Case: 4:19-cv-7637 As of: 03/10/2020 09:16 AM PDT 1 of 7
U.S. District Court California Northern District (Oakland) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:19−cv−07637−JST

ADRMOP

Ruelas et al v. County of Alameda et al Assigned to: Judge Jon S. Tigar Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act Plaintiff Armida Ruelas
Plaintiff DE'ANDRE EUGENE COX
Plaintiff BERT DAVIS

Date Filed: 11/20/2019 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Anne Butterfield Weills Siegel & Yee 499 − 14th Street Suite 220 Oakland, CA 94612 510−839−1200 Fax: 510−444−6698 Email: aweills@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
EmilyRose Naomi Johns Siegel, Yee, Brunner & Mehta 475 14th Street, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 839−1200 Fax: (510) 444−6698 Email: emilyrose@siegelyee.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Mark Siegel Siegel, Yee, Brunner & Mehta 475 14th Street, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 839−1200 Fax: (510) 444−6698 Email: dansiegel@siegelyee.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anne Butterfield Weills (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
EmilyRose Naomi Johns (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Mark Siegel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anne Butterfield Weills (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
EmilyRose Naomi Johns (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Mark Siegel

Case: 4:19-cv-7637 As of: 03/10/2020 09:16 AM PDT 2 of 7

Plaintiff KATRISH JONES
Plaintiff JOSEPH MEBRAHTU
Plaintiff DAHRYL REYNOLDS
Plaintiff MONICA MASON
Plaintiff LUIS NUNEZ−ROMERO

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anne Butterfield Weills (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
EmilyRose Naomi Johns (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Mark Siegel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anne Butterfield Weills (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
EmilyRose Naomi Johns (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Mark Siegel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anne Butterfield Weills (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
EmilyRose Naomi Johns (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Mark Siegel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anne Butterfield Weills (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
EmilyRose Naomi Johns (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Mark Siegel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anne Butterfield Weills (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
EmilyRose Naomi Johns (See above for address)

Case: 4:19-cv-7637 As of: 03/10/2020 09:16 AM PDT 3 of 7
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Mark Siegel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
Defendant SHERIFF Gregory J. Ahern Defendant ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC

represented by Joel Perry Glaser Skane Wilcox LLP 1055 West 7th Street Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−452−1200 Fax: 213−452−1201 Email: jglaser@skanewilcox.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cortlin Hall Lannin Covington & Burling LLP Salesforce Tower 415 Mission St., Suite 5400 San Francisco, CA 94105 415−591−7078 Fax: 415−591−6091 Email: clannin@cov.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric C Bosset Covington One City Center 850 Tenth Street, NW DC, DC 20001 202−662−5606 Email: ebosset@cov.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christie Paulette Bahna Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 415−442−1000 Fax: 4154421001 Email: christie.bahna@morganlewis.com TERMINATED: 02/05/2020
Isaac Daniel Chaput Covington & Burling LLP Salesforce Tower 415 Mission Street, Suite 5400 San Francisco, CA 94105 415−591−6000 Fax: 415−591−7200

Case: 4:19-cv-7637 As of: 03/10/2020 09:16 AM PDT 4 of 7
Email: ichaput@cov.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason S. Mills Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 300 South Grand Avenue 22nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071−3132 213−612−2500 Fax: 213−612−2501 Email: jason.mills@morganlewis.com TERMINATED: 02/05/2020
Thomas Ian Plotkin Covington and Burling LLP One CityCenter 850 10th Street NW Washington, DC 20001 202−662−6000 Email: tplotkin@cov.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 11/20/2019
11/20/2019 11/20/2019 11/21/2019
11/22/2019
11/22/2019

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF against All Defendants with jury demand ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0971−13908518.). Filed by DAHRYL REYNOLDS, BERT DAVIS, MONICA MASON, DE'ANDRE EUGENE COX, LUIS NUNEZ−ROMERO, KATRISH JONES, Armida Ruelas, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Siegel, Daniel) (Filed on 11/20/2019) Modified on 11/22/2019 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/20/2019)
2 Proposed Summons. (Siegel, Daniel) (Filed on 11/20/2019) (Entered: 11/20/2019)
3 Proposed Summons. (Siegel, Daniel) (Filed on 11/20/2019) (Entered: 11/20/2019)
4 Case assigned to Judge Jon S. Tigar.
Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E−Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.
Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5−1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. (mbcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2019) (Entered: 11/21/2019)
Electronic filing error. Incorrect Revision of Civil Cover Sheet used. Current Revision is JS−CAND 44 (Rev. 7/19) [err101]. Please e−file an Amended Civil Cover Sheet only. Event is located at: Other Filings > Other Documents > Civil Cover Sheet Re:[1−1] Civil Cover Sheet, filed by DAHRYL REYNOLDS, LUIS NUNEZ−ROMERO, DE'ANDRE EUGENE COX, KATRISH JONES, MONICA MASON, Armida Ruelas, BERT DAVIS, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU (jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2019) (Entered: 11/22/2019)
5 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Notice: The assigned judge participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order No. 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras. Case Management Statement due by 2/18/2020. Initial Case Management Conference set for 2/25/2020 02:00 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 6, 2nd Floor. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording)(jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on

Case: 4:19-cv-7637 As of: 03/10/2020 09:16 AM PDT 5 of 7

11/22/2019 11/22/2019 12/05/2019 12/05/2019 12/05/2019 12/11/2019
12/11/2019 12/13/2019 12/27/2019 12/27/2019
01/03/2020 01/06/2020 01/06/2020

11/22/2019) (Entered: 11/22/2019)
6 Summons Issued as to ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC, Gregory J. Ahern, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA. (Attachments: # 1 Summons)(jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2019) (Entered: 11/22/2019)
7 Civil Cover Sheet by DE'ANDRE EUGENE COX, BERT DAVIS, KATRISH JONES, MONICA MASON, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU, LUIS NUNEZ−ROMERO, DAHRYL REYNOLDS, Armida Ruelas Amended Civil Cover Sheet. (Siegel, Daniel) (Filed on 11/22/2019) (Entered: 11/22/2019)
8 SUMMONS Returned Executed by DAHRYL REYNOLDS, BERT DAVIS, MONICA MASON, DE'ANDRE EUGENE COX, LUIS NUNEZ−ROMERO, KATRISH JONES, Armida Ruelas, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU. ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC served on 11/26/2019, answer due 12/17/2019. (Siegel, Daniel) (Filed on 12/5/2019) (Entered: 12/05/2019)
9 SUMMONS Returned Executed by DAHRYL REYNOLDS, BERT DAVIS, MONICA MASON, DE'ANDRE EUGENE COX, LUIS NUNEZ−ROMERO, KATRISH JONES, Armida Ruelas, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA served on 11/25/2019, answer due 12/16/2019. (Siegel, Daniel) (Filed on 12/5/2019) (Entered: 12/05/2019)
10 SUMMONS Returned Executed by DAHRYL REYNOLDS, BERT DAVIS, MONICA MASON, DE'ANDRE EUGENE COX, LUIS NUNEZ−ROMERO, KATRISH JONES, Armida Ruelas, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU. Gregory J. Ahern served on 11/25/2019, answer due 12/16/2019. (Siegel, Daniel) (Filed on 12/5/2019) (Entered: 12/05/2019)
11 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO EXTEND ARAMARK'S DEADLINE TO ANSWER PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT filed by ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC, Armida Ruelas, Deandre Euggene Cox; Bert Davis; Katrish Jones; Joseph Mebrahtu; Dahryl Reynolds; Monica Mason and Luis Nunezromero. (Bahna, Christie) (Filed on 12/11/2019) Modified on 12/11/2019 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/11/2019)
12 NOTICE of Appearance by Jason S. Mills (Mills, Jason) (Filed on 12/11/2019) (Entered: 12/11/2019)
13 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint filed by COUNTY OF ALAMEDA. Motion Hearing set for 2/5/2020 02:00 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 6, 2nd Floor before Judge Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 12/27/2019. Replies due by 1/3/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Request for Judicial Notice)(Glaser, Joel) (Filed on 12/13/2019) (Entered: 12/13/2019)
14 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 13 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint ) filed byDE'ANDRE EUGENE COX, BERT DAVIS, KATRISH JONES, MONICA MASON, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU, LUIS NUNEZ−ROMERO, DAHRYL REYNOLDS, Armida Ruelas. (Johns, EmilyRose) (Filed on 12/27/2019) (Entered: 12/27/2019)
15 Request for Judicial Notice re 14 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byDE'ANDRE EUGENE COX, BERT DAVIS, KATRISH JONES, MONICA MASON, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU, LUIS NUNEZ−ROMERO, DAHRYL REYNOLDS, Armida Ruelas. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of EmilyRose Johns in Support of Request for Judicial NoticeAdministrative Motion, # 2 Exhibit 1)(Related document(s) 14 ) (Johns, EmilyRose) (Filed on 12/27/2019) (Entered: 12/27/2019)
16 REPLY (re 13 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint ) filed by COUNTY OF ALAMEDA and Gregory J. Ahern, Sheriff. (Glaser, Joel) (Filed on 1/3/2020) Modified on 1/6/2020 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/03/2020)
17 NOTICE of Appearance by Cortlin Hall Lannin (Lannin, Cortlin) (Filed on 1/6/2020) (Entered: 01/06/2020)
18 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Eric Bosset ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971−14041761.) filed by ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC. (Bosset, Eric) (Filed on 1/6/2020) (Entered: 01/06/2020)

Case: 4:19-cv-7637 As of: 03/10/2020 09:16 AM PDT 6 of 7

01/06/2020 01/06/2020 01/07/2020 01/07/2020 01/17/2020
01/17/2020
01/17/2020 01/17/2020 01/24/2020
01/31/2020
01/31/2020
02/05/2020
02/05/2020

19 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Thomas Plotkin ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971−14041844.) filed by ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC. (Plotkin, Thomas) (Filed on 1/6/2020) (Entered: 01/06/2020)
20 NOTICE of Appearance by Isaac Daniel Chaput (Chaput, Isaac) (Filed on 1/6/2020) (Entered: 01/06/2020)
21 Order by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 18 Motion for Pro Hac Vice.(jstlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2020) (Entered: 01/07/2020)
22 Order by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 19 Motion for Pro Hac Vice.(jstlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2020) (Entered: 01/07/2020)
23 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support Thereof (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)) filed by ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC. Motion Hearing set for 2/26/2020 02:00 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 6, 2nd Floor before Judge Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 1/31/2020. Replies due by 2/7/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bosset, Eric) (Filed on 1/17/2020) (Entered: 01/17/2020)
24 Request for Judicial Notice re 23 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support Thereof (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)) filed byARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Cortlin H. Lannin In Support of Request for Judicial Notice, # 2 Exhibit A to Lannin Declaration)(Related document(s) 23 ) (Bosset, Eric) (Filed on 1/17/2020) (Entered: 01/17/2020)
25 Rule 7.1 Disclosures by ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC identifying Corporate Parent Aramark for ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC. (Bosset, Eric) (Filed on 1/17/2020) (Entered: 01/17/2020)
26 Certificate of Interested Entities by ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC identifying Corporate Parent Aramark for ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC. (Bosset, Eric) (Filed on 1/17/2020) (Entered: 01/17/2020)
27 CLERK'S NOTICE Continuing Motion Hearings. The motion hearings previously set for 2/5/20 and 2/26/20 have been continued. Set/Reset Deadlines as to 13 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, 23 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support Thereof (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). Motion Hearing set for 3/4/2020 02:00 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 6, 2nd Floor before Judge Jon S. Tigar. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Related documents(s) 13 , 23 )(mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2020) (Entered: 01/24/2020)
28 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 23 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support Thereof (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)) ) filed byDE'ANDRE EUGENE COX, BERT DAVIS, KATRISH JONES, MONICA MASON, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU, LUIS NUNEZ−ROMERO, DAHRYL REYNOLDS, Armida Ruelas. (Johns, EmilyRose) (Filed on 1/31/2020) (Entered: 01/31/2020)
29 Request for Judicial Notice re 28 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byDE'ANDRE EUGENE COX, BERT DAVIS, KATRISH JONES, MONICA MASON, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU, LUIS NUNEZ−ROMERO, DAHRYL REYNOLDS, Armida Ruelas. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of EmilyRose Johns in Support of Request for Judicial Notice, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2)(Related document(s) 28 ) (Johns, EmilyRose) (Filed on 1/31/2020) (Entered: 01/31/2020)
30 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Continue February 25, 2020 CMC to April 28, 2020 filed by ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC, County of Alameda, Gregory J. Ahern, Armida Ruelas, DeAndre Eugene Cox, Bert Davis, Katrish Jones, Joseph Mebrathu, Dahryl Reynolds, Monica Mason, and Luis Nunez−Romero. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Cortlin Lannin)(Lannin, Cortlin) (Filed on 2/5/2020) Modified on 2/5/2020 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/05/2020)
31 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF ATTORNEY JASON S. MILLS by ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC (Mills, Jason) (Filed on 2/5/2020) Modified on

Case: 4:19-cv-7637 As of: 03/10/2020 09:16 AM PDT 7 of 7

02/05/2020 02/05/2020 02/06/2020 02/07/2020 02/26/2020 03/04/2020
03/05/2020

2/5/2020 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/05/2020)
32 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF ATTORNEY CHRISTIE P. BAHNA by ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC (Mills, Jason) (Filed on 2/5/2020) Modified on 2/5/2020 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/05/2020)
33 ADR Clerks Notice re: Non−Compliance with Court Order. The parties have failed to file an ADR Certification as required by the Initial Case Management Scheduling Order. Counsel shall comply promptly with the requirements of ADR L.R. 3−5(b) and shall file the ADR Certification. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.)(cmf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/5/2020) (Entered: 02/05/2020)
34 Order by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 30 Stipulation to Continue February 25, 2020 CMC to April 28, 2020. Case Management Statement due by 4/21/2020. Initial Case Management Conference set for 4/28/2020 02:00 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 6, 2nd Floor.(mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2020) (Entered: 02/06/2020)
35 REPLY (re 23 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support Thereof (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)) ) filed byARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC. (Bosset, Eric) (Filed on 2/7/2020) (Entered: 02/07/2020)
36 ORDER VACATING HEARING re 13 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint filed by COUNTY OF ALAMEDA. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on February 26, 2020. (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2020) (Entered: 02/26/2020)
37 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jon S. Tigar: Motion Hearing held on 3/4/2020 re 23 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support Thereof (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)) filed by ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC. Argument heard from both parties. Motion taken under submission. Written order to issue.Total Time in Court: 48 minutes. Court Reporter: Diane Skillman. Plaintiff Attorney: EmilyRose Johns. Defendant Attorney: Eric Bosset, Cortlin Lannin, Isaac Chaput. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/4/2020) (Entered: 03/04/2020)
38 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on March 4, 2020 before Judge Jon S. Tigar by ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC, for Court Reporter Diane Skillman. (Lannin, Cortlin) (Filed on 3/5/2020) (Entered: 03/05/2020)

 
 Case 3:19-cv-07637 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 1 of 18

1 DAN SIEGEL, SBN 056400

2

ANNE BUTTERFIELD WEILLS, SBN 139845 EMILYROSE JOHNS, SBN 294319

3

SIEGEL, YEE, BRUNNER & MEHTA 475 14th Street, Suite 500

4 Oakland, California q94612

5

Telephone: (510) 839-1200 Facsimile: (510) 444-6698

6

Emails: danmsiegel@gmail.com; abweills@gmail.com; emilyrose@siegelyee.com

7

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 8 ARMIDA RUELAS, DE’ANDRE EUGENE COX,

9

BERT DAVIS, KATRISH JONES, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU, DAHRYL REYNOLDS,

10 MONICA MASON, and LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO

11

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14 ARMIDA RUELAS; DE’ANDRE EUGENE ) Case No.

15

COX; BERT DAVIS; KATRISH JONES; JOSEPH MEBRAHTU; DAHRYL

) ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND

16

REYNOLDS; MONICA MASON; LUIS

) DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE

NUNEZ-ROMERO; and all others similarly ) RELIEF

17 situated,

)

18

Plaintiffs,

) CLASS ACTION )

19

vs.

) Jury Trial Demanded )

20

)

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA; GREGORY J. )

21 AHERN, SHERIFF; ARAMARK

)

22

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10,

) )

23

)

Defendants.

)

24

25

Plaintiffs ARMIDA RUELAS, DE’ANDRE EUGENE COX, BERT DAVIS,

26 KATRISH JONES, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU, DAHRYL REYNOLDS, MONICA MASON,

27 and LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO complain against COUNTY OF ALAMEDA; GREGORY J.

28 AHERN, SHERIFF, ALAMEDA COUNTY; ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES,

LLC; and DOES 1 through 10 as follows:

Ruelas v. County of Alameda, Case No. Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief- 1

Case 3:19-cv-07637 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 2 of 18

1

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

2

1. Plaintiffs ARMIDA RUELAS, DE’ANDRE EUGENE COX, BERT DAVIS,

3 KATRISH JONES, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU, DAHRYL REYNOLDS, MONICA MASON

4 and LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO are pre-trial detainees, detainees facing deportation,

5 federal detainees, and post-conviction prisoners confined in Santa Rita Jail in Alameda

6 County. Pursuant to a contract between the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA and ARAMARK

7 CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC (“ARAMARK”), plaintiffs were or are currently

8 employed by ARAMARK to perform industrial food preparation services and cleaning.

9 ARAMARK is a private, for-profit company that sells food prepared by prisoners to

10 third parties outside the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA. Contrary to California law, plaintiffs

11 are not paid for their work and are forced to work for the profit of a private company

12 under threat of punitive measures by their jailers. Plaintiffs bring this complaint on

13 their own behalf and on behalf of all incarcerated employees of ARAMARK, past,

14 present and future.

15

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

16

2. This Court has jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

17 1331 (claims arising under the U.S. Constitution) and § 1343(a)(3) (claims brought to

18 redress deprivations, under color of state authority, of rights, privileges, and

19 immunities secured by the U.S. Constitution), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

20

3. The state law claims in this action are so related to the claims in the action

21 within the original jurisdiction of this Court that they form part of the same case or

22 controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. The Court's jurisdiction

23 over these claims is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

24

4. Venue is proper in the United State District Court for the Northern

25 District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because the defendants are

26 located in the Northern District of California and § 1391(b)(2) because all of the acts

27 and/or omissions complained of herein occurred within the Northern District of

28 California.

Ruelas v. County of Alameda, Case No. Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief- 2

Case 3:19-cv-07637 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 3 of 18

1

PARTIES

2

5. At all times relevant hereto, ARMIDA RUELAS was a prisoner at Santa

3 Rita Jail in the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, and was employed by ARAMARK to perform

4 sanitation services in the industrial food preparation kitchen.

5

6. At all times relevant hereto, DE’ANDRE EUGENE COX was incarcerated

6 at Santa Rita Jail in the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, and was employed by ARAMARK to

7 perform industrial food preparation services.

8

7. At all times relevant hereto, BERT DAVIS was incarcerated at Santa Rita

9 Jail in the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, and was employed by ARAMARK to perform

10 industrial food preparation services.

11

8. At all times relevant hereto, KATRISH JONES was incarcerated at Santa

12 Rita Jail in the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, and was employed by ARAMARK to perform

13 sanitation services in the industrial food preparation kitchen.

14

9. At all times relevant hereto, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU was incarcerated at

15 Santa Rita Jail in the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, and was employed by ARAMARK to

16 perform industrial food preparation services.

17

10. At all times relevant hereto, DAHRYL REYNOLDS was incarcerated at

18 Santa Rita Jail in the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, and was employed by ARAMARK to

19 perform industrial food preparation services.

20

11. At all times relevant hereto, MONICA MASON was incarcerated at Santa

21 Rita Jail in the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, and was employed by ARAMARK to perform

22 sanitation services in the industrial food preparation kitchen.

23

12. At all times relevant hereto, LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO was incarcerated at

24 Santa Rita Jail in the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, and was employed by ARAMARK to

25 perform sanitation services in the industrial food preparation kitchen.

26

13. Defendant COUNTY OF ALAMEDA is a public entity, operating under the

27 laws of the State of California, which is responsible for all of the acts and omissions of

28 the Alameda County Sheriff and all of the Sheriff's deputies, agents and employees,

including those named herein, and Santa Rita Jail.

Ruelas v. County of Alameda, Case No. Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief- 3

Case 3:19-cv-07637 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 4 of 18

1

14. At all times relevant hereto, defendant GREGORY J. AHERN was the

2 Sheriff of Alameda County. In committing the acts and omissions described in the

3 complaint, he was acting under color of law and within the course and scope of his

4 employment. Defendant AHERN is sued in his individual and official capacities.

5

15. At all times relevant hereto, ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES,

6 LLC was a private, for-profit company that employed prisoners incarcerated in Santa

7 Rita Jail, including plaintiffs, to perform uncompensated industrial food production

8 services and sanitation services.

9

16. Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names and capacities of the defendants

10 sued herein as DOES 1 through 10, inclusive. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and

11 thereon allege that each DOE defendant is or was employed by COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

12 or by ARAMARK. Plaintiff thereby sues such defendants by such fictitious names

13 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 474. Plaintiffs will seek leave of the Court

14 to amend this complaint when the true names of these defendants have been

15 ascertained.

16

STATEMENT OF FACTS

17

17. In 1990, California voters approved Proposition 139, which allows

18 California counties to hire out prisoners confined in their jails to private entities,

19 provided the prisoners are paid comparable wages to non-incarcerated employees of

20 the private company.

21

18. Pursuant to this voter-approved law, jails that hire out prisoners may

22 make deductions for state and federal taxes, room and board, lawful restitution fines or

23 victim compensation, and family support, but must provide no less than 20 percent of

24 the wages directly to the prisoner. Prisoners may, in addition to receiving wages, be

25 eligible for credits that reduce the length of time they serve in jail, which reduces

26 incarceration costs.

27

19. Santa Rita Jail is Alameda County’s jail. It houses persons who are

28 awaiting trial, persons who have been convicted of a crime and are awaiting sentencing,

Ruelas v. County of Alameda, Case No. Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief- 4

Case 3:19-cv-07637 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 5 of 18

1 persons in immigration detention, and persons who are convicted of crimes and serving

2 county jail sentences and, in some instances, state prison sentences.

3

20. Plaintiffs ARMIDA RUELAS, DE’ANDRE EUGENE COX, BERT DAVIS,

4 KATRISH JONES, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU, DAHRYL REYNOLDS, MONICA MASON,

5 and LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO are or were at one time incarcerated in Santa Rita Jail,

6 which is operated by the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department.

7

21. Alameda County contracted with ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL

8 SERVICES, LLC as early as July 1, 2015. The contract allows ARAMARK to employ

9 persons imprisoned in Santa Rita Jail without compensating them. As a result of the

10 contract, ARAMARK suffers or permits to work prisoners confined in Santa Rita Jail.

11

22. Prisoners prepare and package food in Santa Rita Jail’s industrial kitchen

12 and clean and sanitize the kitchen after the conclusion of the day’s food preparation.

13

23. Defendants divide the work day so that male prisoners are assigned to

14 longer, daytime shifts, and female prisoners are assigned to shorter, nighttime shifts.

15 Women prisoners are not provided the same opportunity to work and earn money as

16 their similarly situated male counterparts.

17

24. Plaintiffs ARMIDA RUELAS, DE’ANDRE EUGENE COX, BERT DAVIS,

18 KATRISH JONES, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU, DAHRYL REYNOLDS, MONICA MASON,

19 and LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO were employed by ARAMARK to perform services

20 pursuant to this contract. They worked with other prisoners in Santa Rita Jail under the

21 supervision of ARAMARK employees and under guard of COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

22 Sheriff’s Deputies.

23

25. No prisoner is compensated for their work. Plaintiffs performed and

24 continue to perform work, including overtime, for no compensation.

25

26. Plaintiffs and other prisoner-employees of ARAMARK are coerced to

26 work. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA Sheriff’s deputies threaten plaintiffs and other prisoner-

27 employees of ARAMARK that if they refuse to work, they will receive lengthier jail

28 sentences or be sent to solitary confinement, where they would be confined to a small

Ruelas v. County of Alameda, Case No. Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief- 5

Case 3:19-cv-07637 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 6 of 18

1 cell for 22 to 24 hours a day. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA Sheriff’s deputies also threaten to

2 terminate prisoners’ employment if they need to take a sick day or are injured.

3

27. Such threats cause prisoners to work through illness and injury,

4 sometimes caused by the unsafe conditions in the industrial kitchen.

5

28. Although plaintiffs and other kitchen workers are not compensated for

6 their work, working in the kitchen means that plaintiffs can get out of their cells for

7 some portion of the day, which is beneficial to their physical and mental health.

8

29. Defendants deny plaintiffs wages without any process or hearing, either

9 prior to or following the denial, to determine why they should not receive their wages.

10

30. In late October 2019, male prisoner-employees of ARAMARK and other

11 prisoner workers in the jail staged a worker strike to advocate for improved conditions

12 at the jail, including more nutritious food, lower commissary prices, access to cleaning

13 supplies, and daily exercise and recreation time. In response, Sheriff’s deputies forced

14 female prisoners to work all shifts in their place so that ARAMARK could meet their

15 quotas by threatening the women that women prisoners would not be provided meals

16 unless they worked. Plaintiffs ARMIDA RUELAS and MONICA MASON were forced to

17 work under this threat.

18

31. ARAMARK sells the food prepared by plaintiffs to third parties for a

19 profit. ARAMARK receives an economic windfall as a result of the uncompensated

20 labor of prisoners confined in Santa Rita Jail.

21

32. The contract between ARAMARK and the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

22 permits prisoner labor to be used for the profit of a private company without

23 compensation to the workers. Therefore, defendants COUNTY OF ALAMEDA and

24 SHERIFF GREGORY J. AHERN know or should have known that they are providing

25 uncompensated labor in violation of state and federal law.

26

33. Plaintiff ARMIDA RUELAS currently works for ARAMARK. She began

27 working in or around June of 2019 when she was a pre-trial detainee. She continued to

28 work following her conviction but prior to sentencing. Ms. RUELAS currently performs

Ruelas v. County of Alameda, Case No. Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief- 6

Case 3:19-cv-07637 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 7 of 18

1 work in the kitchen’s scullery washing items used for meal preparation and service and

2 preparing meals. Her work hours vary but she has typically worked at night for four-

3 hour shifts Monday through Friday performing work such as meal preparation and

4 sanitation. During some days of the late October 2019 workers strike, she was forced to

5 work long day time hours. She was never paid any wages for the work she performed.

6

34. Plaintiff DE’ANDRE EUGENE COX worked for ARAMARK while he was

7 incarcerated. He worked in the jail’s kitchen, and his hours and days worked varied. On

8 occasions he worked in excess of eight hours a day or 40 hours a week. He was never

9 paid any wages for the work he performed.

10

35. Plaintiff BERT DAVIS worked for ARAMARK from approximately

11 October 29, 2018 to March 2019. He was a pretrial detainee for most, if not all of the

12 time he worked. He worked in the jail’s kitchen, performing work such as meal

13 preparation, and his hours and days worked varied. On occasions, he worked in excess

14 of eight hours a day or 40 hours a week. He was never paid any wages for the work he

15 performed.

16

36. Plaintiff KATRISH JONES worked for ARAMARK while she was

17 incarcerated. She worked in the jail’s kitchen performing work such as meal

18 preparation and sanitation, and her hours and days worked varied. She was never paid

19 any wages for the work she performed.

20

37. Plaintiff JOSEPH MEBRAHTU worked for ARAMARK while he was

21 incarcerated. He worked in the jail’s kitchen performing work such as sanitation, and

22 his hours and days worked varied. On occasions, he worked in excess of eight hours a

23 day or 40 hours a week. He was never paid any wages for the work he performed.

24

38. Plaintiff DAHRYL REYNOLDS worked for ARAMARK from

25 approximately June of 2019 to November 2019. He worked in the scullery and in meal

26 preparation. His hours and days worked vary. On occasion, he worked in excess of eight

27 hours a day or 40 hours a week. He was never paid any wages for the work he

28 performed.

Ruelas v. County of Alameda, Case No. Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief- 7

Case 3:19-cv-07637 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 8 of 18

1

39. Plaintiff MONICA MASON works for ARAMARK and has been employed

2 on and off from approximately May 2019 when she was a pre-trial detainee. She

3 continued to work following her conviction but prior to sentencing. Ms. MASON

4 performs work in the kitchen’s scullery washing items used for food preparation and

5 service. Her work hours vary, but she typically worked at night for four-hour shifts

6 Monday through Friday and now works longer shifts on the weekends. During some

7 days of the October 2019 workers strike, she was forced to work long day time hours.

8 She was never paid any wages for the work she performed.

9

40. Plaintiff LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO works for ARAMARK. He was hired in

10 May of 2019, and he continued to work in the kitchen until the end of October 2019. He

11 is a detainee in immigration proceedings and has been for the duration of his

12 employment. Mr. NUNEZ-ROMERO worked in the kitchen’s warehouse and performed

13 work such as food preparation. He worked six days a week for approximately eight to 12

14 hours a day. Previously, he worked seven days a week. He was never paid any wages for

15 the work he performed.

16

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

17

41. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly

18 situated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) on the basis that there is a

19 well-defined community of interest in this litigation, the proposed class is easily

20 ascertainable, and the proposed class is quite numerous.

21

42. Plaintiffs seek to represent the following class: All individuals

22 incarcerated in Santa Rita Jail who perform or performed services for ARAMARK

23 CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC in their jail kitchen facility any time during the

24 period that began four years prior to the filing of the original complaint in this action

25 until the final disposition of this action.

26

43. Plaintiffs ARMIDA RUELAS, MONICA MASON, and BERT DAVIS seek

27 to represent the following subclass: All persons incarcerated in Santa Rita Jail who

28 perform or performed services for ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC in

Ruelas v. County of Alameda, Case No. Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief- 8

Case 3:19-cv-07637 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 9 of 18

1 their jail kitchen facility who worked as pretrial detainees, any time during the period

2 that began when ARAMARK began suffering or permitting pretrial detainees to work

3 until the final disposition of this action. This subclass will be known as the Pretrial

4 Detainee Subclass.

5

44. Plaintiffs ARMIDA RUELAS, KATRISH JONES, and MONICA MASON

6 seek to represent the following subclass: All women incarcerated in Santa Rita Jail who

7 perform services for ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC in their jail kitchen

8 facility pursuant to a policy, procedure, and/or practice that assigns women prisoners

9 to shorter, nighttime shifts in the jail kitchen, any time during the period that began

10 when ARAMARK began suffering or permitting women prisoners to work until the final

11 disposition of this action. This subclass will be known as the Women Prisoner Subclass.

12

45. Plaintiff LUIS ROMERO-NUNEZ seeks to represent the following

13 subclass: All detainees awaiting immigration proceedings incarcerated in Santa Rita

14 Jail who perform services for ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC in their

15 jail kitchen facility any time during the period that began when ARAMARK began

16 suffering or permitting detainees awaiting immigration proceedings to work until the

17 final disposition of this action. This subclass will be known as the Immigration

18 Detainee Subclass.

19

46. On information and belief, the injury and loss of money to plaintiffs and

20 the putative class and subclasses are substantial, exceeding one million dollars and as

21 much as several million dollars. Plaintiffs and the putative class were regularly

22 subjected to the constitutional and statutory violations described in this Complaint. On

23 information and belief, the legal and factual issues are common to the class and affect

24 all class members.

25

47. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend or modify the class and subclass

26 descriptions with greater specificity or further division into subclasses, as well as to

27 limit the class or subclasses to particular issues, as warranted.

28

Ruelas v. County of Alameda, Case No. Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief- 9

Case 3:19-cv-07637 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 10 of 18

1

Numerosity

2

48. The potential members of the class and of the subclasses as defined are so

3 numerous that joinder of all of them is impracticable. While the precise number of class

4 members has not been determined at this time, plaintiffs are informed and believe that

5 the class is comprised of more than 100 individuals.

6

49. On information and belief, ARAMARK’s employment records and

7 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA custody records will provide information as to the number

8 and location of all class members.

9

Commonality and Predominance

10

50. There are questions of law and fact that are common to the class and

11 subclasses and predominate over individualized questions. These common questions of

12 law and fact include, without limitation:

13

51. Whether COUNTY OF ALAMEDA and GREGORY J. AHERN force

14 detainees into involuntary servitude by forcing them to work for a private company

15 without compensation;

16

52. Whether COUNTY OF ALAMEDA and GREGORY J. AHERN fail to

17 provide equal protection to women incarcerated in Santa Rita Jail allowing them less

18 out of cell time to work than their male counter parts;

19

53. Whether COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, GREGORY J. AHERN, and

20 ARAMARK violate the Equal Pay Act by employing a policy, practice or custom of

21 assigning men to longer, daytime shifts while assigning women to shorter, nighttime

22 shifts and denying them the opportunity to work equal hours and make equal pay to

23 their similarly situated male counter parts;

24

54. Whether ARAMARK violated the California Labor Code by not

25 compensating plaintiffs and putative class members;

26

55. Whether ARAMARK violated the California Labor Code by not

27 compensating plaintiffs and putative class members at the minimum wage rate

28 established by law;

Ruelas v. County of Alameda, Case No. Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief- 10

Case 3:19-cv-07637 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 11 of 18

1

56. Whether ARAMARK violated the California Labor Code by not

2 compensating plaintiffs and putative class members for all “hours worked” in excess of

3 eight hours a day or 40 hours a week at premium overtime rates;

4

57. Whether ARAMARK violated §§17200, et seq. of the California Business

5 and Professions Code by the actions alleged in this complaint;

6

58. Whether the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA violated plaintiffs’ and putative

7 class members’ statutory rights through threats, coercion and intimidation;

8

59. Whether Sheriff GREGORY J. AHERN ratified the unlawful actions of

9 ARAMARK; and

10

60. Whether plaintiffs and other class members are entitled to damages,

11 restitution, statutory penalties, premium wages, declaratory, injunctive and declaratory

12 relief, attorneys’ fees, interest, and costs, and other relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988,

13 California Labor Code provisions, and Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.

14

Typicality

15

61. Named plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of putative class and

16 subclass members. Plaintiffs and all members of the putative class and subclasses

17 sustained injuries and damages arising out of and caused by defendants' common

18 course of conduct, which, as alleged herein, violates federal and California law.

19

Adequacy of Representation

20

62. Plaintiffs adequately represent and protect the interests of class and

21 subclass members. Plaintiffs have no interests which are adverse to the class. Plaintiffs

22 are similarly situated to other class and subclass members. Counsel who represents

23 plaintiffs are competent and experienced in litigating civil rights class actions, wage and

24 hour cases, and class actions generally.

25

Superiority of Class Action

26

63. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient

27 adjudication of this controversy. Individual joinder of all class members is not

28 practicable, and questions of law and fact common to the class predominate over any

Ruelas v. County of Alameda, Case No. Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief- 11

Case 3:19-cv-07637 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 12 of 18

1 questions affecting only individual members of the class. Each member of the class has

2 been damaged and is entitled to recovery by reason of the unlawful policies and

3 practices described herein. Class members are unlikely to otherwise obtain effective

4 representation to ensure full enforcement of their rights absent class certification.

5

64. Class action treatment will allow those similarly situated persons to

6 litigate their claims in the manner that is most efficient and economical for the parties

7 and the judicial system. Plaintiffs are unaware of any difficulties that are likely to be

8 encountered in the management of this action that would preclude its maintenance as a

9 class action.

10

EXHAUSTION

11

65. Plaintiffs ARMIDA RUELAS, DE’ANDRE EUGENE COX, BERT DAVIS,

12 KATRISH JONES, JOSEPH MEBRAHTU, and DAHRYL REYNOLDS each filed a

13 California Government Claim on his or her behalf and on behalf of others similarly

14 situated regarding the matters asserted herein with the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

15 pursuant to California Government Code §§ 910, et seq. on August 8, 2019. The

16 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA denied their claims on August 19, 2019.

17

66. Plaintiffs MONICA MASON and LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO filed a California

18 Government Claim on their behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated regarding

19 the matters asserted herein with the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA pursuant to California

20 Government Code §§ 910, et seq. on November 8, 2019.

21

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE IN VIOLATION OF THE THIRTEENTH

22

AMENDMENT

23

(42 U.S.C. § 1983)

24

(By ARMIDA RUELAS, MONICA MASON, and BERT DAVIS and the Pretrial Detainee Subclass and LUIS ROMERO-NUNEZ and the Immigration Detainee Subclass Against

25

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA and GREGORY J. AHERN)

26

67. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 66 above as

27 though fully set forth herein.

28

68. By virtue of the foregoing, plaintiffs and the putative subclasses were

forced to perform work for defendants without pay. Plaintiffs and the putative

Ruelas v. County of Alameda, Case No. Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief- 12

Case 3:19-cv-07637 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 13 of 18

1 subclasses were and continue to be coerced to work without compensation under threat

2 of physical punishment and restraint.

3

69. The work plaintiffs performed was not a part of daily housekeeping duties

4 in the jail’s personal and communal living areas. Rather, it was forced labor for the

5 profit of ARAMARK.

6

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

7

VIOLATION OF THE TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION ACT (18 U.S.C. § 1589)

8

(By ARMIDA RUELAS, MONICA MASON, and BERT DAVIS and the Pretrial Detainee Subclass and LUIS ROMERO-NUNEZ and the Immigration Detainee Subclass Against

9

All Defendants)

10

70. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 69 above as

11 though fully set forth herein.

12

71. By virtue of the foregoing, plaintiffs and the putative subclasses were

13 forced to perform work for defendants without pay. Plaintiffs and the putative

14 subclasses were and continue to be coerced to work without compensation under threat

15 of physical punishment and restraint.

16

72. The work plaintiffs performed was not a part of daily housekeeping duties

17 in the jail’s personal and communal living areas. Rather, it was forced labor for the

18 profit of ARAMARK.

19

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE

20

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

21

(42 U.S.C. § 1983) (By ARMIDA RUELAS, KATRISH JONES, and MONICA MASON and the Women

22

Prisoner Subclass Against COUNTY OF ALAMEDA and GREGORY J. AHERN)

23

73. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 72 above as

24 though fully set forth herein.

25

74. By virtue of the foregoing, female plaintiffs and members of the putative

26 subclass are assigned to shifts typically lasting only four hours and occurring during

27 nighttime hours while male prisoners are assigned to shifts typically lasting eight hours

28 or more and occurring during daytime hours.

Ruelas v. County of Alameda, Case No. Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief- 13

Case 3:19-cv-07637 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 14 of 18

1

75. Out of cell time is crucial for the physical and mental health of prisoners.

2 Further, the more hours a prisoner works, the financial compensation that they are

3 entitled to under California law increases.

4

76. Female plaintiffs and members of the putative subclass have been denied

5 these benefits and opportunities to earn compensation based solely on their sex.

6

77. Defendants’ policy and practice does not serve important governmental

7 objectives. Further, assigning women to work shorter, nighttime shifts while assigning

8 men to work longer, daytime shifts is not substantially related to the achievement of

9 important government objectives.

10

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

FAILURE TO PROVIDE DUE PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF THE

11

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

12

(42 U.S.C § 1983) (By All Plaintiffs and the Class Against COUNTY OF ALAMEDA and GREGORY J.

13

AHERN)

14

78. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 77 above as

15 though fully set forth herein.

16

79. California, by statute, established the rights of all prisoners to receive

17 compensation for work performed for the benefit of a for profit company.

18

80. In doing so, California established a property right in the payment of

19 wages that cannot be denied without due process of law.

20

81. Due process of law requires a meaningful opportunity to be heard at the

21 time the wages were due before denying prisoners wages.

22

82. Defendants routinely and deliberately deny plaintiffs and the putative

23 class wages for their work.

24

83. Plaintiffs were provided no opportunity to be heard prior to the

25 defendants’ failure to pay wages and thus have been denied property without due

26 process of law.

27 ///

28 ///

Ruelas v. County of Alameda, Case No. Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief- 14

Case 3:19-cv-07637 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 15 of 18

1

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

FAILURE TO PAY WAGES (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201, 202, 218)

3

(By All Plaintiffs and the Class Against All Defendants)

4

84. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 83 above as

5 though fully set forth herein.

6

85. By virtue of the foregoing, plaintiffs and the putative class performed work

7 for defendants.

8

86. Defendants failed to pay plaintiffs and the putative class for their work and

9 owe plaintiffs and the putative class wages pursuant to statutory and constitutional law.

10

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGE

11

(Cal. Lab. Code § 1194)

(By All Plaintiffs and the Class Against All Defendants)

12

87. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 86 above as

13 though fully set forth herein.

14

88. By virtue of the foregoing, plaintiffs and the putative class performed work

15 for defendants.

16

89. Plaintiffs and the putative class were paid less than the minimum wage by

17 defendants for all hours worked.

18

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

19

FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME PREMIUM WAGES

(Cal. Lab. Code § 1194)

20

(By All Plaintiffs and the Class Against All Defendants)

21

90. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 89 above as

22 though fully set forth herein.

23

91. Plaintiffs performed work for defendants.

24

92. Plaintiffs worked overtime hours.

25

93. Defendants knew or should have known that plaintiffs had worked

26 overtime hours.

27

94. Plaintiffs were not paid for all of the overtime hours worked.

28 ///

Ruelas v. County of Alameda, Case No. Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief- 15

Case 3:19-cv-07637 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 16 of 18

1

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

FAILURE TO PAY EQUAL WAGES IN VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA EQUAL PAY ACT

3

(Cal. Lab. Code § 1197.5) (By ARMIDA RUELAS, KATRISH JONES, and MONICA MASON and the Women

4

Prisoners Subclass Against all Defendants)

5

95. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 94 above as

6 though fully set forth herein.

7

96. Plaintiffs ARMIDA RUELAS, KATRISH JONES, MONICA MASON and

8 the putative subclass were assigned to work fewer and less desirable hours than their

9 male counterparts working for ARAMARK.

10

97. Plaintiffs ARMIDA RUELAS, KATRISH JONES, MONICA MASON and

11 the putative subclass were performing substantially similar work as the male prisoners

12 with regard to skill, effort and responsibility.

13

98. Plaintiffs ARMIDA RUELAS, KATRISH JONES, MONICA MASON and

14 the putative subclass were working under similar working conditions as their male

15 counterparts.

16

99. Defendants, in assigning women prisoners fewer and less desirable hours

17 to work based on gender, have denied plaintiffs ARMIDA RUELAS, KATRISH JONES,

18 MONICA MASON and the putative subclass the opportunity to earn equal wages to

19 men.

20

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

21

UNFAIR COMPETITION (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.)

22 (By All Plaintiffs and the Class Against ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, INC.)

23

100. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 99 above as

24 though fully set forth herein.

25

101. California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. prohibit unfair

26 competition, including any unlawful or unfair business act or practice.

27

102. Defendant ARAMARK engaged in an unlawful business practice when it

28 used uncompensated labor to produce a product for profit.

Ruelas v. County of Alameda, Case No. Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief- 16

Case 3:19-cv-07637 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 17 of 18

1

103. This business practice is forbidden by law and against public policy as it

2 gives Aramark an unfair advantage over similar business.

3

104. Defendant ARAMARK continues to exploit incarcerated employees to gain

4 market share, and plaintiffs are informed and believe that defendant ARAMARK will

5 continue such exploitation.

6

105. As a result of defendant ARAMARK’s unlawful business practice, plaintiffs

7 lost money in the form of wages that they were rightfully owed.

8

106. The failure to pay wages to incarcerated employees also constitutes an

9 unfair business practice because the harm to victims that results from this practice

10 outweighs its utility to the business, the practice offends public policy, and the practice

11 is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to

12 consumers.

13

TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

14

VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BANE ACT (Cal. Civil Code § 52.1)

15

(By All Plaintiffs and the Class Against All Defendants)

16

107. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 106 above as

17 though fully set forth herein.

18

108. By virtue of the foregoing, defendants and their agents and employees

19 interfered by threats, intimidation, and/or coercion with the rights of plaintiffs, secured

20 by the United States Constitution and the California Constitution.

21

PUNITIVE DAMAGES

22

109. By virtue of the foregoing, defendants ARAMARK and Does 1-3 acted with

23 malice and oppression and the intent to deprive and did deprive plaintiffs and the

24 putative class of their rights to be free from forced labor without compensation.

25

DAMAGES

26

110. As a result of the actions of defendants and its employees, plaintiffs have

27 been injured and have suffered damages as follows:

28

a. They have been financially injured and damaged including, but not

limited to, by the loss of wages and overtime premiums due to plaintiffs and the

Ruelas v. County of Alameda, Case No. Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief- 17

Case 3:19-cv-07637 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 18 of 18

1 putative class;

2

b. They have suffered emotional distress.

3

4

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs request that this Court grant them relief as follows:

5

(1) General damages, in an amount to be determined;

6

(2) Special damages, in an amount to be determined;

7

(3) Punitive damages, in an amount to be determined;

8

(4) Reasonable attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Cal. Code Civ. P.

9

§1021.5;

10

(5) Declaratory relief finding that defendants' acts and practices as described

11

herein violate the constitutional and statutory rights of plaintiffs and the

12

putative classes and subclasses;

13

(6) Injunctive relief requiring defendants to cease and desist from the acts and

14

practices described herein;

15

(7) Costs of suit; and

16

(8) Such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.

17

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

18

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury of all issues so triable in this case.

19

20

Dated: November 18, 2019

21

SIEGEL, YEE, BRUNNER & MEHTA

22

23

By_/s/ Dan Siegel____

24

Dan Siegel

25

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

26

ARMIDA RUELAS, DE’ANDRE EUGENE

COX, BERT DAVIS, KATRISH JONES,

27

JOSEPH MEBRAHTU, DAHRYL REYNOLDS,

28

MONICA MASON and LUIS NUNEZ-ROMER

Ruelas v. County of Alameda, Case No. Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief- 18