of unfair competition including, but not limited to, the following: a a failing to pay State Unemployment Fund contributions as required by _ Unemployment Insurance Code Section 976; | b. failing to pay State Employment Training Fund contributions as required by Unemployment Insurance Code Section 976.6, | | C. failing to withhold and transmitState Disability Fund contributionsas required by Unemployment Insurance Code Section 986; d, failirig to withhold and transinit State incometaxes as required by Unemployment Insurance Code Sections 13020 and 13021; e. failing to provide workers’ compensation insurance to cover Guasimal’s employees as required by Labor Code Section 3700; . 3 ; . COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL PENALTIES re “ I O N OW 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 Wf 26 27 . 28 19 jL Of and failing to provide employees with itemized written statements of hours and pay as required by Labor Code Section 226. PRAYER FOR RELIEF _ WHEREFORE,‘the People pray for the followingrelief: 1. Pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 17203, that defendants, their successors, agents, representatives, employees, and all persons acting in concert of in participation with defendants,be permanently enjoined from engaging in unfair competition as defined in Business and Professions Code Section 17200, including, but not limited to, the acts. . and practices alleged in this Complaint; 2. Pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 17206,that the Court assess a civil Business andProfessions Code Section 17200, the total amount being no less than$50,000.00, or as proved at trial; 3, That the People recover their costs ofsuit; and 4, _ Such other and further relief that the Court deems appropriate and just. Dated: October 27% 2008 Respectfully submitted, EDMUNDG. BROWN JR.. Attorney General of the State of California MARK BRECKLER Senior Assistant Attomey General JON M. ICHINAGA Supervising Deputy Attorney General MAURICE JOURDANE Deputy Attorney General Ve> SATOSHI YANAL_-—~ Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Plaintiff = 60339274.wpd LA2008601495 4 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL PENALTIES penalty of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) against defendants for each violation of Exhibit L , | 37@ | @ | 7 | 2. ECD ED.: ES 1og ANGELEY SUPERIOR COURT ° SEP 9 42009 4 a ~ 2009 : FILING WINDOW, 5. A\SLARKE, CLERK 6 BY H. A. SMITH, DEPUTY 7 | 8 SUPERIOR COURT OFTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ' 9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 10° _ CENTRALDISTRICT li 12 3 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF - CASE NO. BC400653 CALIFORNIAex rel. EDMUND G. 14 BROWN JR., as Attorney General of the REPT FINALJUDGMENT AND State of California, PERMANENT INJUNCTION 15 Plaintiff, Date: N/A 1 6 -} Time: N/A Vv, . Dept: 37 7 ; Judge: The Honorable Joa nne B. ; O'Donnell 18 GUASIMAL TRUCKING,LLC, a Limited Trial Date: November 4, 2009 ” Liability Company, and DOES 1 through Action Filed: October 27, 2008 50, inclusive, ; 19 ; 20 Defendants. 21 22 Plaintiff, the People of the State of California ex rel.Edmund G. BrownJr, as Attomey 23 || General ofthe State of California (“PLAINTIFF”) and defendant Guasimal Trucking, LLC 2¢ |. (“GUASIMAL” , having stipulated that this Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction . ? (“Judgment”) may beentered, with each party waiving the right to an adjudicative trial, without 2% the taking ofany evidence on anyissueoffact or law, or any factual finding by the Court or any 27 admission or denial of wrongdoingor guilt, . 28 | GELELED FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION (BC400653) Ba One: o O o o s y n A B p W s N ~ e m e h t e t S T B G C e ® F W A B a A G D R E S TT 18 HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT: 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the allegations and subject matter ofPLAINTIFF’s _ Complaint filed in this action, and the parties thereto; venue is proper in this County; and this Court has jurisdiction to enter this Judgment. 2,. The party identified as “GUASIMAL”herein includes any successors, agents, | directors, representatives, partners, current or former employees, current or formerofficers, _ assigns, parties acting in concert orin participation with GUASIMAL,orany corporation into which GUASIMAL becomes merged. 3, Pursuant to Business & Professions Code Section 17203, a permanentinjunction is hereby issued requiring the following acts from GUASIMAL: Onbehalfof any drivers who operate trucks owned.or leased by GUASIMAL,it will a. Pay State Unemployment Fund contributions; b. Pay State EmploymentTraining Fund contributions; G Withhold and transmit State Disability Fund contributions; d, Withhold and transmit State incometaxes; e. _- Provide workers’ compensation coverage; and f.. Classify and pay such drivers as employees. 4. Payment having been madeasset forth in the Stipulation for Entry ofJudgment and _ Order Thereon, GUASIMAL is deemed to havesatisfied all requirements for monetary payments for any matters actually alleged in the Complaint. 5. The Court retains jurisdiction as the ends ofjustice may require for the purpose of enabling any party to this Judgment to apply to the Court at any time for such further orders and directions as may be necessary or appropriate for: (a) the construction or carrying out ofthis _ Judgment; (b) the enforcementofany provision of this Judgment; (c) the modification ofthe injunctive provisions ofthis Judgment; and (d) the punishmentof any violations of this Judgment. iH : . onl /l 2 ABBEREM ES FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION (BC400653) sf C o F S Y N D R A B L 6. This Judgmentis to be entered by the Clerk only after PLAINTIFF informsthe Court that GUASIMAL has made all payments specified in the Stipulation for Entry of Jaigment and "Order Thereon.. ‘DATED: SEP § ~ 2009 GSana . jopatOF THE SUPERIOR COURT. Joanne O'Donnell 3 PERLE) FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION (BC400653) DECLARATION OF SERVICE Case Name: People v. Pac Anchor Transportation, Inc. Supreme Court Case No.: $194388 Court of Appeal Case No.: B220966 I declare: I am employed at the law firm Sands Lerner, the office of a member of the California State Bar at whose direction this service is made. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action. On October 24, 2011, I caused the original and thirteen (13) copies of the attached PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICEto be delivered to the California Supreme Court at 350 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102-4797, via Norco Overnight. On October 24, 2011, I served the attached PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICEon the following recipients by delivering copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes and addressed as follows to the common carrier Norco Overnite, which promises overnight delivery by 11:00 a.m. on October 25, 2011: Kamala D.Harris, Esq. | Clerk of the Court Mark J. Breckler, Esq. Second District Court of Appeal, Jon M.Ichinaga, Esq. Division Five Maurice R. Jourdane, Esq. 300 S. Spring Street Satoshi Yanai, Esq. Second Floor, North Tower Office of the Attorney General Los Angeles, CA 90013 300 S. Spring St., Ste. 1702 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Appellate Coordinator Attorneys for Plaintiff-Respondent, Office of the Attorney General People of the State of California Consumer Law Section 300 S. Spring Street Clerk of the Court Los Angeles, CA 90013-1230 Los Angeles County Superior Court [Bus. & Prof. Code § 17209] Central District Stanley Mosk Courthouse Office of the District Attorney 111 N. Hill Street County of Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA 90012 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 {[Bus. & Prof. Code § 17209] I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on October 24, 2011, at Los Angeles, California. Diane Adams AAA Mn T7 Declarant Signature
