Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02198/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02198-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP 

Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq. (SBN 090058) 

2 Christina Humphrey, Esq. (SBN 226326) 

3200 EJ Camino Real, Suite 100 

3 Irvine, California 92602 

Phone: (714) 669-4900 I Fax: (714) 669-4750 

4 

Carolyn Hunt Cottrell (SBN 166977) 

5 Nicole N . Coon (SBN 286283) 

SCHNEIDER WALLACE 6 COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 

2000 Powell Street, Suite l 400 7 Emeryville, California 94608 

Telephone: (4 15) 421 -7100 8 Facsimile: (4 15) 421 -7105 

9 ccottrell@schneidcrwallace.com 

ncoon@schneiderwallace.com 

lO U l'ifTED F,Mt'LOYEES LAW GROUP, P.C. 

11 Walter Haines, Esq. [SBN 71075] 

5500 I3olsa Ave., Suite 201 

Huntington Ileach, California 92649 12 Phone: (888) 474-7242 1 Fax: (562) 256-1006 

13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and 

the Proposed Class and CoUective 

14 

15 

16 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

17 EDGAR VICERAL, an individual, on behalf CLASS ACTION 

of himself and all others similarly situated, 

18 Case No.: 3:15-cv-02198-EMC 

19 

20 

VS. 

Plaintiffs, 

Hon. Edward M. Chen 

MISTRJ\S GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1-50, 

21 inclusive, 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Defendants. 

Complaint Filed: April 13, 2015 

Removed: May 15, 201 5 

[DEFENDANT COUNSEL U STED ON NEXT PAGE] 

STll't:LATION A:-ID [PROPOSED) ORDER TO A MEND THE COMPl.ATh'T 

Vicera/, et al. v. Mistras Group, Inc .. et al., Case No. 3: I 5-cv-021 98-EMC 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 1 of 49
Joseph Alan Schwachter (SB~ 108 l 24) 

Richard Keith Chapman (SBN 282331) 

2 Angela J. Rafoth (SBN 241966) 

3 LITTLER MEND'KLSO:'ll, P.C. 

650 California Street, 20th Floor 

4 San Francisco, California 94108 

Telephone: 415.433.1940 

5 Fax No. 415.399.8490 

6 Attorneys for Defendant Mistras Group, Inc. 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

2 1 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

STJPULATION AND [PROPOSED) ORDER TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT 

Viceral, et al. v. Mistras Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 3: J 5-cv-02198-EMC 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 2 of 49
1 

2 

STIPULATION 

Plaintiffs Edgar Viccral and David Krueger, on behalf of themselves and all others 

3 similarly situate.d, ("Plaintiffs") and Defendant Mistras Group, Inc. ("Defendant") hereby 

4 respectfully submit this Stipulation to Amend the Complaint to (1) add David Krueger as a 

5 Named Plaintiff; (2) add Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP as Class Counsel; 

6 

and (3) add the claims asserted in the Krueger action, all of which shall relate back to the date of 

7 filing the original complainl. 

8 WHEREAS PlaintiffViccral filed this action against Defendant on April 13, 201 5, in the 

9 Super1or Court of California, San Francisco County as F,dgar Viceral, et al. v. Mistras Group, 

10 Inc., et al., No. CGC-15-545291. (Ca. Super. Ct , San Francisco filed April 13, 2015). Viceral has 

11 been filed as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 , et seq., 

12 ("fLSA") and as a class action, in which Viceral alleges various violations of the California 

13 Labor Code. Specifically, he alleges that it is a: "proposed class and collective action 

14 challcng[ing] systematic illegal practices by Defendant wherein they willfully require employees 

15 to work overtime by requiring that employees take online training courses in addition to their 

16 regular work schedules but refuse to pay them for that time." Additionally, Viceral alleges that: 

17 «Defendant violated California law when they: (1) failed to pay proper overtime pay to the 

18 California Class; (2) failed to provide and properly compensate the California Class for resl 

19 periods; (3) failed to furnish proper wage statements for the California Class; (4) failed to pay all 

20 wages owed to the Terminated California Sub-Class at the end of their employment; and (5) 

21 violated California's Unfair Business Practice Act, California Business & Professions Code 

22 section 17200, et seq. " Plaintiff Viceral also seeks penalties under California's Private Attorney 

23 

General Act, California Labor Code §§ 2698 et seq. ("PAGA"). The wage claim in Viceral stems 

24 from Mistras's alleged requirement that employees complete certain Internet-based training 

25 programs in addition to their day-to-day duties and its failure to compensate proposed class and 

26 collective members for the time spent participating in this mandatory on-line training. 

27 /// 

28 3 

STIPULATI0:-.1 ANO [PROPOSED] ORDER TO AMEND TIIE COMPLAINT 

Viceral, et al. v. M;stras Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 3: l 5-cv-02198-EMC 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 3 of 49
1 WHEREAS Defendant removed the state court action to this federal district court on 

2 May 15, 201 5. (ECF Docket No. l.) 

.., 

:> WHEREAS Defendant filed its Notice of Other Action or Proceeding on May 27, 201 5, 

4 alerting the Court and Parties of a related action: David Krueger, on behalf of himself and all 

5 others similarly situated v. Mistras Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 

6 JOO, Case No. 2:15-cv-0 1069 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2015) proceeding before the Honorable 

7 Morrison C. England, Jr. in the United States Distric.t Court, Eastern District of California 

8 ("Krueger"). (ECF Docket No. 4 .) Krueger was filed on April 10, 201 5 in the Superior Court of 

9 California, County of Kern. (Krueger ECF Docket No. 1-2.) Krueger is a class action under 

10 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23 in whkh Krueger alleges various violations of the 

11 California Labor Code. Specifically, Krueger focuses on Mistras's numerous aJJeged illegal wage 

12 and hour policies including Mistras's alleged California-wide illegal policy of failing to pay its 

13 non-exempt hourly employees for all time worked, including time they spend in Mistra.s' control 

14 traveling to and from customer worksites and while perfonning required training. Krueger 

15 alleges claims for: (1) failure to authorize and permit and/or make available meal periods; (2) 

16 failure to pay for ali hours worked; (3) failure to pay overtime wages; (4) failure to provide 

17 accurate wage statements; (5) waiting time penalties; (6) unlawful business practices; and (7) 

18 penalties pursuant to§§ 2699(a» (e) of the PAGA. Plaintiff Krueger alleges that Mistras required 

19 the hourly workers to regularly work eight hours or more a day (including off-the-clock, overtime 

20 work, and driving time) and that Mistras fai led to pay them accordingly. He also alleges that the 

21 workers were denied compliant meal periods. Mistras also allegedly failed to provide class 

22 members with itemized wage statemenl.s that reflect the actual hours worked and the amount of 

23 wages (including overtime) to which class members are entitled. In addition, Plaintiff Krueger 

24 contends that Mistr ~ failed to pay all amounts owed fo11owing the workers' separation or 

25 termination. 

26 I 11 

27 I I I 

28 4 

STIPULA Tl ON A;-JD (PROPOSDD] 0Rr>F:R TO AY!.Gl\D THE CO\.iPT ,AJNT 

Viceral, et al. v. Mistras Group, inc., et al. , Case No. 3: 15-cv-021 98-EMC 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 4 of 49
1 WHEREAS Defendant also filed a Notice of Related Case on May 27, 2015 in the Krueger 

2 action, alerting the Court and Parties in that matter of the Viceral action. (Krueger ECF Docket 

3 No. 3.) 

4 WHEREAS following the filing of these Notices, the Parties in both actions met and 

5 conferred on numerous occasions to address the relationship and possible coordination of the 

6 matters. The Parties agreed that the parties and some of the substantive claims in this matter 

7 overlap with the parties and substantive claims in the Krueger case, and that coordination of the 

8 two matters before a single Court is appropriate. 

9 WIIEREAS the Parties agreed that Krueger will be combined with Viceral before the 

I 0 Northern Distdct of California by way of filing a consolidated amended complaint in Viceral and 

11 adding the Krueger parties, counsel, and claims, all of which shall relate back to the date of filing 

12 the original complaint. The Krueger Plaintiffs requested dismissal of the action before the Eastern 

13 District by way of a stipulation agreed to by all Parties in both actions. 

14 WHEREAS, on September 9, 2015, the Krueger Court granted the Krueger parties' 

15 stipulated request for dismissal and dismissed the case. (Krueger ECF Docket No. 17 .) 

16 WHEREAS Plaintiffs prepared a Consoiidated Amended Complaint to be fiied in Viceral, 

17 adding the Krueger parties and claims, and circulated it to Defendant for its review on October 5, 

18 201 5. 

19 WHEREAS the Paities have conferred regarding Plaintiffs' proposed Consolidated 

20 Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs have agreed to limit the Class and Colleclive definitions to those 

2 1 non-exempt hourly employees working in the positions of examiners and technicians. This 

22 limitation is made without prejudice to Plaintiffs to later amend the definitions beyond this scope. 

23 Following its review of the proposed Consolidated Amended Complaint, Defendant provided 

24 Plaintiffs with its v.'titten consent permitting Plaintiffs to file it. 

25 WHEREAS Defendant hereby gives its written consent under Federal Rule of Civil 

26 Procedure 15(a)(2) to Plaintiffs to file the Consolidated Amended Complaint. 

27 WHEREAS Plaintiffs now present the Court with the Consolidated Amended Complaint. 

28 5 

STif>ULATlO'J AND [PIWPO.SED] ORDER TO AMEND Tl IE COMPl.Af1'T 

Viceral, et al. v. Mistras Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:1 5-cv-02198-RM.C 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 5 of 49
1 WHEREAS Plaintiffs' proposed Consolidated Amended Complaint is submitted herewith 

2 as Exhibit 1. 

3 WHEREAS the Parties agree that no additional service of the Consolidated Amended 

4 Complaint is required upon this Court's approval of the stipulation to amend the Complaint. 

5 WHEREAS the Parties have agreed that Defendant's response to the Consolidated 

6 Amended Complaint will be due to be filed thi11y (30) days from the Court's approvaJ of this 

7 Stipulation. 

8 AND WHEREFORE the Parties stipulate and agree that: 

9 Plaintiffs may file the Consolidated First Amended Complaint, submitted herewith as 

10 Exhibit 1, which wi l I be deemed filed and served as of the date of entry of the Order Granting 

11 Stipulation To Amend Complaint; 

12 The Consolidated First Amended Complaint will be the operative pleading upon the date 

13 entry of the Court's order approving this stipulation; 

14 Defendant's response to the Consolidated Amended Complaint \\-'ill be filed thirty (30) 

15 days from the Court's approval of this Stipulation. 

!6 

17 

18 

19 Dated: 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 Dated: 

25 

26 

27 

28 

A Proposed Order is inciuded below to this stipulation for the Court's signature. 

November 11, 2015 

November 11, 2015 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Signed: Isl Carolyn Hunt Collrell 

Carolyn Hunt Cottrell 

Nicole N. Coon 

SCHNEIDER WALLACE 

COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and 

the Proposed Class and Collective 

Signed: Isl Christina Humphrey 

Stanley D. Saltzman 

Christina Humphrey 

MARLN & SA TZ~AN, LLP 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and 

the Proposed Class and Collective 

6 

STIPULATl0:--1 Al\'D [PROPOSED] ORDER TO AMF.NO THE COMPLAINT 

Viceral, et al. v. Mislras Group, inc., et al., Case No. 3: 15-cv-02198-EMC 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 6 of 49
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

Dated: November 11, 2015 

Dated: November 1 l , 2015 

Signed: Isl Walter Lewis Haines 

Walter Lewis Haines 

UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, P.C. 

Attorneys for PlaintilTs and 

the Proposed Class and Collective 

Signed: Isl Joseph Schwachter 

Joseph Alan Schwachter 

Richard Keith Chapman 

LITTLER M ENDELSON, P.C. 

Attorneys for Defendant Mistras Group, Inc. 

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION 

8 

9 

I, Christina A. Humphrey, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file 

10 this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Amend the Complaint. In compli ance V1-ith Civil Local 

11 Rule 5-1 (i)(3), I hereby attest that the counsel above concur in this filing. 

12 

13 DATED: November 12, 20 15 Isl Christina Humphre y 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Christina Humphrey 

7 

s llPULAT!ON AND [PROPOSI:;()j ORDER TO AME:--10 nm COMPLAfNT 

Viceral, et al."'· Mistras Group, Inc. , et al. , Case:: No. 3: 15-cv-02198-EMC 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 7 of 49
I 

2 

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON STIPULATION TO AMEND COMPLAINT 

Pursuant to the Parties' Stipulation to Amend the Complaint, and without waiver or 

3 limitation of any of the Pa1ties' rights, claims, remedies or defenses in connection with this action, 

4 the Court finds good cause and approves the requested stipulation. 

5 PlaintiftS may file the Consolidated First Amended Complaint, submitted herewith as 

6 Exhibit l , which will be deemed 1iled and served as of the date of entry ofthis Order Granting 

7 Stipulation To Amend Complaint The Consolidated First Amended Complaint (1) adds David 

8 Krueger as a Named Plaintiff; (2) adds Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP as 

9 Class Counsel; and (3) adds the claims asserted in the Krueger action, all of which shall relate bac 

1 O to the date of filin g the original complaint. 

11 Defendant's response to the Consolidated Amended Complaint will be due to be filed thirty 

12 (30) days from the Court's approval of this Stipulation. 

13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

DATED: _ _ __ _ 

The Honorabie Edward M. Chen 

United States District Judge, Northern District of California 

8 

STlPULATION AND [PROPOSED) ORDER TO A MEND THE COMPLAINT 

Viceral, et al. v. Mistras Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 3: 15-cv-02198-EMC 

11/20/15

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Edward M. Chen

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 8 of 49
EXHIBIT '' l " 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 9 of 49
M ARLI:"i & SALTZMAN, LLP 

Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq. (SBN 090058) 

2 Christina Humphrey, Esq. (SBN 226326) 

3 

Leslie H. Joyner, Esq. (SBN 262705) 

29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208 

4 

Agoura lli!ls, California 91301 

Tdephone: 818-991-8080 

Facsimile: 818-991-8081 

5 ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com 

6 

chumphrey@marlinsa ltzman.com 

ljoyner@marlinsaltzman.com 

7 SCH NEIDER WALLACE COTIRELL 

KONECKY W OTKYNS LLP . 

8 Caro lyn Hunt Cottrell (SBN 166977) 

N icole N. Coon (SBN 286283) 

9 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 

Emeryville, California 94608 

10 San forancisco, Californ ia 94104 

l l Tel: (415) 421-7100 

Fax: (415) 421-7105 

l2 UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, P.C. 

Walter Haines, Esq. [SBN 71 075} 

13 5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201 

Huntington .Beach, CA 92649 

14 Phone: (888) 474-7242 1 Fax: (562) 256-1006 

15 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and 

the Putative Cali fornia Class and Subclass and fLSA Co1lective 

16 

17 

18 

UNITED STATED DTSTlUCT COURT 

OR R.i~ DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EDGAR VICERAL and DA YID KRUEGER, 

19 individually and on behalf of themselves and 

all others similarly situated, 

20 

2 1 

Plai ntiffs, 

22 v. 

23 MlSTRAS GROUP, f.\!C., a Delaware 

24 

corporation, and DOES I through 100, 

inclusive, 

25 

26 Defend ants. 

27 

28 

Case No. 3: l 5-cv-02 I 98-EMC 

Honornble Edward M. Chen 

CLASS ACTION 

CONSOLIDATED FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT 

l. VTOLATTONS OF THE FAIR 

L ABOR STANDARDS ACT FOR 

FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME 

2. 

(29 U.S.C. §§ 201 ET SEQ.) 

FAILURE TO PAY FOR ALL 

HOURS WORKED (CAL. LABOR 

CODE §§ 200, 221-223, 1194, 1198) 

.... 

.). F AILURE TO P AY OVERTIME 

(CAL. L ABOR CODE§§ 200, 510, 

Consolidated First Amended Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 10 of 49
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

I . ., 

,) 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

2 1 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

1194) 

FAILURE TO PROVIDE 

COMPLIANT l\ifEAL PERIODS 

(CAL. LABOR COl>E §§ 204, 223, 

226.7, 512, 1198) 

FArLURE TO PROVJDJ<: REST 

BREAKS (CAL. LABOR CODE 

§§ 226.7) 

FAILURl: TO PROVIDE 

ACCURA Tg WAGE 

STATEMENTS (CAL. LABOR 

CODE § 226(a)) 

FAILURE TO PAY ALL WAGES 

OWED UPON TERMINATION 

(CAL. LABOR CODE §§ 201-203) 

UNLAWFUL BUSINESS 

PRACTICES (CAL. BUSINESS 

AND PROFESSIONS CODE §§ 

17200, ET SEQ.) 

CIVIL PENAL TlF.:S Ul'iDER 

CALIFORNIA PRlV A TE 

ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT 

(CAL. LABOR CODE §§ 2698, ET. 

SEQ.) 

J)EMA...~D FOR A JURY TRIAL 

Consolidated foirst Amended Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 11 of 49
CONSOLIJ)AT ED FIR.ST AMENDED C OMPLAINT 

2 Plaintiffs Edgar Viceral ("Viceral") and David Krueger ("Krueger") (collectively 

3 "Plaintiffs") on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, hereby submit their 

4 Consolidated First Amended Class Action Complaint against Defendants Mistras Group, lnc., 

5 and DOES 1-100 (collectively "Defendants" or "Mistras") on behalf of themselves and all other 

6 similarly situated individuals employed by Defendants as non-exempt hourly examiners and 

7 technicians, for ( 1) violations of the California Labor Code, the California Business and 

8 Professions Code, and the applicable Wage Order(s) issued by th e California IndusLrial Welfare 

9 Commission (hereinafter, the "IWC Wage Orders") including failure to pay all wages earned, 

I 0 failure to properly pay all overtime wages, failure to provide legally compliant meal and rest 

1 ·1 periods and corresponding premium pay, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to 

12 pay all wages owed upon termination or qu t~ and (2) violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act 

·13 ("FLSA") including fai lure to pay proper ove11ime. 

14 INTRODUCTION 

15 I. Plaintiffs file this Consolidated f irst Amended Complaint to coordinate the 

l 6 following two actions: Edgar Viceral, el al. v. li-fistras Group, inc., er al. and David Krueger, on 

17 behalf of himself and all others similarly sUuated v. lvfistras Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, 

18 and DOES 1 through JOO, Case No. 2:15-cv-01069 (E.D. Cal. Ap r. IO, 2015) to (1) add David 

19 Krueger as a Named Plaintiff; (2) add Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wolkyns LLP as 

20 Class Counsel; and (3) add the claims asserted in the Krueger action, all of which relate back to 

2 1 the original date of filing of Edgar Viceral, et al. v. Mistras Group, Inc., et al. 

22 2. This proposed Class and Collective action challenges Defendants' systemic illegal 

23 employment practices wherein they willfully require Plaintiffs and the other putative class and 

24 collective action memhers to work o ff-the-clock, including overtime in excess of 40 hours per 

25 week, but refuse to pay Plaintiffs and the other putative class and collective action members for 

26 that time under the FLSA. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have vio lated California 

2 7 law whe.n they: (1) fa il to pay the California Class for all hours worked, including minimum 

28 wages, wages at the agree-d rate and overtime wages; (2) fai l to provide, authorize, or permit the 

Consolidated First m~nded Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 12 of 49
California Class to take compliant meal and rest breaks, while also refusing to pay premium pay 

2 for these missed breaks; (3) fail to furnish compliant wage statemcnls to the California Class; and 

3 (4) fail to timely pay all wages owed to the California Class Members, who have ended their 

4 employment. These violations amount to violations of Cali rornia's Unfair Business Practices Act, 

5 California Business and Professions Code§§ 17200, et seq. 

6 3. The Acts complained of herein have occurred, are presently occurring, and are 

7 expected to continue occurring through the date of judgment in this matter. 

8 4. Plaintiffs seek full compensation on behalf of themselves and all other$ similarly 

9 situated for all unpaid wages and monetary amounts owed, including but not limited to: unpaid 

I 0 wages for time worked, unpaid overtime, premium pay for missed meal and rest periods, waiting11 time penalties . and penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). 

12 Plaintiffs also seek declaratory relief, and restitution. Finally, Plaintiffs seek reasonable 

13 attorneys' foes and costs under the PLSA, the California Labor Code, and California Code of 

14 Civil Procedure§ 1021.5. 

15 

16 5. 

JURISDICTION 

The FLSA authorizes private rights of action to recover damages for vioiation of 

17 the f'LSA's wage and hour provisions, 29 U.S.C. § 2 16(b). This Court has original federal 

I 8 question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 133 1. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the 

19 California state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because they are so related to this action 

20 that they form part of the same case or controversy. 

2 1 VENUE 

22 6. Venue is in lhis district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 139 l(b). At all material 

23 times, Defendant has been actively conducting business in the State of California and within the 

24 geographic area encompassing the Northern District of the State of California. 

25 .PARTIES 

26 7. At all times relevant to this Consolidated First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs 

27 were residents of the State of California. 

28 8. Plaintiff Edgar Viceral is an individual over the age of eighteen. Viceral was 

Consolidated First Amended Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 13 of 49
employed by Defendant Mistras as a non-exempt non-destructive examiner. Viceral worked for 

2 Defondants in the County of San Francisco, California during the Class and Collective periods. 

,.., 

.) 9 . With respect lo the FLSA claims, Viceral has consented to join this action by filing 

4 a written Consent to Join form with his initial complaint on April 13, 20 15. (ECF Docket No. 1.) 

5 10. Plaintiff David Krueger is an individual over the age of eighteen. Krueger was 

6 employed by Mistras as a non-exempt hourly employee, as a Level II Technician, in Bakersfield, 

7 California from approximately May 1, 2014 through October 26, 2014. 

8 11. With respect to the FLSA claims, Krueger has consented to join this action by 

9 filing a written Consent to Join form on October 2, 2015. (ECF Docket No. 27.) 

10 12. Plaintiff-s were responsible for inspecting the piping of Mistras's customers to 

11 identify and evaluate defects. Defendants assigned Plaintiffs to work at Defendant's client's 

12 vvorksites. Defendants scheduled Plaintiffs to work around eighty hours every two weeks and 

13 between ten and twelve hours per day. 

14 13. Similar to Plaintiffs, the other putative class and collective action members are 

15 current and fonner non-exempt hourly employees in California and throughout the United States, 

16 who worked as examiners and techn icians. 

17 14. Plaintiffs arc informed and believe that .\1istras is a Delaware corporation and is 

I 8 an international company providing non-destructive testing ("NDT")_services to test integrity of 

19 energy, industrial and public infrastructure. in 2003, Mistras acquired CONAM lnspection. 

20 Mistras's NDT division does business throughout the United States, with its global headquarters 

21 in Princeton, New Jersey. Mistras has approximately 5,000 employees in over 100 hundred offices 

22 worldwide. 

23 15. Plaintiffs are informed, beli eve, and thereon allege that Defendants provide 

24 standard and innovative N OT, inspection, and engineering services for its customers. Defendants 

25 do business in California. Plaintiffs are further informed, believe, and allege that Defendants 

26 employ other non-exempt hourly employees throughout Ca lifornia. 

27 16. Mistras is a "person" as defined in California Labor Code § 18 and California 

28 Business and Professions Code § 17201. Mistras is also an "employer" as that tennis used in the 

Consolidated Flrst Amended Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 14 of 49
Califomia Labor Code, the lWC Wage Orders, and the FLSA. 

2 PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

3 17. Plaintiff Viccral filed this action against Defendants on April 13, 2015, in the 

4 Superior Court of California, San Francisco County as Edgar Viceral, et al. v. Mistras Group, 

5 Inc., el al., No. CGC- 15-54529 l. (Ca. Super. Ct., San francisco filed April 13, 2015). 

6 l8. Defendants removed the state court action to this federal district court on May 15, 

7 2015. 

8 19. Defendants filed its Notice of Other Action or Proceeding on May 27, 2015, 

9 alerting the Court and Parties of a related action: David Krueger, on behalf of himself and all 

10 others similarly situated v. Mistras Group, Inc., a Delaware corporal ion, and DOES' I through 

11 JOO, Case No. 2: 15-cv-01069 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2015) proceeding before the Honorable 

12 Morrison C. England, Jr. in the United States District Court, Eastern District of California 

13 ("Krueger''). 

14 20. Krueger was filed on April I 0, 201 5 in the Superior Court of California, County 

15 of Kem. 

16 21. Defendants aiso fi ied a Notice of Related Case on May 27, 2015 in the Krueger 

l 7 action, alerting the Court and Parties in that matter of the Viceral action. 

I 8 22. f ollowing the filing of these Notices, the Parties in both actions met and 

19 conferred on numerous occasions to address the relationship and possible coordination of the 

20 matters. The Parties agreed that the Parties and claims in this matter overlap with the Parties and 

21 substantive claims in the Krueger c.ase, and that coordination of the two matters before a single 

22 Court is appropriate. Specifically, the Parties agreed that Krueger will be combined with 

23 Viceral before the Northern District of California by way of filing this Consolidated First 

24 Amended Complai nt in Viceral and adding the Krueger parties, claims, and counsel. The 

25 Krueger Plaintiffs would request dismissal of the action before the Eastern District by way of a 

26 stipulation. 

27 23. On September 9, 2015, the Kn1eger Court granted the Krueger parties' stipulated 

28 request for dismissal and dismissed the case. 

Consolidated f.irst Amended Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 15 of 49
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

2 24. Mistras is a global provider of technology-enabled asset protection solutions used 

3 to evaluate the structural integrity of critical energy, industrial, and public infrastructure. Mistras 

4 provides standard and innovative NOT, inspection, and engineering services for its customers. 

5 25. .Mistras employs examiner-technicians, and other similarly-titled employees, to 

6 conduct NDT for structural integrity of energy, industrial and public infrastructure, such as oil 

7 and gas refineries, buildings, bridges, rollercoastcrs at theme parks, and other infrastrncture 

8 requ iring monitoring. Plaintiffs and the other putative class and collective action members 

9 conduct the testing on behalf of Mistra5. Plaintiffs and the other putative class and collective 

I 0 action members typically work on-site of the Mistras customers while providing 

l I testing/monitoring services. 

l2 26. Plaintiff Edgar Viceral was employed by Defendant Mistras as a non-exempt 

13 hourly non-destructive technician examiner from October 5, 2009, to November 6, 2014. Plaintiff 

14 worked at the Dow Chemical Plant in Pittsburgh, California, and was later transferred to the 

15 Vale ro Refinery in Martinez, California. As an e.xan1iner-tcchnician, Plaintiff conducted NDT 

16 for structural integrity of energy, industriai and pubiic infrastructure, such as oil and gas 

17 refineries, buildings, bridges, rollercoasters at theme parks, and other infrastructure requiring 

18 monitoring. Viccral was paid at a rate of $27.00 an hour. While employed at Mistras, Plaintiff 

19 was required to complete online traini ng courses at home, for which he was not paid any 

20 compensation. The on line training courses were mandatory, not compensated, and Defendant has 

21 record of how many on line training courses he completed during his employment. ln addition, 

22 Plaintiff Viceral was not provided proper meal breaks, and frequently worked through meal and 

23 rest breaks. 

24 27. Plaintiff David Krueger was employed by Mistras as a non-exempt hourly 

25 employee, as a Level 11 Technician, in Bakersfield, California from approximately May l, 2014 

26 through October 26, 201 4. As a technician, Plaintiff was responsible for inspecting the piping of 

27 Mistras's customers to identify and evaluate defects. Mistras paid Plaintiff at a rate of $23.00 per 

28 hour. Defendant hired Plaintiff to work based out of its otlicc at 21215 Kratzmeyer Road, 

ConsolidaLed First Amended Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 16 of 49
Bakersfield, California 93314. Defendant then assigned Plaintiff to work as a technician at 

2 Defendant's client's worksites in Kem County. Defendant scheduled Plaintiff to work 80 hours 

3 every two weeks on an alternative schedule. During the first week, Defendant scheduled Plaintiff 

4 to work nine hours per day on Monday through Thursday and eight hours per day on Friday. 

5 During the second week, Defendant scheduled Plaintiff to work nine hours per day Monday 

6 through Thursday. Dcfondant actually required Plaintiff to typically work approximate ly twelve 

7 hours per day Monday through Thursday during both weeks and approximately ten hours per day 

8 on Fridays. Plaintiff Krueger regularly worked ovci: 40 hours per week, typically between 48 and 

9 60 hours per week. 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

28. Similar to Plaintitls, putative class and collective members are current and former 

examiners and technicians of Defendant who work as non-exempt hourly employees in the United 

States, including in California. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege that examiners 

and technicians generally work four to five days per work, up to twelve hours per day and thus 

over 40 hours per week. Plaintiffs arc informed, believe, and thereon allege that the policies and 

practices of Defendant Mistras have at all times been similar for Plaintiffs and other examiners 

and technicians. 

29. Plaintiff.<i allege that Mistras has willfully engaged and continues to engage in 

policies and practices of not compensating Plaintiffs and the other putative class and collective 

action members for a l! hours worked or spent in the control of Mistras. 

Defendants' Failure to Pay Minimum Wages, Designated Rates and Overtime 

30. Plaintiffs and the other putative class and collective action members frequently 

work in excess of e ight hours a day, typically between ten and twelve hours per day, and thus 

over 40 hours per ·week or 80 hours every two weeks, but do not receive compensation for all 

hours worked in compliance w ith the FLSA and/or California law. 

31. Under one illegal common policy and practice, Plaintiffs and the other putative 

26 class and collective action members and are not compensated for all hours worked. 

27 32. efendant~ require Plaintiffs the other putative class and collective action 

28 members to participate in mandatory online training in addition to their day-to~day work, which 

Consolidated First Amended Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 17 of 49
often exceeds 40 hours per week. ·nic purpose of online training is to certify Plaintiffs and the 

2 other putative class and coJJcctive action members to perform more complex tasks, for which 

3 Mistras then charges cl.ients increased hourly rates. Many of the courses are mandatory and 

4 Mistras rcquirns and keeps electronic logs of all time spent by Plaintiffs and the other putative 

5 class and collective action members to complete the online comses. 

6 33. Despite mandating online training in addition to day-to-day work, Defendants 

7 maintain a policy and practice, which Plaintiffs allege to be common across aJl facilities 

8 nationwide, whereby Plaintiffs and the other putative class and collective action members are not 

9 paid for any time spent participating in mandatory on line training. 

10 34. As a result, Plaintiffs and other putative class and collective action members are 

l \ required by Defendant Mistras to engage in this online training prior to and after working at 

12 minimum 40 hours per week. The additional time that Plaintiffs and putative class and collective 

13 action members spend completing mandated on line training is regular time and overtime that goes 

14 unrecorded and uncompensated by Defendant .Mistras under the f'LSA and California law. 

15 35. The above failure to pay for all time worked, including regular and overtime 

16 wages, for mandatory online training iime is systematic and appiicd to Plaintiffs and the other 

17 putative c\ao;;s and collective action members and continues to be so. 

18 36. Plaintiffs arc informed and believe, and further based m part on personal 

19 observations, that their employment experiences with Defendants were the same or similar to 

20 other putative class and collective action members. 

21 37. In addition, Defendants require Plaintiffs and the other putative class and 

22 collective action members to perfonn other significant work off-the-clock, including but not 

23 limited to travel and overtime work, which goes unrecorded and unpaid by Mistras. 

24 38. Jn particular, Mistras requires Plaintiffs and the other putative class and collective 

25 action members to meet at designated meeting places each day, sometimes as early as 5:30 a.m. 

26 to drop o ff their personal vehicles and receive directives for the day. At these designated 

27 meeting sites, Mistras's management provides Plaintiffs and the other putative class and 

28 co!l ~t ve action members, with their work instructions and directives for the day. Mistras 

Consolidated First Amended Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 18 of 49
supervisors inform Plaintiffs and the other putative class and collective action members, of the 

2 worksites to which they are assigned to work for the day. Mistras management also provides 

3 other instructions regarding the particular tasks to be completed for the day. 

4 39. After dropping off their personal vehicles at these designated meeting places as 

5 instructed, Mistras re.quires Plaintiffs and the other putative class and collective action members, 

6 to board company vans or trucks to be transported to the worksites to which they arc assigned for 

7 the day. Mistras prohibits Plaintiffs and the other putative class and coJlective action members, 

8 from traveling in their own vehicles to worksites. ln addition to ovvning the vehicles, Mistras also 

9 pays for the expenses related to the vehicles inc luding, but not limited to, fuel expenses. At the 

10 end of each day, Mistras instructs Plaintiff.<; and the other putative class and collective action 

l l members to re-hoard the Mistras vans and trucks at the worksites and drive and return to 

12 Mistras's designated meeting places. 

13 40. Mistras requires Plaintiffs and the other putative class and collective action 

14 members, to undertake these daily roundtrips to get to various worksites each day. Plaintiffs and 

15 the other putative class and collective action members are subject to Defendants' control during 

16 this time and suffered or permittc<l lO work. Plaintiffs and the other putative ciass and colicctive 

17 action members, arc not permitted to travel to worksites on their own with their own 

18 transportation. 

19 41 . The worksite.s to which Defendants assign Plaintiffs and the other putative class 

20 and collective action members t<.) work at each day could be located miles away from Mistras's 

21 designated meeting place, as example sometimes between forty to fifty miles. Employees' travel 

22 time to each of the work sites could be upwards of approximately one hour in each direction. This 

23 travel time adds approximately two hours of work time to employees' workdays. However, 

24 Mistras instructs Plaintiffs and the other putative class and collective action members to only 

25 record the time they are working at the worksites as their time worked. Mistras excludes travel 

26 time to and from Mistras's designated meeting points to worksites from the calculation of time 

27 worked. As a result, Plaintiffs and the other putalive class and collective action members do not 

28 record and arc not compensated for travel time. 

Consolidated First Amended Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 19 of 49
42. By requiring Plaintiffs and the other putative class and collective action members 

2 to take Defendants' transportation to worksites, Defendants subject Plaintiffs and the other 

3 putative class and collective action members to their control by determining when, where, and 

4 how Plaintiffs and the other putative class and col lective action members are to travel. Such 

5 travel time constitutes hours worked by Class and Collective Members and is compensable. 

6 43. Ultimately, Defendant Mistras schedules .Plaintiffs and putative class and 

7 collective action members to work up to five days per week, nine hours per day. In actuality, 

8 Defendant Mi.stras requires Plaintifls and putative class and collective action members to work 

9 upwards of twe lve hours per day, five days per week, thus well in excess of 40 hours of week. 

10 However, Mistras instructs Plaintiffs and putative class and collective actions members not to 

11 record all time worked, including but not limited to that which is in excess of eight hours per day 

12 and 40 hours per week. As a result, Plaintiffs' and putative class and collective action members' 

13 regular time and overtime goes unrecorded and uncompensated under the FLSA and California 

14 law. 

15 44. P laintiffs are also informed, believe, and thereon allege that Mistras improperly 

16 purports to adopt and implement lt rn v~ workweek schedulc::s to avoid properiy 

17 compensating Plaintiffs and the olher putative class and col!cctive action members under 

18 California wage laws, including those regarding regular and overtime compensation. 

19 45 . Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege that Defendants implement, 

20 including but not limited to, two·week alternating schedules, whereby Plaintiffs and the other 

2 1 putative class and collective action members are scheduled to work four nine·hour days plus one 

22 cight· hour day during the first week and four nine·hour days during the second week, for a total 

23 of 80 hours every two weeks. Mistras actually required and continues to require Plaintiffs and the 

24 other putative class and collective action mcmhers to work ten to twelve hours per day, 

25 respectively, under its alternative workweek schedules. 

26 46. Defendants prohibit Plaintiff.~ and the other putative class and collective action 

27 members from recording the actual time they work, which is typically twelve hours per day. 

28 

Consolidated First Amended Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 20 of 49
Defendants' management instructs employees that they can only record their time worked as 

2 eight or nine hours because management does not approve overtime work. 

3 47. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege that Defendants unlawfully 

4 

5 

6 

adopted and/or notified Plaintiffs and the other putative class and collective action members of 

its alternative workweek schedules. 

48. Defendants unilaterally inform Plaintiffs and the other putative class and 

7 collective action members of their workweek schedules, without negotiation, requiring Plaintiffs 

8 and the other putative class and collecti ve action members to work upwards of twelve hours per 

9 day. 

10 49. Even if Defendants' alternative workweek schedule comports with all 

11 requirements of California law, Defendants' policies and practices are neverthele.ss unlav.1ul for 

12 the other reasons set forth herein. 

13 

14 50. 

Defendants' Failure to Provide Meal Breaks 

Defendants have other ill egal policies and practices. Defendants further maintain 

15 a policy, custom and/or practice of not providing compliant meal periods to Plaintiffs and the 

16 other putative dass and collective action members. 

17 51. Despite Jong work days often lasting twelve hours, management instructs Plaintiffs 

18 and the other putative class and collective action members to take their meal periods in their sixth 

19 or seventh hour of work. In addition, Plaintiffs and the other putative class and collective action 

20 members routinely work more than ten hours, but Defendants do not make a second meal period 

2 1 available to them. 

22 52. Defendants' policy, custom, and practice is lo not pay Plaintiffs and the other 

23 putative class and colJcctive action members the premium wage of one hour at their respective 

24 regular rates, when compliant meal periods are not authorized and permitted or could not be taken. 

25 Defendants' Failure to Provide Rest Periods 

'.26 53. Like meal breaks, Defendants also have a policy, custom, and/or practice of not 

27 providing mandated second rest breaks for employees who work a shift of more than eight hours. 

28 54. Defendants' policy, custom, and practice is to not pay Plaintiffs and the other 

Consolidated first Amended Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 21 of 49
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

putative class and collecti ve action members the premium wage of one hour at their respective 

regular rates, when rest periods are not authori:Led and permitted or could not be taken. 

Defendants' Failure to Provide Accurate, Itemized Wage Statements 

55. Under another common policy and practice, Defendants fail to provide compliant 

itcmi:Led wage statements to Plaintiffs and the other putative class and collective action members. 

56. Defendants issue itemized wage statemcnls to Plaintiffs and the olher putative 

class and collective action members every week, which is their pay cycle. The wage statements 

8 do not reflect any time spent participating in mandatory onlinc training or time spent traveling to 

9 and from customers' worksites as previously alleged. 

l 0 57. As a result of failing to pay for all time worked and failing to pay premium wages 

11 for meal and rest periods that were not compl ianl or not provided, Defendants issue inaccurate 

12 itemized \Vagc statements to the Plaintiffs and the other putative class and collective action 

13 members who work such hours and/or who arc not provided with the meal and rest breaks. The 

I 4 wage statemcnls also do not show all required information, including but not limited co all ours 

15 worked and corresponding rates of pay and are further not understandable. 

16 58. Moreover, Defendants did not maintain adequate rc1.:urc.is of all wages earned, hours 

17 worked and meal hreaks taken. 

18 

.19 59. 

Defendants' Failure to Pay Wages Due on Termination 

As a result of failing to pay for all time worked and failing to pay premium wages 

20 for meal and rest periods that are not compliant or not provided, Defendants fail to pay all earned 

2 1 wages to employees, whose employment with the Defendants terminated. 

22 Facts Regarding Willfulness 

23 60. Plaintiffs arc informed and believe and based thereon allege that Defendants are 

24 and were advised by skilled la\\-')'ers, other professionals, employees with human resources 

25 background and advisors with knowledge of the requirements of Califom1a and federal wage and 

26 hour laws. 

27 61. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that at all relevant 

28 times Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and the other putative class and 

Consolidated First Amended Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 22 of 49
collective action members were entitled to compensation for all hours worked, including minimum 

2 wages, wages at the agreed rate and overtime compensati on. 

3 62. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that at all relevant 

4 times Defendants had a consistent policy or practice of failing to compensate Plaintiffs and the 

5 other putative class and collective action members for all hours worked. 

6 63. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that at all relevant 

7 times Defendants knew, or should have known, that Plaintiffs and the other putative class and 

.8 collective action members were entitled to receive duty-free meal periods within the first five (5) 

9 hours of any shift of six (6) or more hours worke.d, and that any failure to do so requires Defendants 

10 to pay Plaintiffs one (1) hour of wages per day for untimely, missed, or on-duty meal periods. 

11 64. Plaintiffs arc informed and believe and based thereon allege that at all relevant 

12 Defendants had a consistent policy or practice of failing to provide Plaintiffs and the other putative 

13 class and collective action mcmh s with compliant meat and rest periods and one (1) hour of 

14 wages per day for untimely, missed, or on-duty meal periods. 

15 65. Defendants' unlawful conduct has been widespread, repeated, and willful 

l 6 throughout California. Defendant knew or should have known that its policies and practices have 

17 been unlav.,.f ul and unfair. 

18 

19 66. 

COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS UNDER THE F.LSA 

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations in all preceding 

20 paragraphs. 

21 67. Plaintiffs bring their first cause of action as a nationwide "opt-in" collective action 

22 pursuant Lo 29 U .S.C. § 2 l 6(b ), on behalf of them sci ves and on behalf of the following class of 

23 persons (hereinafter, the "FLSA Class"): 

24 

25 

26 

28 

All persons who were employed as non-exeinpt hourly employees as examiners and 

technicians in the United Stales, or anyv.;hcre else the FLSA governs, by any of the 

Defendants during any part of the time period beginning three years prior to the 

filing of the initial complaint in this action and who elect to opt-in to this action 

pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §216(b) (''FLSA Class"). 

68. TI1e FI .SA claim may be pursued by those who opt-in to this case, pursuant to 29 

Consolidated rirst Amended Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 23 of 49
u.s.c. § 216(b). 

2 69. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the members of the FLSA Class, seek 

3 relief on a collective basis challenging Defendants' policies and practices of failing to properly 

4 pay Plaintiffs and the other members of the FLSA Class for all hours worked, including 

5 minimum wages, wages at the agreed rate and overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 

6 hours per week. The number and identity of other members of the FLSA Class yet to opt-in and 

7 consent to be party-plaintiffs may be determined from Defendants' records, and potential opt-ins 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

'13 

14 

15 

may be easily and quickly notified of the pendency of this action. 

70. Plaintiffs' claims for violations of the FLSA may be brought and maintained as an 

"opt-in" collective action pursuant to§ 216(b) of the FLSA because Plaintiffs' FLSA claims are 

similar to the claims of the members of the FLSA Class. 

71. Plaintiffs and the other members of the FLSA Class are similarly situated, as they 

have substantially similar job duties and requirements and are subject to a common policy, 

practice, or plan that requires them to perform work without compensation in violation of the 

FLSA. 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

2 1 

22 

23 

72. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the 

members of the FLSA Class. Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and experienced in 

employment and wage and hour class action and collective action litigation. 

73. Plaintiffs contemplate providing a notice or notices to all of the members of the 

FLSA Class, as approved by the Court, to be delivered through the United States mail. The 

notice or notices shall, among other things, advise each member of the FLSA Class that they 

shall be entitled to "opt in" to the FLSA action if they so request by the date specified within the 

notice, and that any judgment on the fT .SA action, whether favorable or not, entered in this case 

24 

·will bind al! of the FLSA Class members \:vho timely request inclusion in the class. 

25 

26 

27 

74. 

paragraphs. 28 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW 

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations in all preceding 

Consolidated First Amended Compla int 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 24 of 49
75. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf 

2 of themselves and on behalf of the fo llowing class of individuals: 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

I I 

12 

All persons employed by any of the Defendants in a non-exempt hourly position 

as examiners and technicians within the State of California during any part of the 

time period beginning four years prior to the filing of the initial complaint in this 

action, up to the date judgment is rendered in this matter ("California Class"). 

76. Plaintiffs further seek to establish the following subclass defined as a11 members 

of the California Class who are no longer employed by Defendants herein. 

77. Numerosity and Asccrtainability: Plaintiffs are infom1ed and believe and 

based on such information and belief allege that during the class period, hundreds of putative 

class members have worked for Defendants. Because so many persons have worked for 

Defendants, the members of the California Class arc so numerous thai joinder would be 

impractical, if not impossible. While the exact number and specific identities of the members of 

the California Class are presently unknown to Plaintiffs, this information can be readily 13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

determined by reviewing Defendants' records. 

78. Commonality/Predominance: Plaintiffs are informed and believe and 

based on such information and belief allege that common issues predominate, as numerous 

questions of law and fact are common to allof the members of the California including, without 

limitation: 

a. 

b. 

c. 

d. 

Whether Defendants fai led to implement valid altcmative workweek schedules in 

accordance with the Labor Code and applicable Wage Orders~ 

Whether Defendants unlawfillly adopted and/or notified Plaintiffs and the other 

putative California Class members of their alternative \.Vorkweek schedules in 

violation of the Labor Code and applicable Wage Orders; 

Whether Defendants failed to properly pay minimum wages for all hours worked 

by Plaintiffs and the other members of the putative California Class, including, 

but not limited to, mandatory training and travel time; 

Whether Defendants failed to properly pay wages at the agreed rate for all hours 

worked by Plaintiffs and the other members of the putative California Class, 

Consolidated First Amended Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 25 of 49
2 

... 

. ) 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

including, but not limited to, mandatory training and travel time~ 

e. Whether Defondants failed to pay straight time or overtime compensation, at 

either one and one-half (1 Yi) times or double the regular rate of pay, LO Plaintiffs 

and the other putative California Class members in violation of the Labor Code 

and applicable Wage Orders~ 

f. Whether Defendants employed a common policy or practice of failing to pay 

overtime wages to Plaintiffs and the other putative California Class members for 

all overtime hours worked, including mandatory training and travel time; 

e. Whether Defendants have had a policy, custom, and/or practice of failing to 

authori7.e and permit legally required meal periods; 

f. Whether Defendants have had a policy, custom, and/or practice of foiling to pay 

premium wages when legally required meal breaks were not compliant; 

g. Whethe r the Defendants have had a policy, custom, and/or practice of foiling to 

authorize and permit legally required rest breaks; 

h. Whether Defendants have had a policy, custom, and/or practice of failing to pay 

premium wages when legally requireJ rest breaks were not authorized and 

permitted; 

1. Whether Defendants have had a policy, custom, and/or practice of failing to 

maintain required business records applicable to the Plaintiffs and the other 

putative California Class members; 

J· Whether Defendants have had a policy, custom, and/or practice of failing to 

provide Plaintiffs and the other putative California Class members with accurate 

itemized pay statements; 

k. Whether Defendants have had a policy, custom, and/or practice of failing to 

provide Plaintiffs and the other putative California Class members wilh itemized 

pay statements that contain all the information required by law; 

I. Whether Defendants fai led to pay Plaintiffs and the other California Class 

members, who have been terminated or quit, all earned wages at the required time 

Consolidaccd First Amended Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 26 of 49
at or after their separation from employment with Defendants; 

2 m. Whether the Defendants' actions, as alleged herein were willful; and 

3 n. Whether the Defendants' actions, as alleged herein, were unlavvful and constitute 

4 unfair business practices. 

5 79. Typicalitv: Plaintiffs arc in formed and believe and based on such infonnation 

6 and belief allege that Plaintiffs' claims are typical of lhe claims of the members of the putative 

7 California Class whom they seek to represent. Viceral and Kruger are members of the Putative 

8 Class. Plaintiffs, themselves, have suffered and been damaged by the alleged violations of the 

9 Labor Code, applicable Wage Orders, and Business and Professions Code herein alleged. 

I 0 80. Adeguacv of Representation: Plaintiffs are info1mcd and believe and based on 

l l such information and belief allege that Plaintiffs arc folly prepared to take all necessary steps to 

12 represent, fairly and adequately, the interests of the members of the putative California Class. 

13 Plaintiffs arc adequate representatives of the putative California Class because Plaintiffs are also 

14 members of the Class and Subclass and because Plaintitls' interests do not c-onflict with the 

15 interests of the members of the putative California Class and Subclass they seeks lo represent. 

16 Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and experienced in the prosecution of complex wage-

! 7 and-hour class actions pending in the California state and federal courts, as well as elsewhere in 

I 8 the United States and Plainli ffs and their counsel intend to prosecute this action vigorously for 

19 the benefit of the Class. 

20 81. Superioritv: A class action is the superior means of litigating the Class 

2 1 Members' claims. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based on such information and belief 

2 2 allege that th is action is properly brought as a class action, not only because lhe prerequisites of 

23 Rule 23 and common law related thereto are satisfied (as outlined above), but also because the 

24 claims set forth herein are based on Defendants' systemic treatment of Plaintiffs and the putative 

25 California Class members and, as such, the same body of evidence necessary to prove one claim 

26 would be accessed to prove each putative Californ ia Class member's claim. Proof of Defendants' 

27 wrongdoing may be shown by a common body of evidence. It is preferable, from an cfliciency 

28 and case management standpoint, that the claims of aJI of the putative California Class members 

Consolidated First Amended Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 27 of 49
be litigated as a single litigation, rather than as dozens of individual claims. The aggregation of 

2 these claims will act as a deterrent to Defendants and similarly situated employers to cease and 

3 desist from the business practices cha llenged herein and will advance the State's declared public 

4 policy of construing the labor laws with an eye toward protecting employees. 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

82. 

paragraphs. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

Fair La bor Standards Act-Failure To Pay Overtime Wages 

(29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq.) 

(By Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective Against All Defendants) 

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by retcrcnce all allegations in all preceding 

83. Defondants engaged in a widespread pattern, policy, and practice of violating the 

FLSA, as detailed in this Complaint. 

84. At all times material herein, Pla intiffs and the other members of the FLSA Class 

were or have been covered employees entitled to the rights, protections, and benefits provided 

14 

under the FLSA, within the meaning of29 U.S.C. §§ 203(e) and 207(a). 

15 

85. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs and the other members of the FLSA Class 

16 

were engaged in commerce and/or the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of 

17 

29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207(a). 18 

19 

20 

21 

23 

86. Defen.dants arc covered employers required to comply with the FLSA's mandates. 

Defendants are employers engaged in commerce and/or the production of goods for commerce 

within the meaning of 29 l.J.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207(a). Defendants employed Plaintiffs and the 

87. The FLSA requires that covered employees receive compensation for alt hours 

worked and overtime compensation not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a work week. 29 U.S .C. § 207(a)(l ). 

88. Dcfe.ndants have violated the FT ,SA with respect to Plaintiffs a nd the other 

membe rs of the FLSA Class, by, inter alia, fai ling to compensate Plaintiffs and the other 

members of the VLSA Class for all hours worked, inc luding but not limited to training, and 

Consolidated First Amended Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 28 of 49
1 overtime hours, and, \Vith respect to such hours, fai ling to pay the legall y mandated minimum 

2 wage and/or overtime premium for work at one and one-half times their regular hourly wage for 

3 hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. 

4 89. P laintiffs and the other members of the FLSA Class are entitled to damages equal 

5 to the mandated pay, including minimum wage, straight time, and overtime premium pay within 

6 the three years preceding the filing of the origina l complaint, plus periods of equitable tolling, 

7 because Defendants have acted willfully and knew or showed reckless disregard for whether the 

8 alleged conduct Wi.\S prohibited by the FLSA. 

9 90. Defendants have acted neither in good faith nor with rnasonable grounds to 

I 0 bcl ieve that its actions and omissions were not a violation of the FLSA, and as a result thereat: 

1 I Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class are entitled to recover an award ofliquidated damages in an 

12 amount equal to the amount of unpaid overtime pay and/or prejudgment interest at the applicable 

13 rate. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). 

14 91. As a result of the aforesaid violations of the FLSA' s provisions, pay, including 

15 minimum wage, straight time, and overtime compensation, has been unlawfully with held by 

16 Defendants from Plaintiffs and the other members of the FLSA Class. A(;t,;Ordingly, Defendants 

17 are liable for unpaid wages, together with an amount equal as liquidated damages, attorneys' 

18 fees, and costs ofthi.s action. 

19 92. Wherefore, Plaintiffs and the other members of the FLSA Class request relief as 

20 hereinafter provided. 

2 1 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 

Failure To Compensate For All Hours Worked 

(Labor Code§§ 200, 221-223, 1194, 1197, 1198 and the applicable Wage Order) 

(By Pla intiffs and the California Class Against All Defendants) 

93. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations in all preceding 

paragraphs. 

Consolidated First Amended Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 29 of 49
94. Labor Code § 200 defines wages as "all amounts for labor performed by 

2 employees of every description, whether the amount is fixed or ascertained by the standard of 

3 time, task, piece, commission basis or other method of calculation." 

4 95. Labor Code~ 1194(a) provides that an employee receiving less than the legal 

5 minimum wage is entitled to recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount of 

6 this minimum wage, including interest thereon, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs of suit. 

7 96. Pursuant to Labor Code § l 197, payment of less than the minimum wage fixed hy 

8 the Labor Commission is unlawful. JWC Wage Order No. 16-2001(4)(A) states, "Every employer 

9 shall pay to each employee wages not less than nine dollars ($9.00) per hour for all hours worked, 

I 0 effccti ve July 1, 2014, and not less than ten dollars ($10. 00) per hour for all hours worked, effective 

11 January 1,201 6." 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

J 8 

19 

20 

21 

22 

97. TWC Wage Order No. 16-2001(2)(1) defines hours worked as "the time during 

which an employee is subject to the contro l of an employer, and includes all the time the 

employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so." An employee has 

state law rights, including but not limited to, to be compensated for training time as well as time 

spent traveling from a designated meeting point to a worksite and from the worksite back to lhe 

meeting point. 

98. Labor Code§ 223 provides '•L w ]here any statute or contract requires an employer 

to maintain the designated wage scale, it shall be unlawful to secretly pay a lower wage while 

purporting to pay the wage designated by statute or by contract." 

99. Defendants require Plaintiffs and the other members of the putative California 

Class to perform work before, during, and after scheduled or paid shifts - including but not 

23 limited to attending pre-work meetings, completing required training programs, and traveling to 

24 and from Mistras' offices to worksites - off-the-clock without compensation for their work 

25 performed. ln other words, Plaintiffs and the other members of the pulative Califomia Class are 

26 forced to perform work for the benefit of Defendants without compensation. 

27 JOO. At all times material hereto, Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs and the other 

28 

Consolidated First Amcndt:d Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 30 of 49
members of the putative California Class for all hours worked resu lted in Plaintiffs and the other 

2 members of the putative California Class earning less than the legal minimum wage in the State 

3 of California. As a result, Defendants' conduct violates Labor Code §§ 1194, 1197, and 1198 and 

4 lWC Wage Order No. 16. 

5 101. At al I times material hereto, Defendants paid Plaintiffs and the other members of 

6 the putative Califomia Class less than the agreed upon compensation owed to Plaintiffs and the 

7 other members of the putative California Class while purporting to pay the designated wage 

8 scale. As a result, Defendants' conduct violates Labor Code§ 223. 

9 102. Defendants owe Plaintiffs and the other members of the putative California Class 

10 minimum wages and liquidated damages pL1rsuant to Labor Code§§ 1182. 12, 11 94, 11 94.2 and 

11 1197, TWC Wage Order No. 16-2001(4) due in amounts to be dete1mined at trial during the three 

12 (3) years prior to the (iling of the initial Complaint in this action. Defendants owe Plaintiffs and 

13 tl1e other members of the putative California Class, wages at the designated rate pursuant to the 

14 Labor Code in amounts to be determined at trial. 

15 L 03. Tn violation of California law, Defendants knowingly and willfully refuse to 

16 perform its obligations to provide Plaintiffs and the other members ol'Lhe putative Caiifornia 

17 Class with compensation for all time worked. Specifically, Defendants require their non-exempt 

18 hourly employees to perform off-the-clock work, knowing that such work is performed before, 

19 during, and after scheduled or paid shifts. Therefore, Defendants committed, and continue to 

20 commit, the acts alleged herein knowing ly and willfully, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs' 

2 1 and the other putative California Class members' rights. Plaintiffs and the other members of the 

22 putative California Class are thus entitled to recover nominal, actual, and compensatory damages 

23 in amounts according Lo proof at time of trial. 

24 104. Wherefore, PlaintiftS and the other members of the putative California Class 

25 request relief as hereinarl.er provided. 

26 

27 

28 

Consolidated First Amended Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 31 of 49
2 

..... 

.) 

4 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 

Failure To Pay Overtime Wages 

(Labor Code§§ 510, 511., & 1194, and applicable Wage Order) 

(By Pla intiffs and th.e California Class Against All Defendants) 

105. Plainti ff'> re-aJlege and incorporate by refe rence all allegations in al1 preceding 

5 paragraphs. 

6 

7 

8 

9 

'JO 

I 'I 

12 

13 

l4 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

2 1 

22 

23 

106. Labor Code § 51 0( a) prov id cs as fo I lows: 

Eight hours oflabor constitutes a day's work. Any work in excess of eight 

hours in one workday and any work in excess of 40 hours in any one 

workweek and the first eight hours worked on lhe seventh day of work in 

any one workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than one 

and one-half times the regular rate of pay for an employee. Any work in 

excess of 12 hours in one day shall be compensated at the rate of no less 

than twice the regular rate of pay for an employee. ln addition, any work 

in excess of eight hours on any seventh day of a workweek shall be 

compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay of an 

employee. Nothing in this section requires an employer to combine more 

than one rate of overtime compensation in order to calculate the amount 

to be paid to an employee for any hour of overtime work. 

107. The IWC Wage Order 16-200 1(3)(A)(l) states: 

The following overtime provisions arc applicable to employees 18 

years of age or over and Lo empioyees 16 or i 7 years of age who are not 

required by law to attend school and arc not otherwise prohibited by law 

from engaging in the subj eel work. Such employees shall not be employed 

more than eight (8) hours in any workday or more than 40 hours in any 

workweek unless the employee receives one and one-half (1 Yi) times such 

employee's regular rate of pay for all hou rs worked over 40 hours in the 

workweek. Eight (8) hours oflabor constitutes a day's work. Employment 

beyond eight (8) hours in any workday or more than six (6) days in any 

workweek is permissible provided the employee is compensated for such 

overtime at not less than: 

... One and one-half (1 Yl) times the employee's regular rate of pay for 

all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours up to and including 12 hours 

in any workday, and for the first eight (8) hours worked on the seventh 

(7th) consecutive day of work in a workweek .... 

24 108. Jn addition, Labor Code § 5 11 and the l WC Wage Order 16-2001 govern alternative 

25 workweek schedules. The lWC ·wage Order 16·2001(3)(B)-(C) states in relevant part: 

26 

27 

28 

(13) Alternative Workweek Schedules 

(a) The alternative workweek schedule shall provide for work by the 

affected employees of no longer than ten (10) bours per day within a 40 

Consolidated First Amended Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 32 of 49
2 

..., 

-' 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

24 

25 

26 

17 

hour workweek without the payment to the affected employees of an 

overtime rate of compensation pursuant to this section. (b) An affected 

employee working longc.r than eight (8) hours but no more than ten (10) 

hours in a day pursuant to an alternative workweek schedule adopted 

pursuant to this section shall be paid an overtime rate of compensation of 

not less than one and one-half (11/2) times the regular rate of pay of the 

employee for any work in excess of the regularly scheduled hou rs 

established by the alternative workweek agreement and for any work in 

excess of 40 hours per week. (c) J\n overtime rate of compensation of not 

less than double the employee's regular rate of pay shall be paid for any 

work in excess of 12 hours per day and for any work in excess of eight (8) 

hours on those days worked beyond the regularly s~heduled workdays 

established by the alternative workweek agreement. . .. 

(C) Election Procedures 

( 1) Each proposal for an alternative work week schedule shal I be in the 

form of a Vl-Titten agreement proposed by the employer who has control 

over wages, hours, and working conditions of the affected employees, and 

adopted in a secret ballot election, held before the performance of work, 

by at least a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the affected employees in the work 

unit. The proposed agreement must designate a regularly scheduled 

alternative workweek in which the specified number of work days and 

work hours arc regularly recurring .... 

(2) The election shall be held during regular working hours at the 

employees'· work site. Ballots shall be mailed to the last known address 

of all empluycl.:s in the \\.'Ork unit who are not present at the work site on 

the day of the election but have been employed by the employer within 

the last 30 calendar days immediately preceding lhe day of the election. 

(3) Prior to the secret ballot vote, any employer wh.o proposes to institute 

an alternative workweek schedule shall make a disclosure in \:\:Titing to 

the affected employees, including the eftccts of tbe proposed arrangement 

on the employees' wages, hours, and benefits. Such a djsclosure shall 

include meeting(s), duly noliced, held at least 14 days prior to voting, for 

the specific purpose of discussing the cftccts of the alternative workweek 

schedule. An employer shall provide the disclosure in a non-English 

language, as well as in English, if at least five (5) percent of the affected 

employees primari ly speak that non-English language. !'lotices shall be 

mailed to the last known address of all employees in the work unit in 

accordance with provision (2) above. Failure to comply with this 

paragraph shall make the election null and void. 

(4) Any election to establish or repeal an alternative workweek schedule 

shall be held during regular working hours at the work site of the affected 

employees. The employer shall bear the costs of conducting any election 

held pursuant to this section. Upon a complaint by an affected employee, 

and after an investigation by the labor commissioner, the labor 

Consolidaled First Amended Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 33 of 49
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

commissioner may require the employer to select a neutral third party to 

conduct the election. 

(7) The results of any election conducted pursuant to th is order shall be a 

public document and shall be reported by the employer to the Office of 

Policy, Rcse.arch and Legislation within 30 days after the results are final. 

The repo11 of the election results shall also be posted at the job site in an 

area frequented by employees where it may easily be read during the 

workday. The report shall include the final tally of the vote, the size of tl1e 

unit, and the nature of the business of the employer. 

8 I 09. Labor Code§ 1194(a) provides as follows: 

9 

10 

l l 

12 

13 

14 

15 

Notwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage, any employee 

receiving less than the legal minimum wage or the legal overtime 

compensation applicable to the employee is entitled to recover in a civil 

action the unpaid balance of the full amount of this minimum wage or 

overtime compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable attorney's 

fees, and costs of suit. 

I l 0. Labor Code § 200 defines wages as "all amounts for labor performed by employees 

of every description, whether the amount is fixed or ascertained by the standard of time, task, 

piece, commission basis or other method of calculation." All such wages are subject to 

16 California's overtime requirements, including those set forth above. 

17 

18 

11 1. Defendants regu larl y require. Plaintiffs and the other California Class members to 

work in excess of eight hours in a day (including days that exceeded 12 hours in a work day and 

19 workweeks that included a seventh day of work) during the Class Period, including but not limited 

20 to attending pre-work meetings, completing required training programs and traveling to and from 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

Mistras' offices to worksite.s off-the-clock. Defendants do not compensate Plaintiffs or the other 

California Class members for their time spent performing their work duties. 

J 12. Defendants' failure to compensate Plaintiffs and the other California Class 

members for their time worked, including overtime work, violates Labor Code § 510 and the 

applicable Wage Order. 

113. Plaintiffs and the other California Class members are entitled to recover the unpaid 

balance of the full amount of overtime compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable 

28 attorneys' fees, and costs of suit. 

Consolidated First Amended Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 34 of 49
114. Defendant's policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs and the other putative 

2 California Class members to perform work pursuant to alternative workweek schedules is also 

J un lawful. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege that Defendants failed to comply with 

4 the requirements for implementation of alternative workweek schedules and improperly avoided 

5 California wage laws, including those regarding overtime compensation. 

6 115. Defendants implement, including but not limited to, n.vo-wcck alternating 

7 schedules, whereby Plaintiffs and the other putative California Class members arc scheduled to 

8 \.vork four nine-hour days plus one eight-hour day during the first week and four nine-hour days 

9 during the second week, for a. total of 80 hours every two weeks. Mistras actually required and 

10 continues to require Plaintiffs and the other putative California Class members to work ten to 

11 twelve hours per day, respectively, under its alternative workweek schedule. However, Defendants 

12 do not compensate Plaintiffs and the other putative California Class members at an overtime rate 

13 for those hours in excess of eight hours each day. 

14 116 . As a result of these unlawfol policies, Plaintiffs and the other putative California 

15 Class members, have worked overtime hours for Defendants vvithout being paid overtime 

l 6 premiums in vioiatiun of the Labor Code, applicable TWC Wage Orders, and other applicable law. 

17 117. Defendants have knowingly and willfully refused Lo perform their obligations to 

18 compensate Plaintiffs and the other putative California Class members for a ll premium wages for 

19 overtime work. As a proximate result of the aforementioned violations, Defendants have damaged 

20 Plaintiffs and the other putative California Class Members in amounts to be determined according 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

to proof at time of trial, but in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional requirements of this Court. 

118. Defendan ts are liable to Plaintiffs and the other putative California Class Members 

herein for the unpaid overtime and civil penalties, with interest thereon. Furthermore, Plaintiffs 

are entitled to an award of attorneys' fees and costs as set forth below. 

119. Wherefore, Plaintiffs and the other putative California Class Members request 

relief as hereinafter provided. 

Consolid ated First Amended Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 35 of 49
2 

3 

4 

5 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Failure To Authorize, Permit, and/or Make Available Compliant Meal Breaks 

(Labor Code§§ 226.7, 512, 558, & 1198, and applicable Wage Order) 

(By Plaintiffs and the California Class Against All Defendants) 

120. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations in all preceding 

paragraphs. 

6 

121. Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 and the applicable IWC Wage Orders prohibit 

7 

employers from employing an employee for more than five hours without a meal period of not less 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

'27 

28 

than thirty minutes, and from employing an employee. more than ten hours per day without 

providing the employee with a second meal period of not less than thirty minutes. 

122. Plaintiffs allege that they and other members of the putative California Class were 

routinely not relieved of all duty for an entire 30 minutes that the opportunity for meal periods 

took place long-after the beginning of the sixth hour of work and were not provided a second meal 

period. 

123. Labor Code § 226.7 requires that Defendants provide Plaintiffs and each of the 

putative California Class member all meal periods specified in the applicable Wage Order. lt also 

requires and lhat Plaintitls and each of the other putative California Class members are to be paid 

one additional hour of pay at his/her regular rate of compensation as additional wages for meal 

periods that were not properly provided. 

124. Despite these requirements, Defendants have knowingly and willfully refused to 

perform their obligations to authoriL:e and permit Plaintiffs and the other members of the putative 

California Class to take the timely and compliant meal periods to which they are entitled. 

125. Defendants have also failed to pay Plaintiffs and the other members of the 

putative California Class one hour of pay for each untimely, non-compliant meal period. 

126. Defendant's conduct described herein violates California Labor Code§§ 226.7 

and 512 and the applicable Wage Orders. Therefore, pursuant to Labor Code§ 226.7(b), 

Plaintiffs and the other members of the putative Californ ia Class arc entitled to c.ompensation for 

the failure to authorize and pennit meal periods, plus interest, attorneys' fees, expenses, and 

Consolidated first Amended Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 36 of 49
costs of suit. 

2 127. Wherefore, Plaintiffs and the other members of the putative California Class 

3 request re Ii e fas herci n after provided. 

4 

5 

6 

7 

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Failure To Authorize And Permit Required Rest Breaks 

(Labor Code§ 226.7 and applicabJe Wage Order) 

(By Plaintiffs and the California Class Against All Defendants) 

8 128. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations in all preceding 

9 paragraphs. 

I 0 129. The applicable Wage Orckr provides that every employer must authorize and 

l l permit all employees to take rest periods, which insofar as practicable shall be in the middle of 

12 each work period. The authorized rest period time is based on the total hours worked each day, 

13 at the rate of ten minutes net rest time per four hours worked or major fraction thereof. The 

14 applicable Wage Order declares that such authorized rest period time shall be counted as hours 

15 worked for which there shall be no deduction from wages. 

l 6 130. Labor Code§ 226.7 and the applicable Wage Order direct thai if the employer fails 

17 to provide a rest break in accordance with the applicable Wage Order, the employer shall pay one 

18 additional hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation. Plaintiffs allege that 

l 9 Defendants did not authorize and permit the rest breaks required by the app licable Wage Order. 

20 Plaintiffs forther allege that, notwithstanding any formal written policy to the contrary, 

2 1 Defendants' actual custom and business practice was to undermine any formal policy of providing 

22 rest breaks by pressuring Plaintiffs and the other members of the putative Califomia Class to 

23 perform their duties in ways that omitted breaks, including, but not limited to, scheduling a heavy 

24 workload that made taking breaks extremely difficult, maintaining an informal anti-rest-break 

25 policy enforced through ridicule or reprimand, and exerting coerc-ion against the taking of, 

26 creating incentives to forego, or otherwise encouraging the skipping of legally protected breaks. 

27 13 1. Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs and the other putative California Class members 

28 the rest period premium of an additional hour of pay at the regular rate, whenever rest breaks were 

Conso lidated First /\mended Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 37 of 49
not authorized and provided, as r~uired by the Labor Code and the applicable Wage Order. 

2 132. Plaintiffs and the other putative California Class Members are entitled to be 

3 compensated for an hour of time, al their regular rate, for each occasion when Defendants failed 

4 to provide a required rest break plus interest, attorneys' fees, expenses and costs of suit. 

5 133. Where fore, Plaintiffa and other putative California Class members request relief 

6 as hereinafter provided. 

7 

8 

9 

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Failure To Provide Accurate Wage Statements 

(Labor Code §§ 22<;, 226.3 and applicable Wage Order) 

(By Plaintiffs and the California Class Against All Defendants) 

I 0 134. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations in all preceding 

I l paragraphs. 

12 135. Pursuant to lhe Labor Code and the applicable Wage Order, every employer must 

13 provide accurate itemized wage statements at the time employees arc paid, showing accurate 

14 figures for, inter alia, gross wages earned, total hours worke<l, net wages earned, and aJJ 

15 applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and lhe corresponding number of hours 

16 worked at each hourly rate by the employee. 

17 136. Labor Code § 226(a) provides: Every employer shall, semimonthly or at the time 

18 of each payment of wages, furnish each of his or her employees, either as a detachable part of the 

19 check, draft, or voucher paying the employee's wages, or separately when wages arc paid by 

20 personal check or cash, an accurate itcmiL:ed statement in writing showing (I) gross wages 

2 1 earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee, except for any employee whose compensation is 

22 solely based on a salary ru1d who is exempt from payment of overtime under subdivision (a) of 

23 Section 515 or any applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, (3) the number of 

24 piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece rate if the employee is paid on a piece-rate basis, 

25 (4) all deductions, provided that all deductions made on written orders of the employee may be 

26 aggregated and shown as one item, (5) net wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates of the period for 

27 which the employee is paid, (7) the name or th e employee and his or her social security number, 

28 (8) the name and address of the lega l entity that is the employer, and (9) all applicable hourly 

Conso lidated First Amended Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 38 of 49
rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each 

2 hourly rate by the employee. The deductions made from payments of wages shall be recorde.d in 

3 ink or other indelible form, properly dated, showing the month, day, and year, and a copy of the 

4 statement or a record of the deductions shall be kept on file by the employer for at least four 

5 years at the place of employment or at a central location within the State of California. 

6 137. Labor Code § 11 74 requires that every person employing labor in this state shall 

7 keep (1) a record showing the names and addresses of all employees employed and the ages of 

8 all minors; (2) at a central location in the state or at the plants or establishments at which 

9 employees are employed, payroll records showing the hours worked daily by and the wages paid 

I 0 to, and the number of piece-rate units earned by and any applicable piece rate paid to, employees 

11 employed at the respective plants or establishments; (3) such records in accordance with rules 

12 established for this purpose by the commission, but in any case, on file for not less than three 

13 years. This statute also prevents an employer from prohibiting an employee from maintaining a 

14 personal record of hours worked, or, if paid on a piece-rate basis, piece-rate units earned. 

15 Defendants have willfully failed to keep the records required by § 1174. 

16 138. Plaintiffs allege that they and the other putative California Class members did not 

17 receive accurate itemize.cl wage statements, as re.quired by law, in that the wage statements 

18 provided to them did not accurately reflect correct ligures for gross wages earned, total hours 

19 worked, net wages earned, and/or all applicable hourly rates in effect with the corresponding 

20 number of hours worked at each hourly rate. 

2 1 139. As alleged herein above, Defendants did not keep accu rate timekeeping or pa)'TOll 

22 records and, at any rate, Defendams failed to provide accurate and complete information, as 

23 requ ired by law, and Plaintiffs and the other putative California Class members could not easily 

24 and promptly determine from their wage statements, alone, that they had been properly paid. 

25 140. This is because, in part, Defendants do not count as "hours worked" the off-the26 clock time Plaintiffs and the other members of the putative California Class work, including time 

27 spent for mandated trai ning and travel time. In addition, overtime hours worked and applicable 

28 overtime rates and premium pay for missed breaks is not listed on the wage statements, such that 

Consolidated first Amended Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 39 of 49
no calculations could be performed to derive the accurate times, rates, and pay that should have 

2 been part of their compensation. The information to make such determinations cannot be read ily 

3 ascertained by the wage statement, standing alone, or without reference to other documents or 

4 information. 

5 141. As a result of Defendants' failure to provide the accurate itemized wage statements 

6 required by law, Plaintiffs and the other putative California Class members have been injured in 

7 the manner set forth in the Labor Code in that they could not readily determine if they had been 

8 paid all earned wages foreach pay period . 

9 l 42. Plaintiffs and the other putative California Class members are entitled to the 

IO penalty set forth in Labor Code§ 226(e), to the civil penalty set forth in Labor Code §226.3, to 

11 the penalty set forth in the applicable Wage Order, to costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees. 

12 143. Wherefore, Plaintiffs and other putative California Class members request relief 

13 

14 

15 

16 

as hereinafter provided. 

SEVENTH CAUSE O~' ACTION 

Failure To Pay All Earned Wages Upon Separation From Employment 

(Labor Code §§ 200-203) 

(By Plaintiffs and the California Class Against All Defendants) 

17 144. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations in all preceding 

18 paragraphs. 

19 145. Labor Code§§ 201and202 require Defendants to pay their employees all wages 

20 due within 24 hours after a discharge or 72 hours after a resignation from employment, if the 

21 employee has given less than 72 hours' notice (or at the effective time of resignation if the 

22 employee has given at least 72 hours' notice of resignation). Labor Code§ 203 provides that if 

23 an employer willfully fails to timely pay such wages the employer must, as a penalty, continue to 

24 pay the employee's daily wage as a penalty until the back wages are paid in full or an action is 

25 commenced. The penalty is capped at 30 days of wages. 

26 146. Plaintiffc; and the other putative California Class members are entitled to 

27 compensation for all wages earned, including without limitation, the unpaid straight time 

28 (minimum wages and designated rates), overtime, double time, premium wages for re-st periods 

Consolidated First Amended Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 40 of 49
and reporting time pay not provided, but to date have nol received such compensation. 

2 147. More than 30 days have passed since the employment of Plaintiffs and other 

3 members of the putative California Subclass ended. Defendants have not paid Plaintiffs and each 

4 putative Subclass member all wages owed. As a consequence of Defendants' willful conduct in 

5 nol paying Plaintiffs and each putative Subclass member all earned wages at the time their 

6 employment with Defondants ended, Plaintiffs and those putative Subclass members are entitled 

7 to 30 days' wages as a penalty under Labor Code§ 203 and interest thereon. 

8 148. Wherefore, Plaintiffs and other putative California Subclass members request 

9 

10 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

2 1 

22 

relief as hereinafter provided. 

JUGHTH CAUSE OF ACTIO~ 

Unfair Business Practices 

(Business and Professions Code §§ l 7200 et seq.) 

(By Plaintiffs and the California Class Against All Defendants) 

149. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations in all preceding 

paragraphs. 

150. Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code prohibits any 

unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice. 

151. Plaintiffs and the otheT members of the putative California Class have suffered 

injury in fact and loss of wages and monies as a result of Defendants' actions. 

152. TI1e actions of Defendants, a~ herein alleged, amount to conduct which is unlawful 

and a violation of law. As such, said conduct constitutes unfair business practices, in violation of 

Business and Professions Code§§ 17200 et seq. 

153 . Defendants' conduct as herein alleged has damaged Plaintiffs and the other 

23 

members of the putative California Class by denying them wages due and payable. As a result of 

24 such conduct, Defendants have unlawfully and unfairly obtained monies owed to Plaintiff and the 

r 

_) f other members o the putative California Class. 

26 154. All members of the putative California Class can be identified by reference to 

27 

payroll and related records in the possession of the Defendants. The amount of wages due to 

28 

Consolidated First /\mended Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 41 of 49
Plaintiffs and the other members of the putative California Class can be readily determined from 

2 Defendants' records. Plaintiffs and the members of the putative California Class arc entitled to 

3 restitution of monies due and obtained by Defendants during the class period as a result of 

4 Defendants' unlawful and unfair conduct. 

5 155. At al! times material hereto, Defendants committed, and continue to commit acts 

6 of unfair competition as defined by §§ 17200 et seq. of the Business and Profossions Code, by 

7 and among other things, engaging in the acts and practices described above. 

8 156. Defendants' course of conduct, acts, and practices in violation of the California 

9 laws and regulations, as mentioned in each paragraph above, constitute distinct, separate and 

I 0 independent violations of§§ 17200 et seq. of the Business and Professions Code. 

J l l 57. The harm lo Pia inti ffs and the other members of the putative California Class of 

12 being wrongfully denied lawfully earned but unpaid wages outweighs the utility, if any, of 

13 Defendants' policies and practices and, therefore, Defendants' actions described herein constitute 

I 4 unfair business practices or acts within the meaning of Business and Professions Code §§ I 7200, 

15 et seq. 

16 

17 

l 58. Defendants' conduct described herein threatens an incipient violation of 

California's wage and hour laws, and/or violates the policy or spirit of such laws, or otherwise 

l 8 significantly threatens or harms competition. 

19 159. Defendants' course of conduct described herein further violates Bus. & Prof. Code 

20 §§ 17200, et seq., in that it is fraudul ent, improper, and/or unfair. 

21 160. The unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices and acts of Defendants as 

22 described hereinabovc have injured Plaintiffs and other members of the putative California Class 

23 in that they were wrongfully denied the timely and full payment of wages owed to them. 

24 161. Defendants have been unjustly enriched as a direct result of their unlawful 

25 business practices alleged in this Complaint and will continue to benefit from those practices and 

26 have an unfair c.ompetitive advantage if allowed to retain the unpaid wages. 

27 

28 

Consolidated First Amended Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 42 of 49
162. J3usiness and Professions Code § 17203 provides that the Court may make such 

2 orders or judgments as may be necessary to prevent the use or employment by any person of any 

3 practice which constitutes unfair competition. 

4 163. As a direct and proximate result of the afornmentioned acts and practices, 

5 Plaintifts and the Class have suffered a loss of money and property, in the form of unpaid wages 

6 which arc due and payable to them. 

7 164. Business and Professions Code§ 17203 provides that the Court may restore to 

8 any person in interest any money or property which may have been acquired by means of such 

9 unfair competition. Plaintifls and the other members of the putative California Class are entitled 

10 to restitution pursuant to Business and Professions Code § 17203 for all wages and payments 

11 un lawfully withheld from employees during the four-year period prior to the filing of this 

I 2 Complaint. 

13 165. Plaintiffs' success in this action will enforce important rights affecting the public 

14 interest and, in that regard, Plaintiffs sue on behalf of themselves a.nd others similarly situated. 

15 Plaintiffs and the other members of the putative California Class seek and are entitled to unpaid 

16 wages, declaratory relief, and ali other equitabie remedies owing to them. 

17 166. Plai nti ffs herein take the enforcement of these laws and lawful claims upon 

18 themselves. There is a financ.ial burden involved in pursuing this action, the action is seeking to 

19 vindicate a pub lic right, and it would be against the interest<> of justice to penalize Plaintiffs by 

20 forcing them to pay attorneys' fees from the recovery in this action. Attorneys' fees are 

2 J appropriate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 102 l .5 and otherwise. 

22 J 67. Wherefore, Plaintiffs and other putative California Class members request relief 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

as hereinafter provided. 

Consolidated First Amended Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 43 of 49
2 

3 

4 

NINTH CAUS'E OF ACTION 

Civil Penalties Under The 

California Private Attorneys General Act 

(Labor Code§§ 2699, et seq.) 

(By Plaintiffs and the California Class Against All Defendants) 

5 158. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations in aJI preceding 

6 paragraphs. 

7 159. This action arises out of the allegedly unlawful labor practices of Defendants in 

8 California. Through this private attorneys general action, Plaintiffs represent themsel ves, and 

9 other aggrieved employees of Defendants that were in California, against whom Defendants have 

IO allegedly committed labor law violations alleged herein. As a result of the allegedly unla\:vful 

I I conduct described herein, Plaintiffs now seek to recover civil penalties, including the value of 

12 unpaid wages, attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorneys General 

13 Act or2004, Labor Code§§ 558 and 2698, et seq. 

l 4 160. Labor Code§ 2699(a) provides: 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any provision of this code 

that provides for a civil penalty to be assessed and collected by the 

Labor and Workforce Development Agency or any of its departments, 

divisions, commissions, boards, agencies or employees, for a violation 

of this code, may, as an alternative, be recovered through a civil action 

brought by an aggrieved employee on behalf of himself or herself and 

other current or former employees. 

161. This PAGA aim is also brought against Defendants pursuant to provisions of the 

Labor Code including § 558 which permits liability of persons or employers who violate or cause 

to be violat~d Labor Code. and IWC regulations. Labor Code§ 558 provides: 

(a) /\.ny employer or othe r person acting on behalf of an employer who violates, or 

causes to be violated, a section of this chapter or any provision regul ating hours and 

days of work in any order of the Industrial Welfare Commission shall be subject to 

a civi I penalty as follows: 

(I) for any initial violation, fifty dollars ($50) for each underpaid employee for 

each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in addition to any amount 

sufficient to recover underpaid wages. 

(2) For each subsequent violation, one hundred dollars ($ 100) for each underpaid 

employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in addition to 

Consolidated First Amended Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 44 of 49
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

Jl 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

r 

_ .) 

26 

27 

28 

an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages .. .. 

l 62. Pursuant to California Labor Code§§ 2699(a) and (f), Plaintifts and the other 

aggrieved emp loyees of Defendants are entitled to, and seek to, recover civil penalties for 

Defendants' violations of California Labor Code§§ 200, 20 1, 202, 203, 226, 226.7, 512 , 1174, 

11 98, and 2802, during the applicable limitations period in the following amounts: 

a. For violations of California Labor Code§§ 200, 201, 202, 203, 226.7, and 2802, 

one hundred dollars ($100.00) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for 

each initial v iolation and t\.Vo hundred dollars ($200.00) for each aggri eved 

employee per pay pcriou for each subsequent violation (penalty amounts 

established by California Labor Code § 2699(1)(2)); 

b. for violations of California Labor Code §1197, one hundred dollars ($ 100.00) for 

each aggrieved employee per pay period for each initial violation and two 

hundred dollars and fifty ($250.00) for each aggrieved employee per pay period 

for each subsequent violation regardless of whether the initial violation is 

intentionally committed (penalty amounts established by California Labor Cude § 

1197.1); 

c. For violations of California Labor Code§§ 22 I and 223 one hundred dollars 

($100.00) for each aggri eved employee for each initial violation and two hundred 

dol!ars ($200.00) for each aggrieved employee for each subsequent or willful 

violation (penalty amounts establis hed by California Labor Code §225.5); 

d. For violations of California Labor Code§ 1174, five hundred dollars ($500.00) 

for each of Defendant.;;' violations in addition to any other penalties or fines 

perrnitted by law (penalty amounts established by California Labor Code § 

1174.5); 

e. For violations of California T ,abor Code §226, two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) 

per employee for initial violation and one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per 

Consolidated First Amended Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 45 of 49
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

1 I 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

f. 

g. 

h. 

employee for each subsequent violation (penally amounts established by 

California Labor Code §226.3); 

For violaiions of California Labor Code § 1174, five hundred dollars ($500) for 

each of Defendants' violations in addition lo any other penalties or fines pennitted 

by law (penalty amounts established by California Labor Code Section 1174.5); 

For violations of California Labor Code § 512 and, Wage Order 4-2001 Sections 

9, 11, and 12, fifty dollars ($50.00) for each aggrieved employee for each initial 

violation for pay period for which the employee was Lmderpaid in addition to an 

amount sufficient to recover unpaid wages and one hundred dollars ($100.00) for 

each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was 

underpaid in addition to an amount sufficient to recover unpaid wages (penalty 

amounts established by California Labor Code §558). 

Fur violations of California Labor Code §558, fifty dollars ($50.00) for initial 

violation, fifty dollars ($50.00) for each underpaid employee for each pay period 

for which the employee was underpaid in addition to an amount s ufficient to 

recove r unpaid wag~s; for each subsequent violation, one hundred dollars 

($ 100.00) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for \Vh ich the 

employee was underpaid in addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid 

19 wages. 

20 163. Pursuant to California Labor Code § 2699(g), Plainiiff, on behalf of himself and 

21 the other aggrieved employees, are entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. 

22 164. Plaintiffs seek the aforementioned penalties on behalf of the State, other 

23 aggrieved employees, and themse lves as set forth in Labor Cude§ 2699(b). 

24 165. Defendants arc liable lo Plaintiffs, the and the State of California for the civil 

25 penalties set forth in this Complaint, with inlere.st thereon. Plaintiffs are also entitled to an award 

26 of attorneys' fees and costs as set forth below. 

27 166. Wherefore, Plaintiffs and the other aggrieved emp loyees request relief as 

28 hereinafter provided. 

Consolidated First Amended Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 46 of 49
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves, the FLSA Class, the Putative 

3 California Class and Subclass and other aggrieved employees pray for judgment against 

4 Defendants as follows: 

5 a. Damages and restitution according to proof at trial for all unpaid wages and other 

6 i~juries, as provided by the FLSA and California Labor Code; 

7 b. For a declaratory judgment that Defendants have violated the FLSA and 

8 California Labor Code and publi c policy as alleged herein; 

9 c. for a declaratory judgment that Defendant have violated Business and Professions 

10 Code §§ 17200 et seq., as a result of the aforementioned violations of the Labor 

I I Code and of California public policy protecting wages; 

12 d. f or prel iminary, permanent, and mandatory injunctive relief prohibiting 

13 Defendants, their officers, agents, and all those acting in concert with them from 

l 4 committing in the future those violations of law herein alleged; 

15 e. For an equitable accounting to identify, locate, and restore to all current and 

! 6 former employees the wages they are due, with interest thereon; 

17 f. For an order awarding Plaintiffs ,the members of the putative California Class and 

18 the members of the FLSA Class compensatory damages, including lost wages, 

19 earn ings, and other employee benefits, restitution, treble damages, and all other 

20 sums of money owed together with interest on these amounts, according to proof; 

2 1 g. For an order awarding Plaintiffs, the members of the putative California Class and 

22 the members of the FLSA Class civil penalties pursuant to the FT .SA and Labor 

23 Code provisions cited herein, with interest thereon. 

24 h. For an order awarding Plaintifl's, the members of the putative California Class and 

25 the members of the FLSA Class civil penalties pursuant to the FLSA and Labor 

26 Code provisions cited herein, with interest thereon. 

27 

28 

Consolidated First Amended Complaint. 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 47 of 49
2 

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 

i. For an award of reasonable attorneys' fees as provided by the FLSA; California 

Labor Code; California Code of Civil Procedure §I 021.5; and/or other applicable 

law; 

J· For all costs of suit; 

k. For interest on any damages and/or penalties awarded, as provided by applicable 

law; and 

I. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. 

Consolidated First Amended Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 48 of 49
JURY DEMAND 

2 Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, hereby demand a trial 

3 by jury in this ca<>e. 

4 

5 Dated: November 11 , 20 IS 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

2 1 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Ry: IS/ Christina A. Humphrey 

MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP 

Stanley D. Saltzman 

Christina A. Humphrey 

Leslie H. Joyner 

SCHNEIDEn WALLACE COTTRl<:LL 

KO.!\"ECKY WOTKYNS LLP 

Carolyn Hunt Cottrell 

Nicole N. Coon 

UNITED EMPLOYEES L AW GROUP, P.C. 

Walter Haines 

Attorneys for Plain ti ff and 

the Putative Class, Subclass and Collective 

Consolidated First Amended Complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-02198-EMC Document 36 Filed 11/20/15 Page 49 of 49