Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 1 of 45 Page ID #:1

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 2 of 45 Page ID #:2

1

2

INTRODUCTION

3
1. This class action is brought by Plaintiffs Andres Morales, Juan
4

5 Miguel Real, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, and Osfel Andrade (collectively

6 “Plaintiffs”) on behalf of themselves and a class of all former and current hourly
7
employees of Defendant Terra Universal, Inc. (“Terra”), and its owner and
8

9 operator, Defendant George Sadaghiani (“Sadaghiani”) (collectively “Defendants”).

10

2. Terra, which produces highly-specialized cleanroom and laboratory

11
equipment, has earned annual sales in the range of $50 to $100 million per year and
12

13 contracts with numerous federal government agencies, including the Army, the

14 Navy and NASA. Yet Terra’s success has been unlawfully built off the backs of an
15
16 immigrant workforce, whose vulnerabilities Defendants exploited to swindle them

17 out of their earned wages.

18

3. Defendants exploited their immigrant workforce by preying on their

19

20 unfamiliarity with U.S. labor law and their desperate need for work. Through

21 fraudulent compensation schemes, Defendants required their Latino and immigrant

22 workforce to toil long hours without overtime pay: for instance, requiring workers
23
24 to clock out at the completion of eight-hour shifts and clock back in, under a

25 “second job,” for additional hours, so as to avoid paying overtime wages and escape

26
detection by the government. And by creating a two-tiered system of rights, one for
27
28 those it perceived to be documented and another for those it perceived to be

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 3 of 45 Page ID #:3

1 undocumented, Defendants created an underclass of exploitable workers. Branding

2
employees believed to be undocumented with red stickers on their personnel files,
3
4 Defendants discriminated against those workers by paying them far less than lawful

5 permanent residents or citizen employees and refusing them the holidays, sick days

6
and vacation days that these employees received. All the while, Defendant
7
8 Sadaghiani subjected the immigrant workforce to such hostile treatment that

9 employees feared demanding lawful compensation and, even, reporting serious

10
workplace injuries for fear of reprisals.
11

12

4. Accordingly, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly

13 situated, and the general public, hereby complain of violations of numerous federal
14
and state employment laws for failure to pay mandated minimum and overtime
15
16 wages, to pay wages, to pay wages in a timely manner, and to keep and furnish

17 accurate wage statements. Plaintiffs also complain of violations of federal civil
18
rights statutes for discrimination and disparate treatment on account of their race
19
20 and/or alienage in depriving Plaintiffs and other class members of equal pay,

21 lawfully compensated overtime wages, benefits and raises, and subjecting them to
22
hostile treatment. They also charge Defendants with fraud and misrepresentation in
23
24 inducing Plaintiffs to accept unfavorable conditions of work in reliance on promises

25 and representations made by Defendants, which Defendants knew or should have
26
known were false. Finally, Plaintiffs bring claims for unfair business practices for
27
28 unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices that run counter to the public’s

2

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 4 of 45 Page ID #:4

1 interest in ensuring compliance with minimum labor standards for all workers.

2
JURISDICTION
3

4

5. The Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this action

5 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337 and Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”),

6
29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law
7
8 claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

9

VENUE

10

6. Venue is proper in the Central District of California pursuant to 28

11
U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the acts, events and omissions giving rise to the action
12
13 occurred in this District.

14

PARTIES

15 Plaintiffs
16
7. Plaintiff Andres Morales is a Latino and noncitizen who resides in
17
18 Anaheim, California. He is sixty-two years old. Mr. Morales has worked for

19 Defendants from approximately August 1998 until the present day. He works as an

20
electronic technician on the factory floor.
21

22

8. Plaintiff Juan Miguel Real is a Latino and noncitizen who resides in

23 Garden Grove, California. He is thirty-five years old. Mr. Real worked for
24
Defendants from approximately December 1999 until July 2010. For the last four
25
26 years of his employment, Mr. Real worked as the manager of the sheet metal shop

27 on the factory floor.
28
9. Plaintiff Hugo Alcantar Fernandez is a Latino and noncitizen who

3

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 5 of 45 Page ID #:5

1 resides in Fullerton, California. He is twenty-eight years old. Mr. Fernandez

2
worked for Defendants from approximately June 2004 until February 2007 and
3
4 from approximately September 2007 until July 2010. Mr. Fernandez worked as a

5 polypropylene welder in the plastics shop on the factory floor.

6
10. Plaintiff Osfel Andrade is a Latino and noncitizen who resides in
7
8 Anaheim, California. He is forty-three years old. Mr. Andrade worked for

9 Defendants from December 2000 until July 2010. Most recently, Mr. Andrade

10
worked as an assistant to the supervisor of the shipping department.
11

12

11. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs are and/or were employed by

13 Defendants as defined by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(g).
14
12. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs were “persons” within the meaning of
15
16 that term under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

17

13. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs were engaged in interstate commerce

18
and/or in the production of goods for sale in interstate commerce.
19

20 Defendants

21

14. Defendant Terra, founded in 1976, is a leading manufacturer of

22
modular clean rooms, desiccators, abide by boxes, laminar flow and exhaust fume
23

24 hoods, wet processing stations, clean-room workbenches, storage systems and

25 furniture. Terra supplies over 5,000 United States and international pharmaceutical,
26
biotechnology, medical device, semiconductor, and aerospace companies, as well as
27
28 research entities, universities and government agencies. Between 2004 and 2009,

4

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 6 of 45 Page ID #:6

1 Terra’s four largest accounts with the federal government were with the U.S. Army,

2
the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Air Force, and the National Aeronautics and Space
3
4 Administration (“NASA”). Upon information and belief, Terra currently employs

5 over 225 employees at its main administrative and manufacturing complex in

6
Fullerton, California.
7

8

15. Defendant Terra is incorporated in California and its registered agent

9 resides in Laguna Niguel, California. At all times relevant to this action, Terra
10
maintained a business establishment at 800 S. Raymond Avenue, Fullerton,
11
12 California 92831. At all times relevant to this action, Terra may be deemed to have

13 resided in and have conducted business in the Central District of California.
14
Kenneth Harms is the Chief Operating Officer of Terra Universal, Inc. Irma
15
16 Interiano is the Chief Financial Officer and formerly the Human Resources

17 Executive at Terra.
18
16. Defendant George Sadaghiani is the owner and president of Terra.
19
20 Sadaghiani resides in Laguna Niguel, California.

21

17. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants and their agents

22
exercised, and/or will exercise, the authority to direct, control, and/or supervise the
23

24 work of Plaintiffs.

25

18. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants employed Plaintiffs

26
within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(g).
27

28

19. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants employed fifteen or

5

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 7 of 45 Page ID #:7

1 more employees.

2
20. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants were “persons” within
3
4 the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(a), 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(e), and 42 U.S.C. § 1985;

5 and “employers” as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b), and

6
California state law.
7

8

21. The true names and capacities of defendants Does 1 through 10,

9 inclusive, are presently unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sue said Defendants
10
by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to set forth the true
11
12 names and capacities of said Defendants when they are ascertained. Plaintiffs are

13 informed and believe, and upon such information and belief allege, that at all times
14
relevant to this action, each of the fictitiously-named Defendants was an agent,
15
16 employee, or co-conspirator of one or more of the named Defendants, and was

17 acting within the course and scope of said agency or employment. Plaintiffs are
18
further informed and believe, and upon such information and belief allege, that each
19
20 of the fictitiously named Defendants aided and assisted the named Defendants in

21 committing the wrongful acts alleged herein, and that Plaintiffs’ damages, as

22
alleged herein, were proximately caused by such Defendants.
23

24

22. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and upon such information and

25 belief allege, that Defendants, and each of them, conspired and agreed among
26
themselves to do the acts complained of herein and were, in doing such acts, acting
27
28 pursuant to and in furtherance of said conspiracy. Each Defendant sued herein is

6

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 8 of 45 Page ID #:8

1 jointly and severally responsible and liable to Plaintiffs for the damages alleged

2
herein.
3

4

23. Whenever and wherever reference is made in this complaint to any act

5 by a Defendant or Defendants, such allegations and reference shall also be deemed

6
to mean the acts and failures to act of each Defendant acting individually, jointly,
7
8 and severally.

9

24. The conduct of Defendants and each of them, and/or their

10
agents/employees or supervisors, authorized, condoned and ratified the unlawful
11
12 conduct of each other.

13

25. Whenever and wherever reference is made to individuals who are not

14
named as a Plaintiff or Defendant in this Complaint but who, during relevant time
15

16 periods, were employees or agents of Defendants, such individuals at all relevant

17 times acted on behalf of Defendants within the scope of their employment.

18
STATEMENT OF FACTS
19

20

26. For many years, Defendants have systematically exploited Plaintiffs

21 and other class members. Defendants required Plaintiffs and other class members
22
to work as many as fourteen hours a day without paying them their lawful overtime
23
24 wages. Instead, Defendants created fraudulent overtime schemes – the “second

25 job” and the “bonus” schemes – to evade overtime wage requirements and
26
government detection, pay Plaintiffs and other class members far less than legally
27
28 mandated and confuse Plaintiffs and other class members as to whether Defendants

7

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 9 of 45 Page ID #:9

1 were properly compensating them for their earned wages. Defendants used race

2
and alienage discrimination to further its exploitation by singling out certain groups
3
4 of employees, particularly those they believed to be undocumented, to deprive them

5 of their rights to equal pay and benefits as to citizen employees. In addition,

6
Defendants used false promises and misrepresentations about Plaintiffs’ and other
7
8 class members’ rights to further exploit them. Defendants’ policies and practices

9 resulted in a series of schemes aimed at compelling Plaintiffs and other class
10
members to work longer hours and produce more, for less pay, all the while
11
12 preventing them from exercising or demanding their workplace rights.

13 Factual Allegations Related to Wage and Hour Violations
14
27. Defendants required Plaintiffs and other class members to work in
15
16 excess of eight hours per day and in excess of forty hours per week without

17 overtime pay and, in some cases, without any payment of wages.
18
28. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants operated at least two
19
20 different fraudulent compensation schemes to cheat Plaintiffs and other class

21 members out of overtime wages and, in some cases, any wages for hours worked:

22
the “second job” scheme and the “bonus” scheme.
23

24

29. Under the “second job” scheme, Defendants required Plaintiffs and

25 other class members to “clock out” after eight hours of work and immediately clock
26
back in under the “second job” category for their overtime hours. Plaintiffs and
27
28 other class members were either paid their hourly wage for the “second job”

8

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 10 of 45 Page ID #:10

1 overtime hours or up to a few dollars above their hourly wage.

2
30. Beginning in or around 2008, Defendants replaced the “second job”
3
4 scheme and implemented a “bonus” scheme for workers earning $10 per hour or

5 above. Defendants introduced the “bonus” scheme gradually.

6
31. In individual meetings, Defendants, individually or through their
7
8 agents, employees and/or representatives, informed Plaintiffs and other class

9 members that they were going to reduce their hourly wage, so that they could
10
“correctly” pay overtime. To cover the difference between the old wage and the
11
12 new reduced wage, Defendants told Plaintiffs and other class members that they

13 would pay them a lump-sum bonus on a biweekly basis that would compensate

14
them for the difference, so that they would not notice the reduction in pay.
15

16

32. Defendants, individually or through their agents, employees and/or

17 representatives, required Plaintiffs and other class members to sign a document
18
agreeing to the wage reduction and “bonus” scheme. Defendants told Plaintiffs and
19
20 other class members that if they did not sign the document they would be fired or

21 have their hours reduced.
22
33. Defendants’ “bonus” scheme failed to pay Plaintiffs and other class
23
24 members at the legally-mandated rate of 150% of their regular rate of pay.

25

34. For Plaintiffs and other similarly situated class members, the bonus

26
never compensated them for the difference between their former salary and their
27

28 reduced salary, nor did Defendants lawfully pay them all of their overtime wages.

9

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 11 of 45 Page ID #:11

1

35. Defendants further used the “bonus” scheme to make deductions from

2
employees’ pay that would otherwise be unlawful. Defendants made deductions for
3
4 every overtime hour worked as an apparent incentive to produce more in eight

5 hours. Defendants also made deductions for workplace injuries, mistakes or

6
warnings. Upon information and belief, Defendants instructed supervisors to
7
8 routinely give warnings and penalties to their employees so that Defendants could

9 make deductions from their pay.
10
36. Defendants’ “bonus” scheme was deliberately designed to confuse
11
12 Plaintiffs and other class members so that they could not detect whether and for

13 what they were being compensated. Indeed, when Defendants paid the bonus in
14
lieu of paying overtime, they failed to report to Plaintiffs and other class members
15
16 the number of overtime hours worked or any other information to indicate how the

17 bonus sum was calculated.
18
37. Defendants did not compensate Plaintiffs and other class members for
19
20 all of their overtime hours worked.

21

38. Defendants’ failure to pay overtime wages to Plaintiffs and other class

22
members was willful.
23

24

39. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and other class

25 members have been and continue to be systematically deprived of the wages to

26
which they are entitled by law.
27

28

40. Plaintiffs are “non-exempt” employees, i.e., they are not exempt from

10

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 12 of 45 Page ID #:12

1 the overtime provisions of the FLSA or the California Labor Code. They do not

2
engage in exempt executive, administrative, or professional duties within the
3
4 meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 213 and 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.1, 541.2 and 541.3. Nor are they

5 paid on a salary basis within the meaning of 29 C.F.R. § 541.118. Nor do they

6
engage in “work which is primarily intellectual, managerial, or creative, and which
7
8 requires exercise of discretion and independent judgment,” within the meaning of

9 Wage Order Nos. 4-89, 4-98, 7-80 and 7-98.

10
Factual Allegations Related to Discrimination
11

12

41. Defendants maintained a policy and practice of treating Latino and/or

13 noncitizen employees differently than white and/or citizen employees on account of

14
their race or alienage.
15

16

42. Defendants deprived Latino and/or noncitizen employees equal pay

17 relative to white citizen employees who performed the same or substantially similar
18
work on account of their alienage and/or their race. In the extreme, Defendants
19
20 paid workers believed to be undocumented half the salaries of citizen employees

21 who performed the same or substantially similar work. Defendants also deprived
22
Plaintiffs and other class members they believed to be undocumented of pay
23
24 increases on account of their immigration status.

25

43. Upon information and belief, Defendants paid white citizen employees

26
overtime pay but did not pay overtime compensation to noncitizen and/or Latino
27

28 employees who earned $10 per hour or above on account of their alienage and/or

11

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 13 of 45 Page ID #:13

1 their race.

2
44. Defendants also denied Plaintiffs and other class members who they
3
4 believed to be undocumented holidays, vacation and sick days, while providing

5 those benefits to citizen employees. Upon information and belief, Defendants

6
required Plaintiffs and other class members believed to be undocumented to work
7
8 additional hours of overtime in the days or weeks before a federal holiday to make

9 up for the eight hours of lost work on the holiday when the factory was closed.
10
45. Defendants, individually and through their agents, employees and/or
11
12 representatives, systematized their brazen discrimination against Plaintiffs and other

13 class members they believed to undocumented by marking their personnel files with
14
red stickers indicating their immigration status. Defendants methodically deprived
15
16 Plaintiffs and other class members whom they branded with the red sticker of basic

17 employment benefits afforded to the rest of the workforce. The red sticker on the
18
personnel folder was in plain sight of employees who went to the human resources
19
20 office.

21

46. Defendant Sadaghiani also treated Plaintiffs and other class members

22
in a hostile and abusive manner on account of their race and/or alienage by
23

24 frequently yelling at them, cursing them, using offensive and demeaning language,

25 taunting and humiliating them in front of other workers, for any manner of reasons,
26
including asserting their workplace rights. Plaintiffs and other class members
27
28 frequently experienced or witnessed Defendant Sadaghiani engage in face-to-face

12

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 14 of 45 Page ID #:14

1 confrontations with employees, resulting in near physical encounters.

2
47. Defendants frequently discharged, suspended without pay, or reduced
3
4 the hours of Plaintiffs or other class members, on account of their race and/or

5 alienage, if they became gravely ill, had a medical emergency, or required medical

6
attention; complained about workplace conditions or hours of work; or made a
7
8 mistake.

9

48. Defendant Sadaghiani fired employees he believed to be

10
undocumented for any reason. He frequently told Plaintiffs and other class
11
12 members believed to be undocumented that they were “worthless,” “good for

13 nothing” and “assholes.” When they demanded their workplace rights, he showed
14
them the door, stating that if they did not like the conditions of work, there were
15
16 plenty of other job applicants lining up for their jobs.

17

49. As a result of Defendant Sadaghiani’s hostile treatment, the Latino,

18
non-citizen employees and especially the employees believed to be undocumented,
19

20 worked in constant fear and trepidation of Defendant Sadaghiani. This fear was so

21 pervasive that Plaintiffs and other class members avoided demanding their rights,
22
including when they believed they were not being paid for hours worked, and
23
24 avoided reporting workplace injuries, even when they were serious.

25

50. Upon information and belief, Defendant Sadaghiani did not treat white

26
and non-Latino citizens in the hostile manner he treated the Latino, non-citizen
27

28 workers.

13

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 15 of 45 Page ID #:15

1 Factual Allegations Related to Fraud and Misrepresentation

2
51. Beginning in or around 2008, Defendants, individually and through
3
4 their agents, employees and/or representatives, told Plaintiffs and other class

5 members earning $10 or above that they need to reduce their salaries in order to

6
lawfully pay them overtime and stated they would pay a “bonus” to compensate the
7
8 differences in salaries. Defendants induced Plaintiffs to agree to this salary

9 reduction and the “bonus” scheme in reliance on these promises. Upon information
10
and belief, Defendants never intended to fulfill these promises. Defendants did not
11
12 pay Plaintiffs and other class members their lawful overtime wages, nor did they

13 consistently compensate them for the difference in pay through the “bonus”

14
scheme.
15

16

52. During the relevant period, Defendants, individually or through their

17 agents, employees and/or representatives, told Plaintiffs and other class members
18
believed to be undocumented that on account of their immigration status, they did
19
20 not have equal rights under employment law, and were thus not entitled to equal

21 pay, benefits, overtime pay and vacation and sick days.
22
53. Defendants induced Plaintiffs and other class members to rely on these
23
24 misrepresentations in accepting adverse changes in their conditions of employment.

25

54. Defendants and their agents knew or should have known that all of

26
their workers have employment rights under federal and state laws regardless of
27

28 their immigration status. Defendants’ human resources specialist, Irma Interiano,

14

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 16 of 45 Page ID #:16

1 has or should have expertise in employment laws and regulations.

2
55. Both federal and state governments have made it well known to
3
4 employers that workers – both documented and undocumented – are protected by

5 the federal and state laws that regulate wages and working conditions. See, e.g.,

6
DOL, Fact Sheet #48: Application of U.S. Labor Laws to Immigrant Workers,
7
8 http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs48.htm (last modified Apr. 2008);

9 California Department of Industrial Relations, Undocumented Worker Rights,

10
http://www.dir.ca.gov/QAundoc.html (last visited Aug. 28, 2010).
11

12

56. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ misrepresentations were

13 willfully made to additionally exploit Plaintiffs and other class members believed to
14
be undocumented.
15
16 Factual Allegations of Class Representatives

17

57. Andres Morales is a Latino and noncitizen who resides in Anaheim,

18
California. He is sixty-two years old.
19

20

58. Mr. Morales has worked for Defendants from approximately August

21 1998 until the present day. When Mr. Morales started at Terra he worked as an
22
assembler in the electronics department for $6 an hour. Mr. Morales currently
23
24 works as a technician in the electronics department at $14 per hour.

25

59. Throughout the course of his employment with Defendants, Mr.

26
Morales has frequently worked overtime hours without being compensated at 150%
27

28 of his regular wage as required by law. With the exception of an approximately

15

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 17 of 45 Page ID #:17

1 four-week period in 2007, Defendants have never lawfully paid Mr. Morales his

2
overtime hours. Instead, Defendants paid Mr. Morales’ overtime hours as a
3
4 “second job,” at first at a rate equal to his hourly salary and later at a rate of a few

5 dollars more than his hourly salary.

6
60. In recent years, during the approximate period of 2007 to 2009,
7
8 Defendants required Mr. Morales to regularly work two hours of overtime per day

9 and often required him to work on Saturdays.
10
61. In or around June 2009, Defendant Sadaghiani and Ms. Interiano held
11
12 a meeting with Mr. Morales and informed him that they were going to reduce his

13 salary and pay the difference through a bonus. They told Mr. Morales that he had
14
to sign a document agreeing to this arrangement. Mr. Morales refused to sign. And
15
16 Defendants retaliated against Mr. Morales by reducing his hours to six hours per

17 day. Because Mr. Morales is the only employee in the company who performs his
18
job, after approximately three months, Defendants restored his shift to eight hours
19
20 per day.

21

62. Upon information and belief, Defendants believed that Mr. Morales

22
was undocumented until approximately four years ago when he informed the
23

24 company that he became a lawful permanent resident.

25

63. Mr. Morales frequently experienced and observed Defendant

26
Sadaghiani make disparaging comments to undocumented and noncitizen, Latino
27

28 employees. He frequently yelled at the undocumented employees, exhorting them

16

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 18 of 45 Page ID #:18

1 to work harder or they would be fired, and telling them they were worthless.

2
64. Juan Miguel Real is a Latino and noncitizen who resides in Garden
3
4 Grove, California. He is thirty-five years old.

5

65. Mr. Real worked for Defendants from approximately December 1999

6
until July 2010. Mr. Real started out as an assembler in the sheet metal shop
7
8 making $6.25 an hour, and rose to machine helper, assistant manager, and finally to

9 manager of the sheet metal shop in approximately 2006. As manager, Defendants

10
paid Mr. Real $14 per hour and then, after a year, paid him $17 per hour.
11

12

66. During his employment with Defendants, Mr. Real worked significant

13 overtime hours for which he was not lawfully compensated. He normally worked
14
from 6 a.m. until 5 p.m. or 11 hours per day. He was also required to work most
15
16 Saturdays for an eight hour shift.

17

67. Beginning approximately five years ago, Defendants began to pay Mr.

18
Real overtime according to the “second job” scheme. Defendants paid him $2 more
19

20 than his hourly salary for those overtime hours, and therefore he was not paid at

21 150% of his regular rate of pay for his overtime hours. Defendants paid his

22
“second job” hours in a separate monthly paycheck.
23

24

68. In or around 2009, Defendants stopped paying Mr. Real’s overtime

25 hours under the “second job” scheme and started paying it under the “bonus”
26
scheme. The bonus only compensated Mr. Real for overtime hours at his hourly
27
28 rate and failed to pay him 150% of his regular rate of pay for his overtime hours.

17

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 19 of 45 Page ID #:19

1

69. During a six-month period in 2009, Mr. Real clocked 120-180 hours of

2
overtime per month. During this period, Mr. Real generally worked from 6 a.m.
3
4 until 8 p.m., or 14 hours per day, and on Saturdays for 8 hours. Defendants paid

5 Mr. Real for these overtime hours under the “bonus” scheme.

6
70. In or around June 2009, Ms. Interiano called Mr. Real to her office.
7
8 She explained that the company would no longer provide undocumented workers

9 with vacation, sick or holiday leave or pay, and because she believed him to be

10
undocumented, he was no longer entitled to these benefits.
11

12

71. As a result of this policy, Defendants required Mr. Real and other

13 workers believed to be undocumented to work extra overtime hours in anticipation

14
of any federal holidays when the factory was closed.
15

16

72. In or around 2008, Ms. Interiano told Mr. Real that he had to fire three

17 people whom the company believed to be undocumented because there was no
18
work. Mr. Real was not permitted to fire the three people that worked least, but
19
20 rather was required to fire the three whom Defendants believed to be

21 undocumented.
22
73. When Mr. Real asked Ms. Interiano for raises for his staff, she denied
23
24 them to those workers whom Defendants believed to be undocumented.

25

74. In or around March or April 2010, Defendants lowered Mr. Real’s

26
salary to $15 per hour.
27

28

75. Upon information and belief, Defendants paid Mr. Real less for the

18

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 20 of 45 Page ID #:20

1 same or substantially similar work than workers they believed to be documented.

2
The manager of the sheet metal shop before Mr. Real was paid $32 per hour, while
3
4 Mr. Real was paid, at most during his employment, $17 per hour. In June 2010, a

5 new welder started in his shop under Mr. Real’s supervision, who made $17 per

6
hour because he was believed to be documented, while Mr. Real made only $15 per
7
8 hour.

9

76. Hugo Alcantar Fernandez is a Latino and noncitizen who resides in

10
Fullerton, California. He is twenty-eight years old.
11

12

77. Mr. Fernandez worked for Defendants from approximately June 2004

13 until February 2007 and from September 2007 until July 2010. When Mr.
14
Fernandez first started working at Terra, he worked as a detailer in the plastics shop
15
16 on the factory floor at a rate of $7.50 per hour. After approximately four months,

17 Mr. Fernandez became a polypropylene welder and continued to be paid at $7.50

18
per hour, or minimum wage.
19

20

78. At that time, there were five other people working as polypropylene

21 welders and performing the same job as Mr. Fernandez. Upon information and
22
belief, three were citizens who made approximately $13 to $14 per hour, and two
23
24 were legal residents who made approximately $10 to $12 per hour.

25

79. During his employment from 2004 to 2007, Mr. Fernandez worked a

26
shift from 6 a.m. until 2:30 p.m., but often was required to work overtime, as late as
27

28 5:30 p.m. to 7 p.m. or eleven and a half to thirteen hours a day. Defendants did not

19

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 21 of 45 Page ID #:21

1 lawfully compensate Mr. Fernandez for those overtime hours but rather paid him

2
under the “second job” scheme at a rate a few dollars more than his hourly rate.
3

4

80. Mr. Fernandez left Terra in February 2007 because he believed he was

5 being underpaid and Defendants refused to give him a raise.

6
81. Mr. Fernandez returned to work at Terra in or around September 2007
7
8 after Defendants called him and asked him if he would consider returning to work

9 for them. He agreed to return, but only if they paid him more. They agreed to pay

10
him $10 per hour.
11

12

82. In September 2007, he returned to his position as a polypropylene

13 welder, and was the only person left in that position.
14
83. After three months, Defendants increased Mr. Fernandez’s salary to
15
16 $11 per hour and one year later to $12 per hour.

17

84. Because Mr. Fernandez was the only polypropylene welder in the

18
plastics shop during the period of September 2007 until July 2010, he regularly
19

20 worked from 6 a.m. to 6 to 7 p.m., or 12 or 13 hours per day. Defendants paid Mr.

21 Fernandez for overtime hours according to the “second job” scheme until
22
approximately the end of 2008 or early 2009 when they implemented the “bonus”
23
24 scheme.

25

85. In or around the end of 2008 or early 2009, Defendant Sadaghiani and

26
Ms. Interiano called Mr. Fernandez into the human resources office and told him
27

28 that they were going to reduce his salary from $12 per hour to $10.75 per hour and

20

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 22 of 45 Page ID #:22

1 would pay him the difference of $1.25 per hour by paying an “efficiency bonus.”

2
They explained that the salary reduction would enable them to pay overtime wages.
3

4

86. Defendants asked that Mr. Fernandez agree to the reduction in pay and

5 the “bonus” scheme by signing a document. Mr. Fernandez told Ms. Interiano that

6
he could not agree to the reduction. Upon information and belief, Ms. Interiano
7
8 told Mr. Fernandez that if he did not agree and sign the document, Defendant

9 Sadaghiani would fire him or cut his hours to part-time. Mr. Fernandez knew that
10
Defendants had fired one of his colleagues in the plastics shop for refusing to sign
11
12 the document. Mr. Fernandez signed the document.

13

87. From this point on, Mr. Fernandez received a biweekly bonus of $100,

14
which was equivalent to the difference between his original and reduced salaries
15

16 ($1.25) multiplied by 80 hours of work. However, when Mr. Fernandez worked

17 overtime hours, which he normally did, rather than paying him for his overtime
18
hours, Defendants deducted money from his bonus for each overtime hour worked.
19
20 When Mr. Fernandez and his colleagues asked Ms. Interiano about the irregularities

21 in their bonus pay, she explained that the more overtime hours they worked, the

22
more money was deducted from their bonus pay.
23

24

88. As a consequence of the “bonus” scheme, Mr. Fernandez worked

25 hours of overtime for which he was not compensated at the lawful rate and for

26
which he was not compensated at all.
27

28

89. Because the “bonus” scheme was so complicated and Defendants

21

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 23 of 45 Page ID #:23

1 never provided an accounting for how it calculated his ever-shifting biweekly bonus

2
sum, Mr. Fernandez never understood how that sum was calculated paycheck to
3
4 paycheck, nor could he properly evaluate what hours of work were paid and what

5 hours were not. However, Mr. Fernandez was afraid to complain or ask questions

6
for fear that Defendant Sadaghiani would retaliate against him, as Mr. Fernandez
7
8 has seen him do with others.

9

90. Upon information and belief, in approximately early 2009, Mr.

10
Fernandez learned through company announcements that the company changed its
11
12 policy and would no longer provide employees believed to be undocumented

13 holiday, vacation or sick days.
14
91. Osfel Andrade is a Latino and noncitizen who resides in Anaheim,
15
16 California. He is forty-three years old.

17

92. Mr. Andrade worked for Defendants from approximately December

18
2000 until July 2010. Mr. Andrade started as an assembler in the electronics shop
19

20 on the factory floor at $7 per hour. Approximately one year later, Mr. Andrade

21 became an assistant to the supervisor of the electronics shop and received a wage of

22
approximately $7.50 per hour.
23

24

93. Upon information and belief, during an approximate period of 2003 to

25 2005, Mr. Andrade normally worked from 5 a.m. until 5 p.m. or 12 hours per day.
26
Defendants generally paid Mr. Andrade for his overtime hours as a “second job” at
27
28 a rate a few dollars higher than his hourly salary. As a result, Defendants did not

22

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 24 of 45 Page ID #:24

1 pay Mr. Andrade 150% of his regular rate for all overtime hours worked during that

2
period.
3

4

94. Subsequently, during an approximate period of 2005 to 2007, Mr.

5 Andrade normally worked from 7 a.m. until 5 p.m. or 10 hours per day. Defendants

6
did not pay Mr. Andrade 150% of his regular rate for all overtime hours worked
7
8 during that period.

9

95. In or around 2007, Mr. Andrade became an assistant to the supervisor

10
of the shipping department at a rate of $11 per hour. After approximately two or
11
12 three weeks, Mr. Andrade became the shop leader of the shipping department

13 because all the other employees in that shop had either been fired by Defendants or
14
had left. Given the responsibilities of running the shop, Mr. Andrade requested a
15
16 raise commensurate with the requirements of the job. Defendants refused to pay

17 him the higher rate on account of the fact they believed he was undocumented.
18
Upon information and belief, Defendants would have paid a citizen employee in
19
20 that position over $17 per hour.

21

96. After approximately four or five months, Defendants hired an

22
American citizen to take over as supervisor of the shop, and Mr. Andrade returned
23

24 to the position of assistant to the supervisor. Eventually, Mr. Andrade asked the

25 new supervisor for a raise. After asking Defendants for the raise for Mr. Andrade,
26
the supervisor told Mr. Andrade that he could not have a raise because of his
27
28 perceived immigration status.

23

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 25 of 45 Page ID #:25

1

97. During the approximate period of 2007 to 2010 when Mr. Andrade

2
worked in the shipping department, he normally worked from 8 a.m. until 5 or 6
3
4 p.m.

5

98. In or around July or August 2009, Ms. Interiano held a meeting with

6
Mr. Andrade during which she told him that Defendants were lowering his salary
7
8 from $11 per hour to $10.75 per hour. Ms. Interiano told Mr. Andrade that

9 Defendants would instead pay him a biweekly bonus of approximately $80. She
10
asked him to sign a document agreeing to the pay reduction and the “bonus”
11
12 scheme. She informed Mr. Andrade that if he did not sign the document,

13 Defendants would reduce his hours to six hours per day. Because Mr. Andrade

14
could not afford to work only six hours per day, Mr. Andrade signed the document.
15

16

99. From then on, Mr. Andrade was paid a bonus, but Defendants never

17 uniformly paid the bonus and rarely paid him the $80 biweekly sum they promised
18
him. Defendants made deductions from the bonus for every hour of overtime Mr.
19
20 Andrade worked. Defendants never informed Mr. Andrade as to what deductions

21 were made and why the bonus amount fluctuated.
22
100. As a consequence of the “bonus” scheme, Mr. Andrade worked hours
23
24 of overtime for which he was not compensated at the lawful rate and for which he

25 was not compensated at all.
26
101. In or around 2009, Mr. Andrade learned from announcements made in
27
28 the company that Defendants changed their policy and employees believed to be

24

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 26 of 45 Page ID #:26

1 undocumented were no longer entitled to vacation, sick days and holidays. From

2
that moment on, Defendants stopped providing Mr. Andrade those benefits. So that
3
4 he would not have to work on holidays, Mr. Andrade had to draw on his previously

5 accrued vacation or sick days.

6
102. Mr. Andrade witnessed and experienced that Defendant Sadaghiani
7
8 acted in a very hostile manner towards the noncitizen, Latino employees,

9 particularly towards those he believed were undocumented. He yelled at and
10
intimidated employees. In response to employees’ requests for lawful
11
12 compensation, Defendant Sadaghiani regularly remarked “I am the owner and I’ll

13 do what I want.”

14
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
15

16

103. Plaintiffs, as class representatives, bring claims for damages,

17 injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
18
persons pursuant to Rule 23. Plaintiffs bring class claims for actual, punitive and
19
20 treble damages pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), and class claims for

21 injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2).
22
104. Plaintiffs, as class representatives, bring this action on their own behalf
23
24 and on behalf of a class comprised of all nonexempt current and former employees

25 employed at Terra in the past four years.
26
105. Numerosity. The size of the class makes a class action both necessary
27
28 and efficient. Plaintiffs estimate that the class consists of at least 300 current and

25

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 27 of 45 Page ID #:27

1 former employees. Members of the class are ascertainable but so numerous that

2
joinder is impracticable.
3

4

106. Typicality. The claims of the Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the

5 class as a whole. Each of the Plaintiffs is and/or was employed by Defendants

6
during the relevant statutory period. As a result of Defendants’ employment
7
8 policies and practices, Defendants have failed and continue to fail to pay each of the

9 Plaintiffs as required by law. The unlawful policies and practices that have
10
operated to deny the Plaintiffs wages, and other compensation, benefits, and
11
12 protections required by law are typical of the unlawful practices that have and will

13 continue to operate to deny other class members the compensation and benefits to

14
which they are entitled.
15

16

107. Common Questions of Law and Fact. This case poses common

17 questions of law and fact affecting the rights of all class members, including, but

18
not limited to:
19

20

a. Whether Defendants subjected Plaintiffs and other class

members to differential and/or adverse terms and conditions of

21

employment on the basis of their race and/or alienage;

22

b. Whether Defendants conspired for the purpose of depriving

23

Plaintiffs and other class members of their rights;

24

c. Whether Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and other class

25

members the applicable minimum wage for every compensable

26

hour of labor they performed;

27

d. Whether Defendants paid Plaintiffs and other class members

28

additional compensation beyond their regular wages in amounts

specified by law for all overtime hours worked;

26

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 28 of 45 Page ID #:28

1

2

e. Whether Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and other class

members all accrued wages and compensation;

3

4

f. Whether Defendants paid Plaintiffs and other class members

their entire wages in a timely manner;

5

6

g. Whether Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs and other class

members with accurate wage statements;

7

h. Whether Defendants have engaged in unfair and unlawful

8

business practices;

9
i. Whether Defendants’ conduct constituted fraud and/or negligent

10

misrepresentation for which they are legally liable;

11
j. Whether Defendants’ misrepresentations to Plaintiffs and other

12

class members were made willfully or negligently;

13
k. Whether Plaintiffs and other class members reasonably relied on

14

Defendants' fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations;

15
l. The nature of damages available to Plaintiffs and other class

16

members, including the applicability of compensatory, treble

17

and/or punitive damages;

18

m. The source and amount of Plaintiffs’ and other class members’

19

damages; and

20

n. Whether and what kinds of declaratory and/or injunctive relief

21

are appropriate.

22

108. Adequacy of Class Representation. Plaintiffs can adequately and fairly

23
represent the interests of the class as defined above, because their individual
24

25 interests are consistent with, and not antagonistic to, the interests of the class.

26

109. Adequacy of Counsel for the Class. Counsel for Plaintiffs possess the

27
requisite resources and ability to prosecute this case as a class action and are
28

27

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 29 of 45 Page ID #:29

1 experienced labor and employment and civil rights attorneys who have successfully

2
litigated other cases involving similar issues.
3

4

110. Propriety of Class Action Mechanism. Class certification is

5 appropriate because Defendants have implemented a scheme that is generally

6
applicable to the class, making it appropriate to issue final injunctive relief and
7
8 corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole. Class

9 certification is also appropriate because the common questions of law and fact
10
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the class.
11
12 Further, the prosecution of separate actions against Defendants by individual class

13 members would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications that would
14
establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants. For all these and other
15
16 reasons, a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and

17 efficient adjudication of the controversy set forth in this complaint.

18
COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS
19

20

111. Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated

21 persons concurrently bring this action pursuant to the collective action provisions of
22
29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the FLSA. Plaintiffs seek to represent a FLSA class
23
24 consisting of all current and former employees of Defendants during the applicable

25 liability period. The proposed FLSA class members are similarly situated in that
26
they have been subject to uniform practices by Defendants which violated the
27
28 FLSA, including: (a) failure to pay the minimum wage for every compensable hour

28

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 30 of 45 Page ID #:30

1 of labor they performed, and (b) failure to pay overtime wages for overtime hours

2
of work performed.
3

4

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

OVERTIME AND MINIMUM WAGE VIOLATIONS

5

Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.

6

Collective Action

(All Defendants)

7

112. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations made
8

9 above.

10

113. Defendants violated 29 U.S.C. § 207 by failing to pay Plaintiffs and

11
other class members the applicable overtime wage for every compensable hour of
12

13 labor they performed.

14

114. Defendants violated 29 U.S.C. § 206 by failing to pay Plaintiffs and

15

other class members the applicable minimum wage for every compensable hour of
16

17 labor they performed.

18

115. Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs and others similarly situated the

19

20 federally mandated minimum and overtime wages were willful violations of the

21 FLSA within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).

22

116. As a consequence of Defendants’ violations of the FLSA, Plaintiffs

23

24 and others similarly situated are entitled to recover their unpaid minimum and

25 overtime wages, plus an additional equal amount in liquidated damages, costs of

26 suit, and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
27

28

29

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 31 of 45 Page ID #:31

1

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

2

OVERTIME AND MINIMUM WAGE VIOLATIONS

California Labor Code §§ 510, 1194 and 1198

3

(All Defendants)

4
117. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations made
5
6 above.

7

118. At all relevant times, Defendants acted under common law principles

8
and state law as employers of Plaintiffs and other class members. Defendants hired
9
10 them and exercised control over their wages, hours, and working conditions.

11

119. At all relevant times, Defendants failed to conform their pay practices

12
to the requirements of the law as follows:
13

14

120. California Labor Code §§ 510, 1194, 1198 and IWC Wage Order 1 -

15 2001 requires employers to pay employees, including all members of the class,
16
additional compensation beyond their regular wages in amounts specified by law
17
18 for all overtime hours worked. California Labor Code §§ 1194(a) and 1194.2(a)

19 provide that an employee who has not been paid overtime compensation as required
20
by § 1198 may recover the unpaid balance of the full amount of such wages,
21
22 interest, attorneys' fees and the costs of suit. At all times relevant herein, the IWC

23 Wage Orders were applicable to the class.
24
121. At relevant times, Defendants failed to conform their pay practices to
25
26 the requirements of the law. This unlawful conduct includes, but is not limited to,

27 failing to pay to Plaintiffs and other class members the overtime compensation to
28
which they were and are entitled under the California Labor Code and the

30

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 32 of 45 Page ID #:32

1 applicable IWC Wage Orders.

2

3

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

NONPAYMENT OF WAGES

4

California Labor Code §§ 204, 210, 218.5 and 218.6

(All Defendants)
5

6

122. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations made

7 above.

8
123. Defendants required Plaintiffs and other class members to work hours
9
10 compensable at a regular rate of pay and/or hours compensable with overtime pay.

11 Defendants, however, have refused to pay Plaintiffs and other class members all
12
accrued wages and compensation earned by such Plaintiffs and other class members
13
14 within the time limits prescribed under California Labor Code § 204.

15

124. Based on Defendants' conduct as alleged herein, Defendants are liable

16
for civil penalties pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 204 and 210.
17

18

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

19

FAILURE TO PAY WAGES IN A TIMELY MANNER

20

California Labor Code §§ 204, 210

(All Defendants)

21

22

125. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations made

23 above.
24
126. At relevant times, Defendants failed to conform their pay practices to
25
26 the requirements of the law as follows:

27

127. Plaintiffs and other class members were not paid portions of

28
mandatory wages for overtime work, and thus were not paid their entire wages in a

31

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 33 of 45 Page ID #:33

1 timely manner as required by California Labor Code § 204(b)1.

2
128. Defendants willfully failed to comply with California Labor Code §
3
4 204(b)1, as evidenced by, inter alia, admissions by Defendants and their agents that

5 overtime pay was costly, that salaries had to be reduced in order to pay overtime

6
“correctly,” and instructions to “punch out” and then “punch in” under a pretextual
7
8 “second job” in order to “avoid” overtime charges. Accordingly, Defendants are

9 liable under California Labor Code § 210(a)(2) for “any willful or intentional
10
violation, two hundred dollars ($200) for each failure to pay each employee, plus 25
11
12 percent of the amount unlawfully withheld.”

13

129. Defendants are also liable for the applicable civil penalties, provided

14
for in California Labor Code § 2699(f), for past violations of California Labor Code
15

16 § 204.

17

18

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO KEEP AND FURNISH ACCURATE WAGE STATEMENTS

19

California Labor Code § 226

20

(All Defendants)

21

130. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations made

22
above.
23

24

131. At all relevant times, Defendants failed to conform their pay practices

25 to the requirements of the law as follows:
26
132. During times relevant to this action, California Labor Code § 226(a)
27
28 required that employers, at the time of payment of wages, furnish each employee

32

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 34 of 45 Page ID #:34

1 with an accurate itemized statement showing gross wages earned and total hours

2
worked, among other things.
3

4

133. Section 226 further provides that “an employee suffering injury as a

5 result of a knowing and intentional failure by an employer to comply with

6
subdivision (a) is entitled to recover the greater of all actual damages or fifty dollars
7
8 ($50) for the initial pay period in which a violation occurs and one hundred dollars

9 ($100) per employee for each violation in a subsequent pay period, not exceeding
10
an aggregate penalty of four thousand dollars ($4,000), and is entitled to an award
11
12 of costs and reasonable attorney's fees.”

13

134. At all relevant times, Defendants failed to conform their pay practices

14
to the requirements of the law. This unlawful conduct includes, but is not limited
15

16 to, failing to provide Plaintiffs and other class members with an accurate itemized

17 wage statement. Instead, Defendants provided Plaintiffs and other class members
18
with inaccurate wage statements that misclassified overtime as a pretextual “second
19
20 job” and did not accurately state overtime hours worked, or paid them as a bonus

21 and did not report the overtime hours at all.
22
135. Defendants’ failure to maintain records of, and furnish to Plaintiffs
23
24 and other class members, accurate, itemized wage statements resulted in Plaintiffs

25 and other class members suffering injury, as said failures led to the nonpayment of

26
their earned compensation for overtime.
27

28

136. Defendants’ said failure to furnish and maintain records of accurate,

33

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 35 of 45 Page ID #:35

1 itemized wage statements is, and was, knowing and intentional.

2
137. Based on Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein, Defendants are liable
3
4 for civil penalties pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 226 and 226.3.

5

138. Pursuant to California Labor Code § 226, subdivision (g), an

6
injunction should be issued to stop Defendants from violating its legal obligation to
7
8 maintain records of, and furnish to employees, itemized wage statements accurately

9 reflecting the overtime compensation owed to Plaintiffs and other class members,
10
but concealed by Defendants’ “second job” or “bonus” schemes. If Defendants are
11
12 not enjoined from the conduct set forth above, they will continue to violate their

13 legal obligation to maintain and furnish such records. Thus, there is threatened

14
future harm and/or continuing violation, which justifies injunctive relief.
15

16

139. Plaintiffs, therefore, request the Court to issue a preliminary and

17 permanent injunction requiring Defendants to properly maintain records of, and
18
furnish to employees, itemized wage statements accurately reflecting the overtime
19
20 compensation owed to Plaintiffs and other class members, but concealed by

21 Defendants’ “second job” and “bonus” schemes.

22

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

23

VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866

24

42 U.S.C. § 1981

(All Defendants)

25

26

140. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations made

27 above.
28
141. The right to full and equal benefit of all laws is guaranteed by 42

34

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 36 of 45 Page ID #:36

1 U.S.C. § 1981, as amended by Section 101 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,

2
including the right to enjoy and benefit from non-discriminatory employment
3
4 relationships.

5

142. Section 1981 prohibits private discrimination based on race and

6
alienage.
7

8

143. Plaintiffs and all similarly situated class members are entitled to the

9 protections and benefits afforded by Section 1981 regardless of their immigration

10
status.
11

12

144. By subjecting Plaintiffs and all similarly situated class members to

13 discriminatory treatment based on their race and/or alienage by paying them less,
14
depriving them of holiday, vacation and sick days, failing to pay them overtime,
15
16 and/or subjecting them to hostile treatment, Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ and all

17 similarly situated class members’ rights.
18
145. Defendants knowingly, willfully, maliciously, intentionally, and
19
20 without justification acted to deprive Plaintiffs and other class members of their

21 rights.
22
146. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful acts, Plaintiffs and other class
23
24 members have suffered injury to their property and/or persons.

25

147. Plaintiffs seek all appropriate relief, including declaratory and

26
injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs of this action, and damages, including
27

28 compensatory and punitive damages, in an amount to be determined at trial.

35

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 37 of 45 Page ID #:37

1

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

2

VIOLATIONS OF THE KU KLUX KLAN ACT OF 1871

42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)

3

(Defendant Sadaghiani and Does 1-10)

4
148. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every
5
6 allegation made above.

7

149. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), “If two or more persons in any State

8
or Territory conspire. . . .for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly,
9
10 any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of the equal

11 privileges and immunities under the laws. . . .the party so injured or deprived may
12
have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or
13
14 deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.”

15

150. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs Defendant Sadaghiani,

16
together with Ms. Interiano, Mr. Harms and other agents of Defendants, conspired,
17

18 agreed, planned and coordinated for the purpose of depriving Plaintiffs and other

19 class members of their rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (right to make and enforce
20
contracts without being subjected to discrimination); the FLSA § 207(a) (right to
21
22 overtime wages); California Labor Code §§ 510, 194, and 1198 (right to overtime

23 wages); California Labor Code § 204 (right to timely payment of overtime wages);
24
and California Labor Code § 226 (right to keep and furnish accurate wage
25
26 statements).

27

151. Defendants were motivated by animus against Plaintiffs and all

28
similarly situated class members based on their Latino race and/or their alienage

36

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 38 of 45 Page ID #:38

1 when they conspired to deprive Plaintiffs and other class members of their rights

2
and/or acted in furtherance of a conspiracy to deprive Plaintiffs and other class
3
4 members of their rights.

5

152. Defendants knowingly, willfully, maliciously, intentionally, and

6
without justification planned and acted to deprive Plaintiffs and other class
7
8 members of their rights.

9

153. As a result of the unlawful acts of Defendant Sadaghiani and Does 1-

10
10, Plaintiffs and other class members have suffered damages in the form of lost
11
12 wages and benefits.

13

154. Plaintiffs seek all appropriate relief, including declaratory and

14
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of this action, and damages, including
15

16 compensatory and punitive damages, in an amount to be determined at trial.

17

18

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES

19

California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.

20

(All Defendants)

21

155. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations made

22 above.

23

24

156. This claim is brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves, members

25 of the class, and the general public, pursuant to Business and Professions Code §

26 17200, et seq.

27

28

157. Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq. prohibits unlawful,

37

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 39 of 45 Page ID #:39

1 unfair, and fraudulent business practices. Plaintiffs seek to enforce important rights

2
affecting the public interest within the meaning of California Code of Civil
3
4 Procedure § 1021.5.

5

158. Plaintiffs are “persons” within the meaning of Business and

6
Professions Code § 17204, with standing to bring this suit for injunctive relief,
7
8 restitution, disgorgement, and other appropriate equitable relief on behalf of all

9 similarly-situated employees and on behalf of the general public.
10
159. The FLSA announces the public policy of this country to ensure
11
12 minimum wage and overtime payments. 29 U.S.C. § 202. It provides, in relevant

13 part, that the existence of labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the
14
minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being
15
16 of workers constitutes an unfair method of competition.

17

160. California Labor Code § 90.5(a) sets forth the public policy of this

18
State to enforce minimum labor standards vigorously, to ensure that employees are
19

20 not required or permitted to work under substandard and unlawful conditions, and

21 to protect employers who comply with the law from those who attempt to gain a

22
competitive advantage by failing to comply with minimum labor standards.
23

24

161. The Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, sets forth that no

25 person shall be discriminated against on the basis of race or alienage in their

26
employment.
27

28

162. The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), sets forth that no

38

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 40 of 45 Page ID #:40

1 person shall be deprived of the equal protection of the laws based on their race

2
and/or membership in a protected class.
3

4

163. Through the conduct alleged in this Complaint, Defendants have acted

5 contrary to these public policies and statutes, and have thus engaged in unlawful

6
and unfair business practices in violation of California Business and Professions
7
8 Code §§ 17200-208. At all relevant times, Defendants have engaged in unfair and

9 unlawful business practices that include, but are not limited to, the following:

10
a. Failing to pay the Plaintiffs and other class members equal to

11

citizen employees who performed the same or substantially

12

similar jobs on the basis of race and/or alienage;

13

b. Depriving Plaintiffs and other class members of raises and

14

vacation, sick day and holiday benefits on the basis of race

and/or alienage;

15

16

c. Failing to pay the Plaintiffs and other class members the wages

required by state and federal law in violation of 29 U.S.C. §§

17

206 and 207, California Labor Code §§ 1194, 1198 and

18

applicable I.W.C. wage orders;

19

d. Failing to provide Plaintiffs and other class members with

20

accurate itemized wage statements as required by California Labor Code § 226;

21

22

e. Misrepresenting to Plaintiffs and other class members their legal rights in order to induce them to work under unlawful

23

conditions;

24

f. Additional unfair and unlawful practices that Plaintiffs reserve

25

the right to identify as further investigation and discovery

warrants.

26

27

164. As a direct result of their unfair and unlawful conduct, Defendants

28 have reaped benefits and illegal profits at the expense of the Plaintiffs and other

39

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 41 of 45 Page ID #:41

1 class members. Through the unfair business practices alleged in this Complaint,

2
Defendants have received, and continue to receive, funds that rightfully belong to
3
4 the Plaintiffs and other class members, they have produced and continue to produce

5 further profits with those funds, and they therefore have been, and continue to be,

6
unjustly enriched. Through the unfair business practices alleged in this Complaint,
7
8 moreover, Defendants have received, and continue to receive the benefit of

9 employing a steady workforce under unlawful conditions, and have thereby
10
achieved, and continue to achieve, an unfair competitive advantage over their
11
12 legitimate business competitors, all at the expense of the Plaintiffs and other class

13 members.
14
165. Accordingly, under California Business and Professions Code §
15
16 17203, Plaintiffs seek restitution of all unpaid wages owed to themselves and other

17 class members, in amounts to be proven at trial, as well as disgorgement of all
18
profits that Defendants have enjoyed as a result of their unfair and unlawful
19
20 business practices.

21

166. Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief to prevent Defendants from

22
continuing to engage in the unfair business practices alleged in this Complaint.
23

24 Defendants, and persons acting in concert with them, have done, are now doing,

25 and will continue to do or cause to be done, the above-described unlawful acts
26
unless restrained and enjoined by this Court. Unless the relief prayed for below is
27
28 granted, a multiplicity of actions will result. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, or

40

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 42 of 45 Page ID #:42

1 adequate remedy at law, in that it is difficult to measure the amount of monetary

2
damages that would compensate Plaintiffs or the general public for Defendants'
3
4 wrongful acts. Further, pecuniary compensation alone would not afford adequate

5 and complete relief. The above-described acts will cause great and irreparable

6
damage to Plaintiffs and the general public if injunctive relief is not granted.
7

8

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

9

FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION

California Civil Code § 1709 and common law

10

(All Defendants)

11
167. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations made
12

13 above.

14

168. Defendants, individually or through their agents, employees and/or

15

representatives, knowingly and/or negligently made materially false and untrue
16

17 statements and representations to the Plaintiffs and class members that they would

18 lawfully pay them overtime and a bonus to compensate for the difference in salary
19
20 in order to induce them to agree to a salary reduction and the “bonus” scheme.

21 Plaintiffs Fernandez, Andrade and other similarly situated class members relied on

22 these promises in agreeing to the salary reduction and “bonus” scheme. Upon
23
24 information and belief, the true purpose of Defendants false representations was to

25 induce Plaintiffs and class members to accept inferior wages and a compensation

26 scheme that would scam them out of additional wages. Defendants failed to pay
27
28 Plaintiffs their overtime wages and bonus in accordance with their promises.

41

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 43 of 45 Page ID #:43

1

169. In addition, Defendants, individually or through their agents,

2
employees and/or representatives, knowingly and/or negligently made materially
3
4 false and untrue statements and representations to the Plaintiffs and class members

5 about their employment rights under U.S. law in order to induce them to work

6
under unlawful and discriminatory conditions, including inducing them to work for
7
8 less pay than their co-workers who were not perceived to be undocumented, to

9 work overtime hours without overtime pay, and to work without vacation, sick day

10
and holiday benefits.
11

12

170. As set forth in preceding paragraphs, Defendants knowingly or

13 negligently told Plaintiffs and other class members that they were not entitled to
14
lawful and non-discriminatory conditions of work because of their immigration
15
16 status. The representations made by Defendants to Plaintiffs and other class

17 members were false and Defendants had no reasonable basis for believing them to
18
be true. On information and belief, the true purpose of making these false
19
20 representations was to induce Plaintiffs to accept inferior compensation.

21

171. Plaintiffs and other class members relied on those representations

22
because they believed them to be true. Plaintiffs’ and other class members’ reliance
23

24 on the representations and promises was justified because at all relevant times

25 herein, Defendants had superior knowledge of U.S. law.
26
172. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct,
27
28 Plaintiffs and other class members have suffered and will continue to suffer

42

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 44 of 45 Page ID #:44

1 economic damages, including, but not limited to, loss of income, loss of job

2
opportunities, loss of future income and emotional distress. Defendants have
3
4 damaged Plaintiffs and other class members as the result of their fraudulent conduct

5 as aforesaid, and are liable to Plaintiffs and other class members for general and

6
compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
7

8

173. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct as alleged in

9 this Complaint, Plaintiffs and other class members have lost wages and other
10
benefits in the amounts to be proven at trial. On behalf of themselves and other
11
12 class members, Plaintiffs seek recovery of such wages and benefits.

13

174. In committing the wrongful acts and failures to act described above,

14
Defendants knew their actions were unlawful, and committed such acts either
15

16 maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively with an improper motive amounting to

17 malice, and/or in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs' and other class members’ rights.
18
By reason of said conduct, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover punitive damages from
19
20 Defendants.

21

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

22

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court award relief

23
as follows:
24

25

1. An order certifying this case as a class action and appointing Plaintiffs

26 and their counsel to represent the proposed class;
27
2. Unpaid wages, and statutory penalties, according to proof;
28

43

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 45 of 45 Page ID #:45

 
 Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 76 Filed 03/30/11 Page 1 of 21 Page ID #:1558

1 Randy Renick (SBN 179652)
rrr@liskrr.com 2 Cornelia Dai (SBN 207435)
cdai(cV,hskrr.com 3 HAD'-SELL STORNIERKEENY
RICHARDSON & RENICK, LLP 4 128 North Fair Oaks Avenue
Pasadena, California 91103-3645
5 Telephone: (626) 585-9600 Facsimile: (626) 577-7079
6 Ahilan Arulanantham (SBN 237841)
7 hvillagra(cV,aclu-sc.org Jennifer Pas~arella (SBN 263241)
8 jpasquarella aclu-sc.org Micnael Kau man (SBN254575)
9 mkaufman(cV,aclu-sc.org
ACLU FODN'DATION OF SOUTHERN 10 CALIFORl\TIA
1313 W 8th St 11 Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 977-9500 12 Facsimile: (213) 977-5297

13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16 ANDRES MORALES, JUAN MIGUEL
17 REAL and OSFEL AIwRADE on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly 18 situated,

19

Plaintiffs,

20

v.

Case No.: CV 10-06490 PA (SSx)
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

21

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

22 TERRA UNIVERSAL, INC., GEORGE SADAGHIANI, and Does 1-10, inclusive,
23

24 Defendants.
25

26

27

28
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT


Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 76 Filed 03/30/11 Page 2 of 21 Page ID #:1559

1 INTRODUCTION

2

1.

This class action is brought by Plaintiffs Andres Morales, Juan Miguel

3 Real, and Osfel Andrade (collectively "Plaintiffs") on behalf of themselves and a class
4­

of all former and current hourly employees of Defendant Terra Universal, Inc.

5 ("Terra"), and its owner and operator, Defendant George Sadaghiani ("Sadaghiani")

6 (collectively "Defendants").

7 2. Terra, which produces highly-specialized cleanroom and laboratory

8 equipment, has earned annual sales in the range of$50 to $100 million per year and

9 contracts with numerous federal government agencies, including the Army, the Navy

10 and NASA.

11 3. Defendants required their workforce to toil long hours without overtime

12 pay: for instance, requiring workers to clock out at the completion of eight-hour shifts

13 and clock back in, under a "second job," for additional hours, so as to avoid paying

14 overtime wages and escape detection by the government.

15 4. Accordingly, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly

16 situated, and the general public, hereby complain of violations of numerous federal and

17 state employment laws for failure to pay mandated minimum and overtime wages, to

18 pay wages, to pay wages in a timely manner, and to keep and furnish accurate wage

19 statements. Additionally, Plaintiffs bring claims for unfair business practices for

20 unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices that run counter to the public's

21 interest in ensuring compliance with minimum labor standards for all workers.

22 JURISDICTION

23 5. The Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant

24 to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337 and Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. §

25 216(b). The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to

26 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

27

28

1
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT


Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 76 Filed 03/30/11 Page 3 of 21 Page ID #:1560
1 VENUE

2
6. Venue is proper in the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 3
§ 1391(b) because the acts, events and omissions giving rise to the action occurred in 4
this District. 5
PARTIES 6
7. Plaintiff Andres Morales resides in Anaheim, California. He is sixty-two 7
years old. Mr. Morales has worked for Defendants from approximately August 1998 8
until the present day. He works as an electronic technician on the factory floor. 9
8. Plaintiff Juan Miguel Real resides in Garden Grove, California. He is 10
thirty-five years old" Mr. Real worked for Defendants from approximately December 11
1999 until July 2010. For the last four years of his employment, Mr. Real worked as the 12
manager of the sheet metal shop on the factory floor. 13
9. Plaintiff Osfel Andrade resides in Anaheim, California. He is forty-three 14
years old. Mr. Andrade worked for Defendants from December 2000 until July 2010. 15
Most recently, Mr. Andrade worked as an assistant to the supervisor of the shipping 16
department. 17
10. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs are and/or were employed by Defendants as 18
defined by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(g). 19
11. At all relevant tilTles, Plaintiffs were "persons" within the meaning of that 20
term under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 21
12. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs were engaged in interstate commerce and/or
22
in the production of goods for sale in interstate commerce. 23
13. Defendant Terra, founded in 1976, is a leading manufacturer of modular 24
clean rooms, desiccators, abide by boxes, laminar flow and exhaust fume hoods, wet 25
processing stations, clean-room workbenches, storage systems and furniture. Terra 26
supplies over 5,000 United States and international pharmaceutical, biotechnology, 27
medical device, semiconductor, and aerospace companies, as well as research entities, 28
universities and government agencies. Between 2004 and 2009, Terra's four largest 2 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT


Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 76 Filed 03/30/11 Page 4 of 21 Page ID #:1561
1 accounts with the federal government were with the U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy, the U.S.
2
Air Force, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ("NASA"). Upon 3
information and belief, Terra currently employs over 225 employees at its main 4
administrative and manufacturing complex in Fullerton, California. 5
14. Defendant Terra is incorporated in California and its registered agent 6
resides in Laguna Niguel, California. At all times relevant to this action, Terra 7
maintained a business establishment at 800 S. Raymond Avenue, Fullerton, California 8
92831. At all times relevant to this action, Terra may be deemed to have resided in and 9
have conducted business in the Central District of California. Kenneth Harms is the 10
Chief Operating Officer of Terra Universal, Inc. Irma Interiano is the Chief Financial 11
Officer and formerly the Human Resources Executive at Terra. 12
15. Defendant George Sadaghiani is the owner and president of Terra. 13
Sadaghiani resides in Laguna Niguel, California. 14
16. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants and their agents exercised, 15
and/or will exercise, the authority to direct, control, and/or supervise the work of 16
Plaintiffs. 17
17. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants employed Plaintiffs within 18
the meaning of29 U.S.C. § 203(g). 19
18. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants employed fifteen or more 20
employees. 21
19. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants were "persons" within the
22
meaning of29 U.S.C. § 203(a), 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(e), and 42 U.S.C. § 1985; and 23
"employers" as defined by 29 U.S.c. § 203(d), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b), and California 24
state law. 25
20. The true names and capacities of defendants Does 1 through 10, inclusive, 26
are presently unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sue said Defendants by such 27
fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to set forth the true names and 28
capacities of said Defendants when they are ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and 3 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT


Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 76 Filed 03/30/11 Page 5 of 21 Page ID #:1562
1 believe, and upon such infonnation and belief allege, that at all times relevant to this
2 action, each of the fictitiously-named Defendants was an agent, employee, or co­
3 conspirator of one or more of the named Defendants, and was acting within the course
4 and scope of said agency or employment. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe,
5 and upon such information and belief allege, that each of the fictitiously named
6 Defendants aided and assisted the named Defendants in committing the wrongful acts
7 alleged herein, and that Plaintiffs' damages, as alleged herein, were proximately caused
8 by such Defendants.
9 21. Plaintiffs are infonned and believe, and upon such information and belief
10 allege, that Defendants, and each of them, conspired and agreed among themselves to
11 do the acts complained of herein and were, in doing such acts, acting pursuant to and in
12 furtherance of said conspiracy. Each Defendant sued herein is jointly and severally
13 responsible and liable to Plaintiffs for the damages alleged herein.
14 22. Whenever and wherever reference is made in this complaint to any act by a
15 Defendant or Defendants, such allegations and reference shall also be deemed to mean
16 the acts and failures to act of each Defendant acting individually, jointly, and severally.
17 23. The conduct of Defendants and each of them, and/or their
18 agents/employees or supervisors, authorized, condoned and ratified the unlawful
19 conduct of each other.
20
24. Whenever and wherever reference is made to individuals who are not 21
named as a Plaintiff or Defendant in this Complaint but who, during relevant time 22
periods, were employees or agents of Defendants, such individuals at all relevant times 23
acted on behalf of Defendants within the scope of their employment. 24
STATEMENT OF FACTS 25
26
25. For many years, Defendants have systematically exploited Plaintiffs and 27
other class members. Defendants required Plaintiffs and other class members to work
28
as many as fourteen hours a day without paying them their lawful overtime wages.
4 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT


Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 76 Filed 03/30/11 Page 6 of 21 Page ID #:1563
1 Instead, Defendants created fraudulent overtime schemes - the "second job" and the
2
"bonus" schemes - to evade overtime wage requirements and government detection, 3
pay Plaintiffs and other class members far less than legally mandated and confuse 4
Plaintiffs and other class members as to whether Defendants were properly 5
compensating them for their earned wages. Defendants' policies and practices resulted 6
in a series of schemes aimed at compelling Plaintiffs and other class members to work
7
longer hours and produce more, for less pay, all the while preventing them from 8
exercising or demanding their workplace rights. 9
26. Defendants required Plaintiffs and other class members to work in excess 10
of eight hours per day and in excess of forty hours per week without overtime pay and, 11
in some cases, without any payment of wages. 12
27. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants operated at least two 13
different fraudulent compensation schemes to cheat Plaintiffs and other class members
14
out of oveliime wages and, in some cases, any wages for hours worked: the "second 15
job" scheme and the "bonus" scheme.
16
28. Under the "second job" scheme, Defendants required Plaintiffs and other 17
class members to "clock out" after eight hours of work and immediately clock back in 18
under the "second job" category for their overtime hours. Plaintiffs and other class 19
members were either paid their hourly wage for the "second job" overtime hours or up 20
to a few dollars above their hourly wage. 21
29. Beginning in or around 2008, Defendants replaced the "second job"
22
scheme and implemented a "bonus" scheme for workers earning $10 per hour or above. 23
Defendants introduced the "bonus" scheme gradually. 24
30. In individual meetings, Defendants, individually or through their agents, 25
employees and/or representatives, informed Plaintiffs and other class members that they 26
were going to reduce their hourly wage, so that they could "correctly" pay overtime. To 27
cover the difference between the old wage and the new reduced wage, Defendants told 28
Plaintiffs and other class members that they would pay them a lump-sum bonus on a 5
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT


Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 76 Filed 03/30/11 Page 7 of 21 Page ID #:1564
1 biweekly basis that would compensate them for the difference, so that they would not
2
notice the reduction in pay. 3
31. Defendants, individually or through their agents, employees and/or 4
representatives, required Plaintiffs and other class members to sign a document agreeing 5
to the wage reduction and "bonus" scheme. Defendants told Plaintiffs and other class 6
members that if they did not sign the document they would be fired or have their hours 7
reduced. 8
32. Defendants' "bonus" scheme failed to pay Plaintiffs and other class 9
members at the legaHy-mandated rate of 150% of their regular rate of pay. 10
33. For Plaintiffs and other similarly situated class members, the bonus never 11
compensated them for the difference between their former salary and their reduced 12
salary, nor did Defendants lawfully pay them all of their overtime wages. 13
34. Defendants further used the "bonus" scheme to make deductions from 14
employees' pay that would otherwise be unlawful. Defendants made deductions for 15
every overtime hour worked as an apparent incentive to produce more in eight hours. 16
Defendants also made deductions for workplace injuries, mistakes or warnings. Upon 17
information and belief, Defendants instructed supervisors to routinely give warnings and 18
penalties to their employees so that Defendants could make deductions from their pay. 19
35. Defendants' "bonus" scheme was deliberately designed to confuse
20
Plaintiffs and other class members so that they could not detect whether and for what 21
they were being compensated. Indeed, when Defendants paid the bonus in lieu of
22
paying overtime, they failed to report to Plaintiffs and other class members the number 23
of overtime hours worked or any other information to indicate how the bonus sum was 24
calculated. 25
36. Defendants did not compensate Plaintiffs and other class members for all
26
of their overtime hours worked. 27
37. Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages to Plaintiffs and other class
28
members was willful. 6
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT


Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 76 Filed 03/30/11 Page 8 of 21 Page ID #:1565
1
38. As a result of Defendants , unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and other class
2
members have been and continue to be systematically deprived of the wages to which 3
they are entitled by law. 4
39. Plaintiffs are "non-exempt" employees, i.e., they are not exempt from the 5
overtime provisions of the FLSA or the California Labor Code. They do not engage in 6
exempt executive, administrative, or professional duties within the meaning of 29 7 U.S.C. § 213 and 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.1, 541.2 and 541.3. Nor are they paid on a salary
and independent judgment," within the meaning of Wage Order Nos. 4-89, 4-98, 7-80 11 and 7-98. 12
Factual Allegations of Class Representatives 13
40. Andres Morales resides in Anaheim, California. He is sixty-two years old. 14
41. Mr. Morales has worked for Defendants from approximately August 1998 15
until the present day. When Mr. Morales started at Terra he worked as an assembler in 16
the electronics department for $6 an hour. Mr. Morales currently works as a technician 17
in the electronics department at $14 per hour. 18
42. Throughout the course of his employment with Defendants, Mr. Morales 19
has frequently worked oveliime hours without being compensated at 150% of his 20
regular wage as required by law. With the exception of an approximately four-week 21
period in 2007, Defendants have never lawfully paid Mr. Morales his overtime hours.
22
Instead, Defendants paid Mr. Morales' overtime hours as a "second job," at first at a 23
rate equal to his hourly salary and later at a rate of a few dollars more than his hourly 24
salary. 25
43. In recent years, during the approximate period of2007 to 2009, Defendants 26
required Mr. Morales to regularly work two hours of overtime per day and often 27
required him to work on Saturdays. 28
44. In or around June 2009, Defendant Sadaghiani and Ms. Interiano held a
7 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT


Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 76 Filed 03/30/11 Page 9 of 21 Page ID #:1566
1 meeting with Mr. Morales and informed him that they were going to reduce his salary
2
and pay the difference through a bonus. They told Mr. Morales that he had to sign a 3
document agreeing to this arrangement. Mr. Morales refused to sign. And Defendants 4
retaliated against Mr. Morales by reducing his hours to six hours per day. Because Mr. 5
Morales is the only employee in the company who performs his job, after approximately 6
three months, Defendants restored his shift to eight hours per day. 7
45. Juan Miguel Real resides in Garden Grove, California. He is thirty-five 8
years old. 9
46. Mr. Real worked for Defendants from approximately December 1999 until 10
July 2010. Mr. Real started out as an assembler in the sheet metal shop making $6.25 11
an hour, and rose to machine helper, assistant manager, and finally to manager of the 12
sheet metal shop in approximately 2006. As manager, Defendants paid Mr. Real $14 13
per hour and then, after a year, paid him $17 per hour. 14
47. During his employment with Defendants, Mr. Real worked significant 15
overtime hours for which he was not lawfully compensated. He normally worked from 16
6 a.m. until 5 p.m. or 11 hours per day. He was also required to work most Saturdays 17
for an eight hour shift. 18
48. Beginning approximately five years ago, Defendants began to pay Mr. Real 19
overtime according to the "second job" scheme. Defendants paid him $2 more than his 20
hourly salary for those overtime hours, and therefore he was not paid at 150% of his 21
regular rate of pay for his overtime hours. Defendants paid his "second job" hours in a
22
separate monthly paycheck. 23
49. In or around 2009, Defendants stopped paying Mr. Real's overtime hours 24
under the "second job" scheme and started paying it under the "bonus" scheme. The 25
bonus only compensated Mr. Real for overtime hours at his hourly rate and failed to pay 26
him 150% of his regular rate of pay for his overtime hours. 27
50. During a six-month period in 2009, Mr. Real clocked 120-180 hours of 28
overtime per month. During this period, Mr. Real generally worked from 6 a.m. until 8 8
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT


Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 76 Filed 03/30/11 Page 10 of 21 Page ID #:1567
1 p.m., or 14 hours per day, and on Saturdays for 8 hours. Defendants paid Mr. Real for
2
these overtime hours under the ("bonus" scheme. 3
51. Osfel Andrade resides in Anaheim, California. He is forty-three years old. 4
52. Mr. Andrade worked for Defendants from approximately December 2000 5
until July 2010. Mr. Andrade started as an assembler in the electronics shop on the 6
factory floor at $7 per hour. Approximately one year later, Mr. Andrade became an 7
assistant to the supervisor of the electronics shop and received a wage of approximately 8
$7.50 per hour.
9
53. Upon information and belief, during an approximate period of 2003 to 10
2005, Mr. Andrade normally worked from 5 a.m. until 5 p.m. or 12 hours per day. 11
Defendants generally paid Mr. Andrade for his overtime hours as a "second job" at a 12
rate a few dollars higher than his hourly salary. As a result, Defendants did not pay Mr. 13
Andrade 150% of his regular rate for all overtime hours worked during that period. 14
54. Subsequently, during an approximate period of 2005 to 2007, Mr. Andrade 15
normally worked from 7 a.m. until 5 p.m. or 10 hours per day. Defendants did not pay 16
Mr. Andrade 150% of his regular rate for all overtime hours worked during that period. 17
55. In or around 2007, Mr. Andrade became an assistant to the supervisor of 18
the shipping department at a rate of $11 per hour. After approximately two or three 19
weeks, Mr. Andrade became the shop leader of the shipping depmiment because all the 20
other employees in that shop had either been fired by Defendants or had left. 21
56. After approximately four or five months, Mr. Andrade returned to the
22
position of assistant to the supervisor. 23
57. During the approximate period of2007 to 2010 when Mr. Andrade worked 24
in the shipping department, he normally worked from 8 a.m. until 5 or 6 p.m. 25
58. In or around July or August 2009, Ms. Interiano held a meeting with Mr. 26
Andrade during whieh she told him that Defendants were lowering his salary from $11 27
per hour to $10.75 per hour. Ms. Interiano told Mr. Andrade that Defendants would 28
instead pay him a biweekly bonus of approximately $80. She asked him to sign a
9 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT


Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 76 Filed 03/30/11 Page 11 of 21 Page ID #:1568
1 document agreeing to the pay reduction and the "bonus" scheme. She informed Mr.
2 Andrade that if he did not sign the document, Defendants would reduce his hours to six
3 hours per day. Because Mr. Andrade could not afford to work only six hours per day,
4 Mr. Andrade signed the document.
5 59. From then on, J'vlr. Andrade was paid a bonus, but Defendants never
6 uniformly paid the bonus and rarely paid him the $80 biweekly sum they promised him.
7
Defendants made deductions from the bonus for every hour of overtime Mr. Andrade 8
worked. Defendants never informed Mr. Andrade as to what deductions were made and 9
why the bonus amount fluctuated. 10
CLASS ALLEGATIONS 11
60. Plaintiffs, as class representatives, bring claims for damages, injunctive and 12
declaratory relief on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons pursuant to 13
Rule 23. Plaintiffs bring class claims for actual, punitive and treble damages pursuant 14
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), and class claims for injunctive and declaratory 15
relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ" P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2). 16
61. Plaintiffs, as class representatives, bring this action on their own behalf and 17
on behalf of a class comprised of all nonexempt current and former employees 18
employed at Terra in the past four years.
19
62. Numerosity. The size of the class makes a class action both necessary and 20
efficient. Plaintiffs estimate that the class consists of at least 300 current and former 21
employees. Members of the class are ascertainable but so numerous that joinder is 22
impracticable. 23
63. Typicality. The claims of the Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class
24 as a whole. Each of the Plaintiffs is and/or was employed by Defendants during the
25 relevant statutory period. As a result of Defendants' employment policies and practices,
26 Defendants have failed and continue to fail to pay each of the Plaintiffs as required by
27 law. The unlawful policies and practices that have operated to deny the Plaintiffs
28 wages, and other compensation, benefits, and protections required by law are typical of 10
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT


Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 76 Filed 03/30/11 Page 12 of 21 Page ID #:1569
1 the unlawful practices that have and will continue to operate to deny other class
2
members the compensation and benefits to which they are entitled. 3
64. Com711On Questions ofLaw and Fact. This case poses common questions of 4
law and fact affecting the rights of all class members, including, but not limited to: 5
a. Whether Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and other class members 6
the applicable minimum wage for every compensable hour of labor 7
they performed; 8
b. VVhether Defendants paid Plaintiffs and other class members 9
additional compensation beyond their regular wages in amounts 10
specified by law for all overtime hours worked; 11
c. Whether Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and other class members 12
all accrued wages and compensation; 13
d. Whether Defendants paid Plaintiffs and other class members their 14
entire wages in a timely manner; 15
e. Whether Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs and other class 16
members with accurate wage statements; 17
f. Whether Defendants have engaged in unfair and unlawful business 18
practices; 19
g. The nature of damages available to Plaintiffs and other class 20
members, including the applicability of compensatory or statutory 21
damages;
22
h. The source and amount of Plaintiffs' and other class members' 23
damages; and 24
1. Vvhether and what kinds of declaratory and/or injunctive relief are 25
appropriate.
26
65. Adequacy of Class Representation. Plaintiffs can adequately and fairly 27
represent the interests of the class as defined above, because their individual interests
28
are consistent with, and not antagonistic to, the interests of the class. 11
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT


Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 76 Filed 03/30/11 Page 13 of 21 Page ID #:1570
1 66. Adequacy o/Counsel/or the Class. Counsel for Plaintiffs possess the
2
requisite resources and ability to prosecute this case as a class action and are 3
experienced labor and employment and civil rights attorneys who have successfully 4
litigated other cases involving similar issues. 5
67. Propriety o/Class Action Mechanism. Class certification is appropriate
6 because Defendants have implemented a scheme that is generally applicable to the class,
7 making it appropriate to issue final injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief
8 with respect to the class as a whole. Class certification is also appropriate because the
9 common questions of law and fact predominate over any questions affecting only
10 individual members of the class. Fmiher, the prosecution of separate actions against
11 Defendants by individual class members would create a risk of inconsistent or varying
12 adjudications that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants.
13 For all these and other reasons, a class action is superior to other available methods for
14 the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy set forth in this complaint.
15 COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS
16
17 68. Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons
18 concurrently bring this action pursuant to the collective action provisions of 29 U.S.C. §
19 216(b) of the FLSA. Plaintiffs seek to represent a FLSA class consisting of all current
20
and former employees of Defendants during the applicable liability period. The 21
proposed FLSA class members are similarly situated in that they have been subject to
22
uniform practices by Defendants which violated the FLSA, including: (a) failure to pay 23
the minimum wage for every compensable hour of labor they performed, and (b) failure 24
to pay overtime wages for overtime hours of work performed. 25
26
27
28
12

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT


Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 76 Filed 03/30/11 Page 14 of 21 Page ID #:1571

69. above.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION OVERTIME AND MINIMUM WAGE VIOLATIONS
 Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.

Collective Action
 (All Defendants)
 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations made

74.
above.
75. At all relevant times, Defendants acted under common law principles and
state law as employers of Plaintiffs and other class members. Defendants hired them 13
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT


Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 76 Filed 03/30/11 Page 15 of 21 Page ID #:1572
1 and exercised control over their wages, hours, and working conditions.
2
76. At all relevant times, Defendants failed to conform their pay practices to 3
the requirements of the law as follows: 4
77. California Labor Code §§ 510,1194, 1198 and IWC Wage Order 1 - 2001 5
requires employers to pay employees, including all members of the class, additional 6
compensation beyond their regular wages in amounts specified by law for all overtime 7
hours worked. California Labor Code §§ 1194(a) and 1194.2(a) provide that an 8
employee who has not been paid overtime compensation as required by § 1198 may 9
recover the unpaid balance of the full amount of such wages, interest, attorneys' fees and 10
the costs of suit. At all times relevant herein, the IWC Wage Orders were applicable to 11
the class. 12
78. At relevant times, Defendants failed to conform their pay practices to the 13
requirements of the law. This unlawful conduct includes, but is not limited to, failing to 14
pay to Plaintiffs and other class members the overtime compensation to which they were 15
and are entitled under the California Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage Orders. 16
17 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
18 NOJ\JPAYMENT OF WAGES

19 CalifOlnia Labor Code §§ 204, 210,218.5 and 218.6

20 (Terra Universal, Inc.)

21 79. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations made
22
above. 23
80. Defendants required Plaintiffs and other class members to work hours 24
compensable at a regular rate of pay and/or hours compensable with overtime pay. 25
Defendants, however, have refused to pay Plaintiffs and other class members all accrued 26
wages and compensation earned by such Plaintiffs and other class members within the 27
time limits prescribed under California Labor Code.§ 204. 28
81. Based on Defendants' conduct as alleged herein, Defendants are liable for 14
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT


Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 76 Filed 03/30/11 Page 16 of 21 Page ID #:1573
1 civil penalties pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 204 and 210.
2
3 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
4 FAILURE TO PAY WAGES IN A TIMELY MANNER

5
California Labor Code §§ 204, 210

6 (Terra Universal, Inc.)

7 82. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations made above.
8 83. At relevant times, Defendants failed to conform their pay practices to the
9 requirements of the law as follows:
10 84. Plaintiffs and other class members were not paid portions of mandatory
11 wages for overtime work, and thus were not paid their entire wages in a timely manner 12
as required by California Labor Code § 204(b) 1. 13
85. Defendants willfully failed to comply with California Labor Code § 14
204(b) 1, as evidenced by, inter alia, admissions by Defendants and their agents that 15
overtime pay was costly, that salaries had to be reduced in order to pay overtime 16
"correctly," and instructions to "punch out" and then "punch in" under a pretextual 17
"second job" in order to "avoid" overtime charges. Accordingly, Defendants are liable 18
under California Labor Code § 2l0(a)(2) for "any willful or intentional violation, two 19
hundred dollars ($200) for each failure to pay each employee, plus 25 percent of the 20
amount unlawfully withheld." 21
86. Defendants are also liable for the applicable civil penalties, provided for in 22
California Labor Code § 2699(f), for past violations of California Labor Code § 204. 23
24 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

25 FAILURE TO KEEP AND FURNISH ACCURATE WAGE STATEMENTS

26 California Labor Code § 226

27 (Terra Universal, Inc.)

28
15

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT


Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 76 Filed 03/30/11 Page 17 of 21 Page ID #:1574
1 87. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations made above.
2
88. At all relevant times, Defendants failed to conform their pay practices to 3
the requirements of the law as follows: 4
89. During times relevant to this action, California Labor Code § 226(a) 5
required that employers, at the time of payment of wages, furnish each employee with 6
an accurate itemized statement showing gross wages earned and total hours worked, 7
among other things. 8
90. Section 226 further provides that "an employee suffering injury as a result 9
of a knowing and intentional failure by an employer to comply with subdivision (a) is 10
entitled to recover the greater of all actual damages or fifty dollars ($50) for the initial 11
pay period in which a violation occurs and one hundred dollars ($100) per employee for 12
each violation in a subsequent pay period, not exceeding an aggregate penalty of four 13
thousand dollars ($4,000), and is entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney's 14
fees." 15
91. At all relevant times, Defendants failed to conform their pay practices to 16
the requirements of the law. This unlawful conduct includes, but is not limited to, 17
failing to provide Plaintiffs and other class members with an accurate itemized wage 18
statement. Instead, Defendants provided Plaintiffs and other class members with 19
inaccurate wage statements that misclassified overtime as a pretextual "second job" and 20
did not accurately state overtime hours worked, or paid them as a bonus and did not 21
report the overtime hours at all.
22
92. Defendants' failure to maintain records of, and furnish to Plaintiffs and 23
other class members, accurate, itemized wage statements resulted in Plaintiffs and other 24
class members suffering injury, as said failures led to the nonpayment of their earned 25
compensation for overtime. 26
93. Defendants' said failure to furnish and maintain records of accurate, 27
itemized wage statements is, and was, knowing and intentional. 28
94. Based on Defendants' conduct as alleged herein, Defendants are liable for 16
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT


Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 76 Filed 03/30/11 Page 18 of 21 Page ID #:1575
1 civil penalties pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 226 and 226.3.
2
95. Pursuant to California Labor Code § 226, subdivision (g), an injunction 3
should be issued to stop Defendants from violating its legal obligation to maintain 4
records of, and furnish to employees, itemized wage statements accurately reflecting the 5
overtime compensation owed to Plaintiffs and other class members, but concealed by 6
Defendants' "second job" or "bonus" schemes. If Defendants are not enjoined from the 7
conduct set forth above, they will continue to violate their legal obligation to maintain 8
and furnish such records. Thus, there is threatened future harm and/or continuing 9
violation, which justifies injunctive relief. 10
96. Plaintiffs, therefore, request the Court to issue a preliminary and permanent 11
injunction requiring Defendants to properly maintain records of, and furnish to 12
employees, itemized wage statements accurately reflecting the overtime compensation 13
owed to Plaintiffs and other class members, but concealed by Defendants' "second job" 14
and "bonus" schemes. 15
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 16
UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES
 17
California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.
 18
(All Defendants)
 19
20 97. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations made
21 above.
22
98. This claim is brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves, members of the 23
class, and the general public, pursuant to Business and Professions Code § 17200, et 24
seq. 25
99. Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq. prohibits unlawful, unfair, 26
and fraudulent business practices. PlElintiffs seek to enforce important rights affecting 27
the public interest within the meaning of California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5.
28
100. Plaintiffs are "persons" within the meaning of Business and Professions 17
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT


Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 76 Filed 03/30/11 Page 19 of 21 Page ID #:1576
1 Code § 17204, with standing to bring this suit for injunctive relief, restitution,
2
disgorgement, and other appropriate equitable relief on behalf of all similarly-situated 3
employees and on behalf of the general public. 4
101. The FLSA announces the public policy of this country to ensure minimum 5
wage and overtime payments. 29 U.S.C. § 202. It provides, in relevant part, that the 6
existence of labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard 7
ofliving necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers constitutes 8
an unfair method of competition. 9
102. California Labor Code § 90.5(a) sets forth the public policy of this State to 10
enforce minimum labor standards vigorously, to ensure that employees are not required 11
or permitted to work under substandard and unlawful conditions, and to protect 12
employers who comply with the law from those who attempt to gain a competitive
13 advantage by failing to comply with minimum labor standards.
14 103. Through the conduct alleged in this Complaint, Defendants have acted
15 contrary to these public policies and statutes, and have thus engaged in unlawful and
16 unfair business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code §§
17 17200-208. At all relevant times, Defendants have engaged in unfair and unlawful
18 business practices that include, but are not limited to, the following:
19 a. Failing to pay the Plaintiffs and other class members the wages
20 required by state and federal law in violation of 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207,
21 California Labor Code §§ 1194, 1198 and applicable I.W.C. wage orders;
22
b. Failing to provide Plaintiffs and other class members with accurate 23
itemized wage statements as required by California Labor Code § 226; 24
c. Additional unfair and unlawful practices that Plaintiffs reserve the 25
right to identify as further investigation and discovery warrants. 26
104. As a direct result of their unfair and unlawful conduct, Defendants have 27
reaped benefits and illegal profits at the expense of the Plaintiffs and other class 28
members. Through the unfair business practices alleged in this Complaint, Defendants
18
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT


Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 76 Filed 03/30/11 Page 20 of 21 Page ID #:1577
1 have received, and continue to receive, funds that rightfully belong to the Plaintiffs and
2
other class members, they have produced and continue to produce further profits with 3
those funds, and they therefore have been, and continue to be, unjustly enriched. 4
Through the unfair business practices alleged in this Complaint, moreover, Defendants 5
have received, and continue to receive the benefit of employing a steady workforce 6
under unlawful conditions, and have thereby achieved, and continue to achieve, an 7
unfair competitive advantage over their legitimate business competitors, all at the 8
expense of the Plaintiffs and other class members. 9
105. Accordingly, under California Business and Professions Code § 17203, 10
Plaintiffs seek restitution of all unpaid wages owed to themselves and other class 11
members, in amounts to be proven at trial, as well as disgorgement of all profits that 12
Defendants have enjoyed as a result of their unfair and unlawful business practices. 13
106. Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief to prevent Defendants from continuing 14
to engage in the unfair business practices alleged in this Complaint. Defendants, and 15
persons acting in concert with them, have done, are now doing, and will continue to do 16
or cause to be done, the above-described unlawful acts unless restrained and enjoined by 17
this Court. Unless the relief prayed for below is granted, a multiplicity of actions will 18
result. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law, in that it is difficult 19
to measure the amount of monetary damages that would compensate Plaintiffs or the 20
general public for Defendants' wrongful acts. Further, pecuniary compensation alone 21
would not afford adequate and complete relief. The above-described acts will cause
22
great and irreparable: damage to Plaintiffs and the general public if injunctive relief is 23
not granted. 24
25
26
27
28
19

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT


Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 76 Filed 03/30/11 Page 21 of 21 Page ID #:1578

1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court award relief as 3
follows: 4
1. An order certifying this case as a class action and appointing Plaintiffs and 5
their counsel to represent the proposed class; 6
2. Unpaid wages and statutory penalties, according to proof; 7
3. Liquidated damages pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) for failure to pay 8
overtime wages; 9
4. Preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining and restraining 10
Defendants from continuing the unfair and unlawful business practices set forth above 11
and requiring the establishment of appropriate and effective means to prevent future 12
violations; 13
5. Restitution of all compensation due, including but not limited to unpaid 14
wages, as a result of Defendants' unlawful and unfair business practices, according to
15 proof;
16 6. Declaratory relief;
17 7. Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs;
18 8. Interest;
19 9. Such other and further relief as the COUli deems just and proper.
20 JURY TRIAL DEMAND
21 Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial on all issues so triable.
22

23 DATED: March 24, 2011 24 25 26

Respectfully submitted,

HADSELL STORMER KEENY RICHARDSON & RENICK, LLP

ACLU of

R

RNIA

27

28

20

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT


 
 Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 92 Filed 04/18/11 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:1843

1 Randy Renick (SBN 179652) rrr@hskrr.com
2 Cornelia Dai (SBN 207435) cdai@hskrr.com
3 HADSELL STORMER KEENY RICHARDSON & RENICK, LLP
4 128 North Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena, California 91103-3645
5 Telephone: (626) 585-9600 Facsimile: (626) 577-7079
6 Ahilan Arulanantham (SBN 237841)
7 aarulanantham@aclu-sc.org Jennifer Pasquarella (SBN 263241)
8 jpasquarella@aclu-sc.org Michael Kaufman (SBN 254575)
9 mkaufman@aclu-sc.org ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN
10 CALIFORNIA 1313 W 8th St
11 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 977-9500
12 Facsimile: (213) 977-5297

13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16

17 ANDRES MORALES, JUAN MIGUEL

REAL, and OSFEL ANDRADE, on behalf

18 of themselves and all others similarly

situated,

19

Plaintif

fs,

20

v.

21

TERRA UNIVERSAL, INC., GEORGE

22 SADAGHIANI, and Does 1-10, inclusive,

23

Defendants

Case No. CV-10-6490 PA (SSx)
ORDER RE: STIPULATION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS FOR VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, 29 U.S.C. § 201, ET SEQ.

Complaint Filed: August 31, 2010

Trial Date:

January 17, 2012

24

25

26

27

28

1
[PROP] ORDER RE: STIPULATION TO DISMISS PLTFFS’ CLAIMS FOR VIOL OF THE FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, ET SEQ.

Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 92 Filed 04/18/11 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:1844

1 The parties have submitted a stipulation, through their respective counsel, for the

2 dismissal without prejudice of Plaintiffs Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real, and Osfel

3 Andrade’s federal claims for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29

4 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.

5

The parties dismiss these claims in order that Plaintiffs may participate in a civil

6 action filed by the Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, against Terra

7 Universal, Inc. and George Sadaghiani for violations of the FLSA. The Secretary’s

8 Complaint will seek back wages for overtime violations under the FLSA for a class of

9 non-exempt employees who worked for Terra Universal, Inc. and George Sadaghiani from

10 August 5, 2007 through August 4, 2010.

11 THEREFORE, good cause appearing, the request for dismissal of Plaintiffs Andres

12 Morales, Juan Miguel Real, and Osfel Andrade’s federal claims for violation of the Fair

13 Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., is approved.

14

15 IT IS SO ORDERED.
16

17

18 DATED: April 18, 2011

19

The

United

20

By: ___________________________ Honorable PercyAnderson States District Court Judge

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2
[PROP] ORDER RE: STIPULATION TO DISMISS PLTFFS’ CLAIMS FOR VIOL OF THE FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, ET SEQ.

 
 Case 2:10-cv-06490-PA -SS Document 94 Filed 04/22/11 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:1846
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 10-6490 PA (SSx)

Title

Andres Morales, et al. v. Terra Universal, Inc., et al.

Date April 22, 2011

Present: The Honorable

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Paul Songco Deputy Clerk

Not Reported Court Reporter

N/A Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER

Before the Court is a Motion for Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Action Certification filed by plaintiffs Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, and Osfel Andrade (collectively “Plaintiffs”). (Docket No. 68). On April 14, 2011 the parties submitted a stipulation to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which the Court approved on April 18, 2011. As such, Plaintiff’s Motion is denied as moot. The hearing calendared for April 25, 2011, is vacated, and the matter taken off calendar.
The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims for violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Once supplemental jurisdiction has been established under § 1367(a), a district court “can decline to assert supplemental jurisdiction over a pendant claim only if one of the four categories specifically enumerated in section 1367(c) applies.” Executive Software v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 24 F.3d 1545, 1555–56 (9th Cir. 1994). The Court may decline supplemental jurisdiction if: “(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Since all claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction are dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiffs’ state law claims without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d).
Since the Court has declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Action Certification of the state law claims is also denied as moot. (Docket No. 26.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 1

 
 Case: 2:10-cv-6490 As of: 09/22/2013 07:19 AM PDT 1 of 12 (SSx),CLOSED,DISCOVERY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division − Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:10−cv−06490−PA−SS

Andres Morales et al v. Terra Universal, Inc. et al Assigned to: Judge Percy Anderson Referred to: Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal Cause: 29:201 Denial of Overtime Compensation
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 08/31/2010 Date Terminated: 04/22/2011 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 710 Labor: Fair Standards Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Andres Morales on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

represented by Ahilan T Arulanantham ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1313 West Eighth Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−5211 Fax: 213−977−5297 Email: aarulanantham@aclu−sc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Jeffrey Bilford Hadsell Stormer Keeny Richardson and Renick LLP 128 North Fair Oaks Avenue Suite 204 Pasadena, CA 91103−3645 626−585−9600 Fax: 626−577−7079 Email: bbilford@hskrr.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cornelia Ho−Chin Dai Hadsell Stormer Keeny Richardson and Renick LLP 128 North Fair Oaks Avenue Suite 204 Pasadena, CA 91103−3664 626−585−9600 Fax: 626−577−7079 Email: cdai@hskrr.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hector O Villagra ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1313 West 8th Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−9500 Fax: 213−977−5297 Email: hvillagra@aclu−sc.org TERMINATED: 11/29/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer L Pasquarella ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1313 West 8th Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−9500 Fax: 213−977−5297 Email: jpasquarella@aclu−sc.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Bryan Kaufman

Case: 2:10-cv-6490 As of: 09/22/2013 07:19 AM PDT 2 of 12

American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California 1313 West Eighth Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−9500 Fax: 213−977−5297 Email: mkaufman@aclu−sc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall R Renick Hadsell Stormer Richardson and Renick LLP 128 North Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena, CA 91103 626−585−9600 Fax: 626−577−7079 Email: rrr@hskrr.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victor Leung ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1313 West 8th Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−5232 Fax: 213−977−5297 Email: victor.leung@lw.com TERMINATED: 11/23/2010

Plaintiff
Juan Miguel Real on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

represented by Ahilan T Arulanantham (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Jeffrey Bilford (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cornelia Ho−Chin Dai (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hector O Villagra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer L Pasquarella (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Bryan Kaufman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall R Renick (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victor Leung (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/23/2010

Plaintiff

Case: 2:10-cv-6490 As of: 09/22/2013 07:19 AM PDT 3 of 12

Hugo Alcantar Fernandez on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 03/30/2011

represented by Ahilan T Arulanantham (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brian Jeffrey Bilford (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cornelia Ho−Chin Dai (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hector O Villagra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer L Pasquarella (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Bryan Kaufman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall R Renick (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victor Leung (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/23/2010

Plaintiff
Osfel Andrade on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

represented by Ahilan T Arulanantham (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Jeffrey Bilford (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cornelia Ho−Chin Dai (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hector O Villagra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer L Pasquarella (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Bryan Kaufman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall R Renick (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-6490 As of: 09/22/2013 07:19 AM PDT 4 of 12

Victor Leung (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/23/2010

V. Defendant Terra Universal, Inc.
Defendant George Sadaghiani
Defendant Does 1−10, inclusive Mediator (ADR Panel) Alexander S. Polsky JAMS Suite 600 500 North State College Boulevard, Orange, CA 92648 714−501−1321

represented by Jeanine Antoinette Scalero Friedman Stroffe &Gerard P.C. 19800 MacArthur Boulevard Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92612−2425 949−265−1100 Fax: 949−265−1199 Email: jscalero@fsglawyers.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sally S Costanzo Friedman Stroffe &Gerard P.C. 19800 MacArthur Boulevard Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92612−2425 949−265−1100 Fax: 949−265−1199 Email: scostanzo@fsglawyers.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Joseph Gerard , Jr Friedman Stroffe and Gerard, P.C. 19800 MacArthur Boulevard Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92612−2425 949−265−1114 Fax: 949−265−1199 Email: rgerard@fsglawyers.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeanine Antoinette Scalero (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sally S Costanzo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Joseph Gerard , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed

# Docket Text

Case: 2:10-cv-6490 As of: 09/22/2013 07:19 AM PDT 5 of 12

08/31/2010
08/31/2010 08/31/2010 08/31/2010 09/02/2010 09/08/2010
09/08/2010
09/08/2010 09/14/2010 09/20/2010 09/29/2010 09/30/2010 10/01/2010

1 COMPLAINT against Defendants Does 1−10, inclusive, George Sadaghiani, Terra Universal, Inc. Case assigned to Judge Percy Anderson for all further proceedings. Discovery referred to Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal.(Filing fee $ 350: PAID) Jury Demanded., filed by plaintiffs Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Osfel Andrade.(ghap) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/2/2010: # 1 Ntc of Asgmt, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons) (mg). (Entered: 09/02/2010)
21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint − (Discovery) 1 as to Defendants Does 1−10, inclusive, George Sadaghiani, Terra Universal, Inc. (ghap) (Entered: 09/02/2010)
2 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real. (ghap) (mg). (Entered: 09/02/2010)
3 NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real. Related Case(s): no related cases. (ghap) (mg). (Entered: 09/02/2010)
4 STANDING ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson: This action has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Percy Anderson. All counsel are ordered to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Central District of California. See document for further details. (gk) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
5 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Osfel Andrade, upon Defendant George Sadaghiani served on 9/3/2010, answer due 9/24/2010. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Irma Interiano, Employee − Human Resources Manager in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and by also mailing a copy. Original Summons NOT returned. (Pasquarella, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/08/2010)
6 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Osfel Andrade, upon Defendant Terra Universal, Inc. served on 8/31/2010, answer due 9/21/2010. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Adriana Lara − Employee, Authorized to accept Service in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by service on a domestic corporation, unincorporated association, or public entity. Original Summons NOT returned. (Pasquarella, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/08/2010)
7 NOTICE Plaintiffs' Written Consent to Become Parties to Action filed by plaintiff Osfel Andrade, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real. (Attachments: # 1 Named Plaintiff Consent Forms, # 2 Proof of Service by Mail)(Pasquarella, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/08/2010)
8 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by plaintiff Osfel Andrade, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real, re Order, 4 served on 9/14/2010. (Pasquarella, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/14/2010)
9 FIRST STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Terra Universal, Inc. answer now due 10/21/2010; George Sadaghiani answer now due 10/25/2010, filed by Defendants Terra Universal, Inc.; George Sadaghiani. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Gerard, Robert) (Entered: 09/20/2010)
10 ORDER granting First Stipulation Extending Time to Answer: Defendant Terra Universal, Inc. shall have up to and including October 21, 2010 to file a response to Plaintiffs' Complaint. Defendant George Sadaghiani shall have up to and including October 25, 2010 to file a response to Plaintiffs' Complaint 9 , by Judge Percy Anderson (bp) (Entered: 09/30/2010)
11 First STIPULATION to Transfer Case to United States District Court, Central District of California filed by Defendants George Sadaghiani, Terra Universal, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Gerard, Robert) (Entered: 09/30/2010)
12 DENIED BY ORDER of Judge Percy Anderson, re Stipulation to Transfer Case to the Southern Division of the Central District 11 . (gk) (Entered: 10/01/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-6490 As of: 09/22/2013 07:19 AM PDT 6 of 12

10/21/2010 10/21/2010 10/22/2010
10/22/2010 10/22/2010 10/25/2010 10/25/2010 11/23/2010
11/23/2010
11/23/2010
11/29/2010
11/29/2010

13 ANSWER to Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery) 1 filed by Defendant Terra Universal, Inc..(Gerard, Robert) (Entered: 10/21/2010)
14 Disclosure Statement filed by Defendant Terra Universal, Inc. (Gerard, Robert) (Entered: 10/21/2010)
15 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Answer to Complaint 13 . The following error(s) was found: Local Rule 7.1−1 No Certification of Interested Parties and or no copies. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (vh) (Entered: 10/22/2010)
16 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Terra Universal, Inc., identifying Terra Universal, Inc. and George Sadaghiani. (Gerard, Robert) (Entered: 10/22/2010)
19 SCHEDULING MEETING OF COUNSEL [FRCP 16, 26(f)] by Judge Percy Anderson: Scheduling Conference set for 12/13/2010 10:30 AM before Judge Percy Anderson. Counsel shall meet at least 21 days in advance of the Scheduling Conference to prepare a jointly signed report for the court to be submitted no less than 14 days before the Scheduling Conference. (gk) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
17 ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT filed by Defendant George Sadaghiani.(Gerard, Robert) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
18 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant George Sadaghiani, identifying Terra Universal, Inc.; George Sadaghiani. (Gerard, Robert) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
20 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Jennifer L Pasquarella counsel for Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real.Victor Leung is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by plaintiff Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Osfel Andrade (Pasquarella, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/23/2010)
21 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Jennifer L Pasquarella counsel for Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real. Adding Michael Kaufman as attorney as counsel of record for Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Osfel Andrade for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by plaintiff Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Osfel Adrade (Pasquarella, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/23/2010)
22 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Notice of Change of Attorney Information (G−06) 21 , Notice of Change of Attorney Information (G−06), Notice of Change of Attorney Information (G−06) 20 . The following error(s) was found: Judges' initials are lacking on case number. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (vh) (Entered: 11/23/2010)
23 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Hector O Villagra counsel for Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real.Hector O. Villagra is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by plaintiff Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Osfel Andrade (Villagra, Hector) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
24 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Jennifer L Pasquarella counsel for Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real. Adding Ahilan Arulanantham as attorney as counsel of record for Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Osfel Andrade for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by plaintiff Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Osfel Andrade (Pasquarella, Jennifer)

Case: 2:10-cv-6490 As of: 09/22/2013 07:19 AM PDT 7 of 12

11/29/2010 11/29/2010 11/29/2010 11/30/2010 11/30/2010 11/30/2010
11/30/2010 12/01/2010
12/06/2010 12/06/2010 12/09/2010
12/13/2010

(Entered: 11/29/2010)
25 JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan ; estimated length of trial 3 weeks, filed by Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ADR Settlement Procedure Request &Notice, # 2 Proposed Order Proposed Order for ADR Settlement Proc Request)(Dai, Cornelia) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
26 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class Action filed by Plaintiff Osfel Andrade, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real. Motion set for hearing on 1/3/2011 at 01:30 PM before Judge Percy Anderson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Renick, Randall) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
27 DECLARATION of Jennifer Pasquarella in support of MOTION to Certify Class Action 26 filed by Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real. (Renick, Randall) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
28 DECLARATION of Randy Renick in Support of MOTION to Certify Class Action 26 filed by Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real. (Renick, Randall) (Entered: 11/30/2010)
29 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re MOTION to Certify Class Action 26 filed by Plaintiff Osfel Andrade, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real. (Renick, Randall) (Entered: 11/30/2010)
30 COMPENDIUM OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF re MOTION to Certify Class Action 26 filed by Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declarations and Exhibits, # 2 Declaration Declarations and Exhibits, # 3 Declaration Declarations)(Renick, Randall) (Entered: 11/30/2010)
31 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real. correcting Declaration (Motion related) 28 Re: Declaration of Randy Renick in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class (Renick, Randall) (Entered: 11/30/2010)
32 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Joint Rule 26(f) Report filed 11/29/2010 25 . The following error(s) was found: Settlement Procedure Selection: Request and Notice (Form ADR−01) submitted as a separate PDF attachment to this entry, and should have been docketed separately. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (gk) (Entered: 12/02/2010)
33 NOTICE of Service of FRCP 26(a) Initial Disclosure filed by Defendants George Sadaghiani, Terra Universal, Inc.. (Gerard, Robert) (Entered: 12/06/2010)
34 NOTICE of Service of FRCP 26(a) Initial Disclosure filed by Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real. (Renick, Randall) (Entered: 12/06/2010)
35 MINUTES − IN CHAMBERS by Judge Percy Anderson: The Court, on its own motion, orders Plaintiffs to show cause in writing why the class action allegations on the Fair Labor Standards Act claim should not be stricken for failure to timely file a motion for class certification. Plaintiffs' response to the order to show cause shall be filed by 12/20/2010. Defendants' response shall be filed by 12/30/2010. The Scheduling Conference is continued to 1/3/2011 01:30 PM before Judge Percy Anderson. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 12/09/2010)
36 OPPOSITION opposition to re: MOTION to Certify Class Action 26 filed by Defendants George Sadaghiani, Terra Universal, Inc.. (Gerard, Robert) (Entered: 12/13/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-6490 As of: 09/22/2013 07:19 AM PDT 8 of 12

12/13/2010 12/13/2010 12/13/2010 12/13/2010 12/20/2010
12/20/2010 12/20/2010 12/20/2010
12/20/2010 12/20/2010 12/20/2010 12/20/2010 12/20/2010 12/20/2010 12/29/2010

37 DECLARATION of George Sadaghiani in opposition to MOTION to Certify Class Action 26 filed by Defendants George Sadaghiani, Terra Universal, Inc.. (Gerard, Robert) (Entered: 12/13/2010)
38 DECLARATION of Jeanine Scalero in opposition to MOTION to Certify Class Action 26 filed by Defendants George Sadaghiani, Terra Universal, Inc.. (Gerard, Robert) (Entered: 12/13/2010)
39 OBJECTIONS in opposition to re: MOTION to Certify Class Action 26 Objections to Evidence filed by Defendants George Sadaghiani, Terra Universal, Inc.. (Gerard, Robert) (Entered: 12/13/2010)
40 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE in Opposition to Motion for Class Certification filed by Defendants George Sadaghiani, Terra Universal, Inc.. (Gerard, Robert) (Entered: 12/13/2010)
41 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Realto Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held, Order to Show Cause, Set/Reset Hearing,,,,,, 35 Response to Order to Show Cause Re: Why FLSA Claims for a Collective Action Should Proceed (Renick, Randall) (Entered: 12/20/2010)
42 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Realto Request for Judicial Notice 40 Plaintiffs' Opposition to Request for Judicial Notice (Renick, Randall) (Entered: 12/20/2010)
43 REPLY in Support of MOTION to Certify Class Action 26 Reply in Support of Motion for Class Action Certification filed by Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real. (Renick, Randall) (Entered: 12/20/2010)
44 DECLARATION of Cornelia Dai in Support of MOTION to Certify Class Action 26 Declaration of Cornelia Dai and Exhibits in Support of Reply for Class Action Certification Motion filed by Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1 − 6)(Renick, Randall) (Entered: 12/20/2010)
45 DECLARATION of Maria Stroud in Support of MOTION to Certify Class Action 26 Supplemental Declaration of Maria Stroud in Support of Motion for Class Action Certification filed by Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real. (Renick, Randall) (Entered: 12/20/2010)
46 DECLARATION of Mary Cervantez in Support of MOTION to Certify Class Action 26 Supplemental Declaration of Mary Cervantez in Support of Motion for Class Action Certification filed by Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real. (Renick, Randall) (Entered: 12/20/2010)
47 DECLARATION of Jennifer Pasquarella in Support of MOTION to Certify Class Action 26 Supplemental Declaration of Jennifer Pasquarella in Support of Reply for Motion for Class Action Certification filed by Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real. (Renick, Randall) (Entered: 12/20/2010)
48 DECLARATION of Ricardo Acevedo in Support of MOTION to Certify Class Action 26 Supplemental Declaration of Ricardo Acevedo in Support of Motion for Class Action Certification filed by Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real. (Renick, Randall) (Entered: 12/20/2010)
49 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Realto Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 39 Plaintiffs' Responses to Defendants Objections in Evidence (Renick, Randall) (Entered: 12/20/2010)
50 OBJECTIONS to Declaration (Motion related) 37 Plaintiffs' Evidentiary Objections to the Declaration of George Sadahiani filed by Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real. (Renick, Randall) (Entered: 12/20/2010)
51 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Percy Anderson. The Court hereby continues the Scheduling Conference and hearing on Plaintiffs' MOTION 26 for Class Certification from 1/3/2011 to 1/10/2011 at 1:30 PM before Judge Percy Anderson. (vdr) (Entered: 12/29/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-6490 As of: 09/22/2013 07:19 AM PDT 9 of 12

12/30/2010 01/05/2011
01/14/2011 01/25/2011 01/25/2011 01/25/2011 01/25/2011 01/26/2011 01/28/2011

52 RESPONSE filed by Defendants George Sadaghiani, Terra Universal, Inc.to Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held, Order to Show Cause, Set/Reset Hearing,,,,,, 35 (Gerard, Robert) (Entered: 12/30/2010)
53 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Percy Anderson Re: MOTION 26 to Certify Class Action. To assist the Court in ruling on this Motion the Court orders further briefing. Defendants are ordered to address: Which, if any, of the bonus plans that Defendants mentioned in their Opposition were the named plaintiffs Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, and Osfel Andrade compensated under; and For each bonus plan under which a named plaintiff was compensated, how many other hourly non−exempt employees were compensated under that bonus plan during the alleged class period. Defendants are directed to file their brief no later than 1/15/2011. Plaintiffs may file a response no later than 1/25/2011. The hearing on the Motion to Certify Class Action and the Scheduling Conference are continued from 1/10/2011 to 1/31/2011 at 1:30 p.m. (vdr) (Entered: 01/05/2011)
54 SUPPLEMENT BRIEF RE BONUS PLANS filed by Defendants George Sadaghiani, Terra Universal, Inc.. (Gerard, Robert) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
55 STIPULATION to Continue Hearing on Class Certification Motion and Scheduling Conference from 01−31−11 to 03−07−11 filed by Defendants George Sadaghiani, Terra Universal, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Gerard, Robert) (Entered: 01/25/2011)
56 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Realto Supplement(Motion related) 54 to Defendants' Supplemental Brief Re Bonus Plans (Dai, Cornelia) (Entered: 01/25/2011)
57 DECLARATION re Response (non−motion) 56 Declaration of Cornelia Dai and Exhibits in Support of Response to Defendants' Supplemental Brief Re Bonus Plans filed by Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real. (Dai, Cornelia) (Entered: 01/25/2011)
58 OBJECTIONS to Supplement(Motion related) 54 Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of George Sadaghiani filed in support of Defendants' Supplemental Brief Re Bonus Plans filed by Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real. (Dai, Cornelia) (Entered: 01/25/2011)
59 ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING ON CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION AND SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Percy Anderson: Upon Stipulation 55 , The hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class Action 26 and the Scheduling Conference are continued to 3/7/2011 01:30 PM before Judge Percy Anderson. (gk) (Entered: 01/26/2011)
60 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Percy Anderson: The Court has received the parties' joint 26(f) report and finds that a scheduling conference is not necessary. The scheduling conference currently on calendar for 3/7/2011 at 1:30 PM is hereby vacated, and the matter taken off calendar. The Court refers the parties to the Attorney Settlement Officer Panel for a Local Civil Rule 16−15 Settlement Conference. Within ten days, the parties shall: obtain the consent of the Attorney Settlement Officer who will conduct the settlement conference; notify the ADR Program Office of the consent; and file form ADR−2, Stipulation Regarding Selection of Attorney Settlement Officer. Jury Trial set for 1/17/2012 09:00 AM before Judge Percy Anderson. File Final Trial Exhibit Stipulation 1/12/2012. Hearing on Motions in Limine and Hearing on Disputed Jury Instructions at 1:30 PM 1/9/2012. Final Pretrial Conference set for 12/16/2011 01:30 PM before Judge Percy Anderson. Motions in Limine to be filed by 12/16/2011. Proposed Voir Dire Questions &Agreed−to Statement of Case 12/16/2011. Lodge Pretrial Conference Order &Pretrial Exhibit Stipulation due by 12/2/2011. File Contentions of Fact &Law 12/2/2011. Exhibit List due by 12/2/2011. Witness List due by 12/2/2011. File Status Report Regarding Settlement by 12/2/2011. File Agreed Upon Set of Instructions &Verdict Forms and File Joint Statement Regarding Disputed Instructions, Verdicts, etc. 12/2/2011. Last date to conduct settlement conference is 11/21/2011. Last Day for Hearing Motions 11/14/2011. Discovery cut−off 11/7/2011. Last Day for Hearing on Motion to Amend Pleadings or Add Parties 3/7/2011. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 01/28/2011)

Case: 2:10-cv-6490 As of: 09/22/2013 07:19 AM PDT 10 of 12

02/07/2011 02/15/2011 02/24/2011 03/03/2011 03/24/2011 03/24/2011 03/28/2011 03/28/2011 03/28/2011
03/28/2011
03/28/2011 03/28/2011

61 STIPULATION REGARDING SELECTION of Attorney Settlement Officer Filed; Parties stipulate that Alexander S. Polsky may serve as Attorney Settlement Officer for Settlement Proceedings The Plaintiff obtained the consent of the Attorney Settlement Officer. Filed by Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real(Renick, Randall) (Entered: 02/07/2011)
62 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT of Attorney Settlement Officer. Alexander Polsky has been assigned to serve as Attorney Settlement Officer. (mb) (Entered: 02/15/2011)
63 STIPULATION to Continue Hearing on Class Certification Motion from March 7, 2011 to May 23, 2011 filed by Plaintiff Osfel Andrade, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Granting Stipulation to Continue Hearing on Class Action Certification)(Dai, Cornelia) (Entered: 02/24/2011)
64 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION 63 TO CONTINUE HEARING ON CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATION by Judge Percy Anderson. The hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class Action currently set for 3/7/2011 is continued to 4/4/2011 at 1:30 PM. (vdr) (Entered: 03/03/2011)
65 STIPULATION to Amend Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery) 1 filed by Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 First Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief)(Renick, Randall) (Entered: 03/24/2011)
66 STIPULATION to Continue Class Certification Hearing from 04/04/2011 to 04/11/2011 Re: Order, Set/Reset Motion Hearing and RRDeadlines 64 filed by Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Renick, Randall) (Entered: 03/24/2011)
67 ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson, re Stipulation to Continue 66 . The hearing on Plaintiff's Motion 26 to Certify Class Action currently set for 4/4/2011, is continued to 4/11/2011 at 1:30 PM. (vdr) (Entered: 03/28/2011)
68 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify FLSA Collective Action filed by Plaintiff Osfel Andrade, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real. Motion set for hearing on 4/25/2011 at 01:30 PM before Judge Percy Anderson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit Ex. A to proposed order, # 3 Exhibit Ex. B to proposed order)(Renick, Randall) (Entered: 03/28/2011)
69 EXHIBIT Compendium of Evidence − Volume A to MOTION to Certify FLSA Collective Action 68 filed by Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Named Plaintiffs, # 2 Declaration of Class Members, # 3 Declaration of Translators, # 4 Declaration of Randy Renick and Exhs 1−4, # 5 Declaration of Jennifer Pasquarella and Exh A)(Renick, Randall) (Entered: 03/28/2011)
70 EXHIBIT Compendium of Evidence − Volume B to MOTION to Certify FLSA Collective Action 68 filed by Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Cornelia Dai, # 2 Exhibit Exhs. 1−6 to Dai Decl., # 3 Declaration Suppl Decl of Acevedo &Ex. A, # 4 Declaration Suppl Decl of Mary Cervantez, # 5 Declaration Suppl Decl of Maria Stroud, # 6 Declaration Suppl Decl of Jennifer Pasquarella)(Renick, Randall) (Entered: 03/28/2011)
71 DECLARATION of Randy Renick in support of MOTION to Certify FLSA Collective Action 68 filed by Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1 − Hermoly Ramirez Deposition)(Renick, Randall) (Entered: 03/28/2011)
72 NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Judge Percy Anderson, ORDERING Stipulation to File First Amended Complaint; Proposed Order; First Amended Complaint submitted by Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real received on 3/24/2011 is not to be filed but instead rejected. Denial based on: Local Rule 11−4.1; Stip Order not e−filed, granted prior to submission of FAC. (vdr) (Entered: 03/29/2011)

Case: 2:10-cv-6490 As of: 09/22/2013 07:19 AM PDT 11 of 12

03/29/2011
03/30/2011 03/30/2011 03/30/2011
03/31/2011 04/04/2011 04/04/2011 04/04/2011 04/04/2011 04/04/2011 04/05/2011 04/11/2011 04/11/2011 04/11/2011

73 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to File Supplemental Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Action Certification filed by Plaintiff Osfel Andrade, Hugo Alcantar Fernandez, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Randy Renick, # 2 Exhibit 1 −− Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, # 3 Exhibit 2 − Excerpts from Deposition of H. Ramirez, # 4 Declaration of Cornelia Dai, # 5 Proposed Order)(Renick, Randall) (Entered: 03/29/2011)
74 ORDER re: First Amended Complaint 65 by Judge Percy Anderson: Request is approved and, The First Amended Complaint is hereby filed as of the date of this Order. (kpa) (Entered: 03/30/2011)
75 OPPOSITION opposition to re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to File Supplemental Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Action Certification 73 filed by Defendants George Sadaghiani, Terra Universal, Inc.. (Gerard, Robert) (Entered: 03/30/2011)
76 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT against Defendants Terra Universal, Inc., George Sadaghiani, and Does 1−10, inclusive; Party Hugo Alcantar Fernandez terminated; amending Complaint 1 ; with Jury Demand filed by Plaintiffs Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real, and Osfel Andrade. (gk) (Entered: 03/30/2011)
77 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson: denying Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application 73 for Leave to File Supplemental Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Action Certification. *See order for findings and analysis.* (vdr) (Entered: 03/31/2011)
78 OPPOSITION in opposition to re: MOTION to Certify FLSA Collective Action 68 filed by Defendants George Sadaghiani, Terra Universal, Inc.. (Gerard, Robert) (Entered: 04/04/2011)
79 OBJECTION opposition to re: MOTION to Certify FLSA Collective Action 68 Objections to Evidence − Volume A filed by Defendants George Sadaghiani, Terra Universal, Inc.. (Gerard, Robert) (Entered: 04/04/2011)
80 OBJECTION opposition to re: MOTION to Certify FLSA Collective Action 68 Objections to Evidence − Volume B filed by Defendants George Sadaghiani, Terra Universal, Inc.. (Gerard, Robert) (Entered: 04/04/2011)
81 DECLARATION of George Sadaghiani in opposition to MOTION to Certify FLSA Collective Action 68 filed by Defendants George Sadaghiani, Terra Universal, Inc.. (Gerard, Robert) (Entered: 04/04/2011)
82 DECLARATION of Jeanine Scalero in opposition to MOTION to Certify FLSA Collective Action 68 filed by Defendants George Sadaghiani, Terra Universal, Inc.. (Gerard, Robert) (Entered: 04/04/2011)
83 NOTICE of Errata Re Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for FLSA Collective Action filed by Defendants George Sadaghiani, Terra Universal, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Opposition to Motion for FLSA Collective Action)(Gerard, Robert) (Entered: 04/05/2011)
84 REPLY in support of a motion MOTION to Certify FLSA Collective Action 68 filed by Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real. (Renick, Randall) (Entered: 04/11/2011)
85 DECLARATION of Randy Renick in support of MOTION to Certify FLSA Collective Action 68 and Exhibit A (Proposed Amended Notice) filed by Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real. (Renick, Randall) (Entered: 04/11/2011)
86 OBJECTION In Support re: MOTION to Certify FLSA Collective Action 68 Evidentary Objections to Declaration of George Sadaghiani filed by Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real. (Renick, Randall) (Entered: 04/11/2011)

Case: 2:10-cv-6490 As of: 09/22/2013 07:19 AM PDT 12 of 12

04/11/2011 04/11/2011 04/13/2011 04/13/2011 04/14/2011 04/18/2011
04/22/2011
04/22/2011

87 RESPONSE IN SUPPORT of MOTION to Certify FLSA Collective Action 68 Responses to Defendants' Objections to Evidence (Volume A) filed by Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real. (Renick, Randall) (Entered: 04/11/2011)
88 RESPONSE IN SUPPORT of MOTION to Certify FLSA Collective Action 68 Responses to Defendants' Objections to Evidence (Volume B) filed by Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real. (Renick, Randall) (Entered: 04/11/2011)
89 ANSWER to Amended Complaint, 76 Terra Universal, Inc.'s Answer to First Amended Complaint filed by Defendants George Sadaghiani, Terra Universal, Inc..(Gerard, Robert) (Entered: 04/13/2011)
90 ANSWER to Amended Complaint, 76 George Sadaghiani's Answer to First Amended Complaint filed by Defendants George Sadaghiani, Terra Universal, Inc..(Gerard, Robert) (Entered: 04/13/2011)
91 STIPULATION for Order Dismissing Plaintiffs' FLSA Claims filed by Plaintiffs Osfel Andrade, Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Renick, Randall) (Entered: 04/14/2011)
92 ORDER RE: STIPULATION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS FOR VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, 29 U.S.C. SECTION 201, ET SEQ. by Judge Percy Anderson: The request for dismissal of Plaintiffs Andres Morales, Juan Miguel Real, and Osfel Andrade's federal claims for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq. 91 , is approved. (gk) (Entered: 04/18/2011)
93 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson. Plaintiff's Motion 68 for Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Action Certification is denied as moot. The hearing calendared for 4/25/2011, is vacated, and the matter taken off calendar. Since the Court has declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims, Plaintiffs Motion 26 for Class Action Certification of the state law claims is also denied as moot. Since all claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction are dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiffs state law claims without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d). (vdr) (Entered: 04/22/2011)
94 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Percy Anderson. The parties submitted a stipulation 91 to dismiss Plaintiffs claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which the Court approved. As such, Plaintiffs Motion 68 is denied as moot. The hearing calendared for 4/25/2011, is vacated, and the matter taken off calendar. The Court dismisses Plaintiffs state law claims without prejudice. Since the Court has declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims, Plaintiffs Motion 26 for Class Action Certification of the state law claims is also denied as moot. (vdr) (Entered: 04/25/2011)