Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-07205/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-07205-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

Case 4:17-cv-07205-HSG Document 23 Filed 03/08/18 Page 1 of 22
Case 4:17-cv-07205-HSG Document 23 Filed 03/08/18 Page 2 of 22
3/8/2018

Case 4:17-cv-07205-HSG Document 23 Filed 03/08/18 Page 3 of 22
EXHIBIT A

Case 4:17-cv-07205-HSG Document 23 Filed 03/08/18 Page 4 of 22
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

MATTHEW RIGHETTI, State Bar No. 121012 

JOHN GLUGOSKI State Bar No. 191551 

MICHAEL RIGHETTI State Bar No. 258541 

RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C. 

456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400 

San Francisco, CA 94101 

Telephone: (415) 983-0900 / Facsimile: (415) 397-9005 

Email: matt@righettilaw.com 

Email: jglugoski@righettilaw.com 

Email: mike@righettilaw.com 

REUBEN D. NATHAN, State Bar No. 208436

NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 

600 W. Broadway, Suite 700 

San Diego, CA 92101 

Telephone: 619-272-7014/ Facsimile: 619.330.1819 

Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com 

ATTORNEYS FOR BRANDON NORONA 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Brandon Norona, Case No.: 3:17-cv-07205 

individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated, CLASS ACTION 

 

 Plaintiffs, 

 

Home Point Financial Corporation 

 1. VIOL. OF FLSA 

Defendants. 2. VIOL. OF CA LABOR CODE 

 3. VIOL. OF BUS. AND PROF. 

 CODE SECTION 17200 

 4. PAGA PENALTIES 

 

_____________________________________/ 

FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT FOR 

VIOLATIONS OF: 

Case 4:17-cv-07205-HSG Document 23 Filed 03/08/18 Page 5 of 22
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

INTRODUCTION 

1. Comes the representative Plaintiff, BRANDON NORONA and file 

this lawsuit against Defendant, Home Point Financial Corporation for themselves 

and all other similarly situated individuals, for legal relief to redress unlawful 

violations of Plaintiff’s rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 

(“FLSA” or “the Act”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., and specifically the collective 

action provision of the FLSA by Home Point Financial Corporation (collectively, 

“Home Point” and/or “Defendant”) which have deprived the named Plaintiff, as 

well as others similarly situated to the named Plaintiff, of their lawful wages. The 

suit is brought on behalf of the named Plaintiff and all others similarly situated, 

pursuant to both California law and § 216(b) of the FLSA. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

2. Jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s federal claims is based upon: (a) Section 

16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), which authorized employees to bring civil 

actions in courts of appropriate jurisdiction to recover damages for an employers’ 

failure to pay overtime wages as required by the FLSA; and (b) 29 U.S.C. §§ 1331 

and 1337. 

 3. Venue in this district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). At 

all times material herein, Defendants Home Point Corporation has been actively 

conducting business in the State of California and within the geographic area 

encompassing the Northern District of the State of California. 

 4. Jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law class action claims under the 

California Labor Code and the claim under §17200 of the California Business and 

Professions Code are based upon this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1367(a), because the state law claims are so related to Plaintiff’s federal 

claims that they form a part of the same case or controversy between Plaintiff and 

Defendants. 

Case 4:17-cv-07205-HSG Document 23 Filed 03/08/18 Page 6 of 22
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

 5. The Plaintiff was employee for the Defendants and brings this action 

as a collective action in accordance with 29 U.S.C. §216(b) of the FLSA against 

the Defendants on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated because of 

Defendants’ unlawful deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights to all wages owed. Plaintiff 

seeks a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and compensation, damages, 

equitable and other relief available under the FLSA, as amended 29 U.S.C. § 201 

et seq. Plaintiff also seeks relief on a collective and class-wide basis challenging 

the unlawful business practice engaged in by Defendants of failing to compensate 

Plaintiff and all others similarly situated for all wages owed. 

 6. Defendants are in the business of selling loans to consumers. Home 

Point operates its business throughout the country, including in the State of 

California. 

 7. The similarly situated individuals include non-exempt employees 

who worked as employees of Home Point, worked overtime and earned 

commission and bonus pay (including, loan originators, mortgage professionals, 

loan officers, and loan processors; hereinafter “Home Point Employees”). Home 

Point Employees are not compensated by Defendant for all hours they worked, 

including, but not limited to proper overtime. 

 8. The FLSA claim is brought under Section 16(b) of the FLSA, 29 

U.S.C. § 216(b), as a nation-wide “opt-in” collective action (hereinafter “the 

FLSA Action”). The FLSA Action is brought on behalf of Home Point 

Employees who worked during the period three years prior to the date that this 

lawsuit was filed through the date of judgment (hereinafter “the FLSA 

Employees”). The FLSA Action seeks to (i) recover unpaid wages and overtime 

compensation owed to the FLSA Employees, (ii) obtain an equal amount in 

liquidated damages, as provided by Section 16(b) of the FLSA, and (iii) recover 

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of the action, as provided for by Section 16(b) 

of the FLSA. 

Case 4:17-cv-07205-HSG Document 23 Filed 03/08/18 Page 7 of 22
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

9. Plaintiff also asserts various claims under California law as a 

conventional “opt-out” class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure (“the California Class”). The California Class Action is brought on 

behalf of Home Point Employees who worked for Home Point in the State of 

California at any time during the period four years prior to the date that this 

lawsuit was filed, plus tolling for the LWDA exhaustion, and through the date of 

judgment (“California class”). The California class has claims based upon the 

same unlawful business practice of not being paid their wages and/or 

compensation for all hours worked as required under the applicable federal law, 

California law including the Labor Code, UCL, and Wage Orders. The California 

class also has claims based upon the illegal and unlawful business practices of a) 

failing to pay the California class premium wages owed for overtime hours 

worked based on the legally required “regular rate” including any commission 

and/or bonus wage compensation. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based 

thereon alleges, that Home Point knew or should have known that Plaintiff and 

the California class were entitled to receive premium wages for overtime 

compensation based on a regular rate that includes commission and/or bonus 

wages and that neither Plaintiff nor the California class were receiving all 

minimum wages due and owing under the law for overtime hours worked, and b) 

failing to timely pay the California class all wages owed upon discharge or 

resignation. Plaintiff and the other California class members did not receive 

payment of all wages, including overtime and minimum wages, within any time 

permissible under California Labor Code section 204, and c) failing to provide 

Plaintiff and the California class with complete and accurate payroll/wage 

statements and/or reports in accordance with California law. During the liability 

period, Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees received commissions and 

nondiscretionary bonuses as well as an hourly rate. There is a systemic 

Case 4:17-cv-07205-HSG Document 23 Filed 03/08/18 Page 8 of 22
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

5 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

miscalculation of the overtime rate for compensation, which is predicated on 

Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees’ hourly rate and 

commissions/bonuses. On information and belief, Plaintiff and all similarly 

situated employees assert that Defendants failed to properly incorporate these 

commission and bonus payments into the regular rate of pay when calculating 

overtime compensation. This miscalculation in failing to properly incorporate 

these commission and bonus payments into the regular rate of pay when 

calculating overtime, directly led to Defendants undercompensating Plaintiff and 

all other similarly situated employees for overtime hours worked. Additionally, 

on information and belief, these commissions and bonuses were not always paid to 

Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees when earned or when due, thereby 

making Defendants liable for failing to timely pay commissions and bonuses (or at 

times at all) and to properly incorporate these commission and bonus payments 

into the regular rate of pay when calculating overtime compensation. This failure 

to properly pay commissions and bonuses also led directly to Defendants 

undercompensating Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for overtime 

hours worked. Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated 

employees the unpaid balance of premium overtime compensation violates the 

provisions of California Labor Code sections 510 and 1194, as well as IWC wage 

order 4-2001 and the Federal Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), which serves a 

predicate violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et 

seq. 

 10. The California class seeks to (i) recover daily and weekly unpaid 

compensation owed to the California class, (ii) waiting time penalties under 

Section 203 of the California Labor Code owed to those members of the sub-class 

whose employment with Home Point has terminated and who have not been 

timely paid all wages due to them upon termination of their employment, (iii) 

Case 4:17-cv-07205-HSG Document 23 Filed 03/08/18 Page 9 of 22
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

6 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

damages as permitted under California Labor Code Section 226, and (iv) recover 

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as provided for by the California Labor Code. 

 11. Finally, the claim under Section 17200 of the California Business and 

Professions Code seeks equitable and injunctive relief enjoining Defendants from 

the allegedly illegal conduct and for failing to make, keep and preserve the records 

required by the FLSA and California law. This claim also seeks to obtain (i) 

restitution as allowed by the UCL, and (ii) reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as 

provided for by Section 1021.5 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. 

 12. The FLSA Action is maintained as a collective action under 29 

U.S.C. § 216(b) on behalf of all past, present and future employees of Defendant 

who have been, are and/or will be employed as loan originators, mortgage 

professionals, loan officers, loan processors who worked the first shift of any day 

in the United States during the period three years prior to the date that this lawsuit 

was filed through the date of judgment. Plaintiff is a United States citizen. 

Plaintiff was employed in and resides in the State of California. At all times 

material herein, the named Plaintiff has been (a) employed as nonexempt 

employee by Defendants, (b) in one of the positions of loan originators, mortgage 

professionals, loan officers, and loan processors, and (c) worked overtime and was 

paid wages that included bonus and commission pay/compensation. Plaintiff is 

identified in the caption of the Complaint and has given his written consent to be 

party Plaintiff in this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). 

THE PARTIES 

 13. The named Plaintiff, Brandon Norona is a United States citizen 

residing in the state of California. Plaintiff is a former employee of Home Point, 

who conducted business for Home Point throughout the State of California, 

including within the geographic area encompassed by the Northern District, from 

approximately June 2017 to November 2017. Plaintiff was a non-exempt 

Case 4:17-cv-07205-HSG Document 23 Filed 03/08/18 Page 10 of 22
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

7 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

employee of Home Point, he worked overtime and earned bonuses and 

commission wages. During his employment with Home Point, like other Home 

Point Employees, Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a 

workday and/or in excess of forty (40) hours in a workweek. Plaintiff has not 

been paid all wages owed for all hours worked as required under the FLSA and 

California law. Plaintiff has been injured by the illegal practices and conduct 

alleged in this complaint. Plaintiff’s claims under the FLSA and/or California law 

are similar to and typical of the claims of the FLSA Employees and the members 

of the California class. 

 14. On information and belief, Defendant Home Point Financial 

Corporation is a corporation incorporated in the State of Kansas with its 

worldwide headquarters located at 1194 Oak Valley Drive, Suite 80, Ann Arbor, 

Michigan 48108. Home Point Financial Corporation is qualified to and does do 

business in the State of California and nationwide. 

 15. Defendants jointly maintain either actual or constructive control, 

oversight, or direction over the operations of and its employment practices 

applicable to Plaintiff and the alleged class. 

 16. Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in the State of 

California for purposes of this lawsuit. 

 17. At all times material to this action Defendants have been an 

“employer” of the named Plaintiff, as defined by §203(d) of the FLSA. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

18. The California class may be appropriately maintained as a class action 

under Rule 23 because all of the prerequisites set forth under Rule 23 are met. 

19. Members of the California class are so numerous that joinder of all 

such members is impracticable. Although the exact size of the California class is 

unknown, it is believed and alleged that the number of persons in the California 

Case 4:17-cv-07205-HSG Document 23 Filed 03/08/18 Page 11 of 22
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

8 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

class is more than 50. The number of current and former individuals in the 

California class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable if not impossible. 

 20. There are questions of law and fact common to the California class 

with respect to the liability issues, relief issues and anticipated affirmative defenses. 

For example, predominate common questions of fact and law include the propriety of 

Defendant’s systemic premium overtime calculations for weeks where commission 

and/or bonus is earned; whether all wages were timely paid to employees upon 

termination of employment; and whether the information provided to employees is 

compliant with the requirements of Labor Code 226. (Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3)). 

 21. The prosecution of separate actions by the California class would 

create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual 

members of the California class that would establish incompatible standards of 

conduct for parties opposing the class. (Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(1)(A).) 

 22. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the 

California class because he and his counsel possess the requisite resources and 

abilities to prosecute this case as a class action. 

 23. The prosecution of separate actions by the California class would 

create a risk of adjudications with respect to individual members of the class that 

would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of the other members not 

parties to the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect 

their interests. (Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(1)(B).) 

 24. The questions of law and fact common to the California class 

predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members, and a 

class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of the controversy. (Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3).) More specifically, 

a . Members of the California class have little or no interest in 

individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions. (Fed.R.Civ.P. 

23(b)(3)(A).) 

Case 4:17-cv-07205-HSG Document 23 Filed 03/08/18 Page 12 of 22
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

9 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

b . Plaintiff is not aware of any other litigation concerning the 

controversy already commenced by the California class. (Fed.R.Civ.P. 

23(b)(3)(B).) 

c. It is desirable to concentrate the litigation of the claims in this 

Court because Home Point does a substantial amount of business in this 

district; 

d . This action is manageable as a class action because, compared 

to any other method such as individual interventions or the consolidation of 

individual actions, a class action is more fair and efficient. (Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 

(b)(3)(D).) 

 25. Plaintiff contemplates providing a notice or notices to the California 

class, as approved by the Court, to be delivered through the United States mail. 

The notice or notices shall, among other things, advise the California class that 

they shall be entitled to “opt out” of the class certified for the California Action if 

they so request by a date specified within the notice, and that any judgment on the 

California Action, whether favorable or not, entered in this case will bind all class 

members except those who affirmatively exclude themselves by timely opting out. 

 26. Plaintiff also contemplates providing a notice or notices to all of the 

FLSA Employees, as approved by the Court, to be delivered through the United 

States mail. The notice or notices shall, among other things, advise each of the 

FLSA Employees that they shall be entitled to “opt into” the FLSA Action if they 

so request by the date specified within the notice, and that any judgment on the 

FLSA Action, whether favorable or not, entered in this case will bind all FLSA 

call members who timely request inclusion in the class. 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF FOR VIOLATION 

OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACTION OF 1938 

(On Behalf of the FLSA Employees As Against Defendant) 

Case 4:17-cv-07205-HSG Document 23 Filed 03/08/18 Page 13 of 22
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

10 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

 27. Plaintiff re-asserts and re-alleges the allegations set forth in 

Paragraphs 1 through 26, above except those paragraphs that are inconsistent with 

this cause of action brought pursuant to the FLSA. 

 28. The FLSA regulates, among other things, the payment of overtime 

pay by employers. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). 

 29. Section 7(a)(1) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1), requires 

employers to pay non-exempt employees for all hours worked and for those who 

work longer than forty (40) hours in a workweek one and one-half times the 

employee’s regular rate of pay for the hours worked in the workweek in excess of 

forty (40) hours. Home Point is, and was, subject to this requirement to pay Home 

Point Employees both for all hours worked and one and one-half times the 

employees’ regular rate of pay for all hours worked in a workweek in excess of 

forty (40) hours. The FLSA requires that commissions and bonus pay earned by 

Home Point Employees be evaluated in determining/calculating the regular rate of 

pay and overtime rate of pay. Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay 

Home Point Employees the correct overtime wages owed for all hours worked. 

 30. The persons employed by Defendants as Home Point Employees in 

the United States regularly, and as a matter of policy and practice, worked and do 

work hours in which they are not paid overtime according the law. Specifically, 

Defendant’s company-wide policy does not pay its Home Point Employees 

overtime using the correct calculation methodology for the hours worked 

overtime. Home Point Employees frequently work in excess of forty (40) hours in 

a workweek, but Defendants do not pay Home Point Employees for overtime 

wages based on the correct regular and/or overtime rate. As a result, Defendants 

have deprived Plaintiff and the other Home Point Employees of wages earned by 

not paying the Home Point Employees for all hours worked and not paying them 

premium wages owed for overtime hours worked which is based on the 

commissions and bonuses earned during a particular pay period. 

Case 4:17-cv-07205-HSG Document 23 Filed 03/08/18 Page 14 of 22
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

11 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

 31. Home Point’s violations of the FLSA as alleged herein have been 

done in a willful and bad faith manner such that the FLSA Employees are entitled 

to damages equal to the amount of overtime premium pay within the three years 

preceding the filing of this complaint, plus periods of equitable tolling. As a result 

of the aforesaid willful violations of the FLSA, overtime compensation has been 

unlawfully withheld by Defendants from Plaintiff and similarly situated persons 

for which the Defendants are liable pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), together with 

an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, as well as interest, reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs. 

 32. The employment and work records for the Plaintiff is in the exclusive 

possession, custody and control of Defendants and Plaintiff are unable to state at 

this time the exact amount owing to each of them. Defendants are under a duty 

imposed by 29 U.S.C. § 211 and the regulations of the U.S. Department of Labor 

to maintain and preserve Plaintiff’s payroll and other employment records from 

which the amounts of the Defendants’ liability can be ascertained. 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF FOR VIOLATIONS 

OF CALIFORNIA LAW 

(On Behalf of the California Class Only) 

 33. Plaintiff reasserts and re-alleges the allegations set forth in 

Paragraphs 1 through 32 above, excepting those paragraphs that are inconsistent 

with this cause of action brought pursuant to California law. 

 34. Home Point Employees are subject to – and entitled to the protection 

of -- the terms and conditions of the California Labor Code and California Wage 

Orders, found in the California Code of Regulations, at Title 8, Section 11000, et 

seq., as amended. 

 35. The California class regularly, and as a matter of policy and practice, 

worked and do work hours in excess of forty (40) hours in a workweek, and/or in 

excess of eight (8) hours in a day entitling them to payment of daily and weekly 

Case 4:17-cv-07205-HSG Document 23 Filed 03/08/18 Page 15 of 22
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

12 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

overtime pay under California Wage Orders and the California Labor Code. 

Defendant has failed to pay these persons all wages owed for all hours worked 

including correctly calculated premium overtime pay to which they are entitled, 

thereby violating California law. This is in violation of California Labor Code 

sections 1194, 1198 and 510 and the Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) 

Wage Order applicable to Defendants’ business. Also during the relevant time 

period, Home Point intentionally and willfully failed to pay the minimum statutory 

overtime wages owed to Plaintiff and the other California class members due to a 

miscalculation of the “overtime rate” by not including commissions and/or 

bonuses earned during a particular pay period, which should be calculated in order 

to determine the regular rate. Plaintiff and the other California class members are 

entitled to recover the unpaid balance of their minimum wages owed and/or 

overtime wages as well as interest, costs, and attorney’s fees. 

36. Home Point does not comply with the requirements of Labor Code 

Section 226 which requires that “every employer shall, semimonthly or at the time 

of each payment of wages, furnish each of his or her employees, either as a 

detachable part of the check, draft, or voucher paying the employee's wages, or 

separately when wages are paid by personal check or cash, an accurate itemized 

statement in writing showing: 

 (1) gross wages earned, 

 (2) total hours worked by the employee, except for any employee whose 

compensation is solely based on a salary and who is exempt from payment of 

overtime under subdivision (a) of Section 515 or any applicable order of the 

Industrial Welfare Commission, 

 (3) the number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece rate if the 

employee is paid on a piece-rate basis, 

 (4) all deductions, provided that all deductions made on written orders of the 

employee may be aggregated and shown as one item, 

Case 4:17-cv-07205-HSG Document 23 Filed 03/08/18 Page 16 of 22
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

13 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

 (5) net wages earned, 

 (6) the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid, 

 (7) the name of the employee (and the last four digits of his or her social 

security number or an employee identification number other than a social security 

number may be shown on the itemized statement), 

 (8) the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer, and 

 (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the 

corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee. 

Home Point fails to provide accurate and complete information, as specified in 

items 1, 2, 5 and 9 above as set forth in section 226(a). 

37. California Labor Code Section 226(e) provides: "An employee 

suffering injury as a result of a knowing and intentional failure by an employer to 

comply with subdivision (a) shall be entitled to recover the greater of all actual 

damages or fifty dollars ($50) for the initial pay period in which a violation occurs 

and one hundred dollars ($100) per employee for each violation in a subsequent 

pay period, not exceeding an aggregate penalty of four thousand dollars ($4,000), 

and shall be entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney's fees." Plaintiff, 

NORONA, and the California class members suffered injuries as defined and set 

forth in California Labor Code Section 226(e) because, in addition to Home 

Point’s failure to provide accurate and complete information, as specified in items 

1, 2, 5 and 9 above as set forth in section 226(a), Plaintiff and the California class 

could not “promptly and easily determine” from the wage statement alone the 

correct hourly rate in effect during the pay period (i.e., without reference to other 

documents or information), nor was the overtime rate or the hours worked 

provided in the statements accurate. 

38. During the class period, Home Point failed to provide Plaintiff and 

the California class members with timely and accurate wage and hour statements 

Case 4:17-cv-07205-HSG Document 23 Filed 03/08/18 Page 17 of 22
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

14 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

showing gross wages earned, net wages earned, overtime pay, and all applicable 

hourly rates in effect during each pay period with the corresponding number of 

hours worked at each hourly rate by that individual. 

 39. As alleged herein, Plaintiff and the California class members are/were 

not exempt from the requirements of California’s labor laws and regulations. 

Plaintiff and the California class members were and will be injured by Home 

Point’s failure to comply with the aforementioned requirements for time records 

and wage statements. 

 40. Based on Home Point’s conduct as alleged herein, Defendants are 

liable to Plaintiff and the California class members for damages for each labor 

code violation, injunctive relief, plus interest, attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs 

of suit. 

 41. The California class is entitled to receive the unpaid wages due them 

under California law. In addition, the California class is entitled to recover interest 

on the amount of unpaid wage pay due them and reasonable attorneys’ fees and 

costs of suit, pursuant to Section 1194(a) of the California Labor Code. In 

addition, Section 203 of the California Labor Code provides for the payment of 

“waiting time penalties” if an employer does not properly pay all wages due an 

employee upon termination of the employee’s employment. Those in the 

California class whose employment has been terminated have not been properly 

paid the wages that are due them upon termination of their employment. 

Accordingly, these class members are entitled to recover “waiting time penalties” 

under Section 203 of the California Labor Code. 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF FOR VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND 

PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 

(On Behalf of the California Class Only) 

Case 4:17-cv-07205-HSG Document 23 Filed 03/08/18 Page 18 of 22
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

15 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

 42. Plaintiff reasserts and re-alleges the allegations set forth in 

Paragraphs 1 through 41, above excepting those paragraphs which are inconsistent 

with this cause of action for violations of the California Business and Professions 

Code § 17200. 

 43. Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code 

prohibits any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice. 

 44. Defendants have engaged in, and continue to engage in the unlawful, 

unfair and fraudulent business practices alleged hereinabove in violation of 

Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code. 

 45. These challenged policies and practices have harmed the named 

Plaintiff, the members of the California class and the general public. 

 46. As a result of these unlawful policies and practices, Plaintiff is 

entitled to an injunction issue against Defendants, pursuant to Section 17203 of the 

California Business and Professions Code, to prevent them from engaging in such 

future unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices. Plaintiff also is entitled 

to an order requiring Defendants to provide restitution to all persons who have 

suffered losses or injury as a result of these unlawful business practices, including 

but not limited to all California class members, during the applicable limitations 

period. 

 47. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant 

to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5. 

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNDER THE PAGA 

 (Private Attorneys General Act Penalties 

California Employees Only) 

48. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every 

allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs. 

49. As a direct proximate result of the California labor code violations 

Case 4:17-cv-07205-HSG Document 23 Filed 03/08/18 Page 19 of 22
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

16 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

alleged herein, Plaintiff, on behalf of the State of California and others similarly 

situated, is entitled to recover penalties pursuant to California Labor Code 

Sections 2698-99 (Private Attorneys General Act aka PAGA). Plaintiff seeks 

statutory penalties for violations of Cal. Labor Code Sections 200-204, 226, 226.3, 

226.7, 512, 558, 558.1, 1194, 1197, 1197.1 and 1198. 

50. Plaintiff has taken all the steps necessary to exhaust administrative 

remedies and has exhausted his administrative remedies. 

51. Plaintiff gave written notice of his claims under Cal. Lab. Code 

section 2699 et seq. to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency 

and the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency did not respond 

within the time frame established under Cal. Lab. Code section 2699 as to whether 

it intended to investigate Plaintiff’s claims. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to seek 

certain civil penalties for himself and other current or former aggrieved employees 

through a civil action filed on their behalf. These penalties are in addition to all 

other remedies permitted by law. 

52. In addition to penalties set by statute, Plaintiff and other similarly 

situated current and former individuals are also entitled to recover interest thereon, 

attorney’s fees and costs. 

53. Based on Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein, Defendants are 

liable to Plaintiff and similarly situated current and former individuals for civil 

Case 4:17-cv-07205-HSG Document 23 Filed 03/08/18 Page 20 of 22
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

17 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

penalties, injunctive relief, plus interest, attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs of suit. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows: 

1. Enter a declaratory judgment declaring that the Defendants have 

willfully and wrongfully violated their statutory and legal obligations 

and deprived Plaintiff and all other who are similarly situated of their 

rights, privileges, protections, compensation, benefits and 

entitlements under the law, as alleged herein; 

2. Order a complete and accurate accounting of all the compensation to 

which the Plaintiff and all others who are similarly situated are 

entitled; 

3. For compensatory damages against Defendants to be paid to the 

FLSA Employees, including all wages and overtime pay owed to the 

FLSA Employees under the FLSA; 

4. For liquidated damages against Defendants to be paid to the FLSA 

Employees under Section 16(b) of the FLSA; 

5. For compensatory damages against Defendants to be paid to the 

California class, including all wages and overtime pay, and statutory 

damages for violation of California Labor Code Section 226 owed to 

the California class under California law; 

6. For “waiting time penalties,” pursuant to Section 203 of the 

California Labor Code, against Defendants to be paid to members of 

the California class whose employment has terminated with 

Defendants and who were not timely paid all wages due and owing to 

them at the time of such termination; 

7. For penalties allowed as set forth herein and under the PAGA; 

Case 4:17-cv-07205-HSG Document 23 Filed 03/08/18 Page 21 of 22
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

18 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

8. For attorneys’ fees and costs as allowed by Section 16(b) of the 

FLSA, Section 1194 and PAGA of the California Labor Code, and 

Section 1021.5 of the California Code of Civil Procedure; 

9. For an order requiring Defendants to pay restitution for its unlawful 

conduct in the State of California; and 

10. For injunctive relief including, but not limited to, an Order enjoining 

Defendants from continuing to engage in the State of California in the 

unlawful business practices alleged herein; and 

11. Grant such other legal and equitable relief as may be just and proper. 

JURY DEMAND

 Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial. 

DATED: March 7, 2018 RIGHETTI · GLUGOSKI, P.C. 

 

 __/s/ Matthew Righetti___________ 

 Matthew Righetti, 

 Attorney for Plaintiffs 

Case 4:17-cv-07205-HSG Document 23 Filed 03/08/18 Page 22 of 22