Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03423/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03423-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO FLORES,

Plaintiff,

v.

MEDIFIT CORPORATE SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-03423-WHO 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS 

ACTION SETTLEMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 36

The Court, having carefully considered the briefs, argument of counsel, and all matters 

presented to the Court, and good cause appearing, hereby ORDERS THAT: 

1. The Court preliminarily approves the MediFit Corporate Services, Inc. “Wage and 

Hour” Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims (“Settlement Agreement”) 

attached as Exhibit A to the Notice of Errata filed at Docket Number 37. This is based on the 

Court’s determination that the Settlement is within the range of possible final approval. Per the 

parties’ Joint Response to Court’s Notes Regarding Hearing on Preliminary Approval of Class 

Action Settlement and their representations at the preliminary approval hearing on July 20, 2016, 

the Settlement Agreement is amended as follows (with additions underlined and deletions 

struckthrough):

a. Paragraph 45 of the Settlement Agreement is amended to read: Settlement Class 

Members who do not opt-out may object to the settlement. Settlement Class Members 

who do not opt-out may not object to the settlement. If an opt-out a Settlement Class 

Member who has not opted-out wishes to object, he/she must do so within forty-five (45) 

calendar days after the Class Notice is sent (or not more than twenty (20) calendar days 

after the date the Class Notice is re-mailed, in the circumstance described above). 

Objections to the Settlement must be submitted to the Court either by mailing them to the 

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 1 of 39
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Class Action Clerk, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 

Philip Burton Federal Building & United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 

San Francisco, CA 94102, or by filing them in person at any location of the United States 

District Court for the Northern District of California. A Settlement Class Member who has 

not opted-out may also object by appearing at the final approval hearing, even if he or she 

has not previously submitted a written objection.

b. Paragraph 46 of the Settlement Agreement is amended to read: Objections must 

describe why the objector believes the Settlement is unfair and whether the objector 

intends to appear at the final approval hearing. Deficient or untimely objections shall not 

be considered. Class Members who fail to file and serve timely written objections in the 

manner specified above shall be deemed to have waived any objections and shall be 

foreclosed from making any objection (whether by appeal or otherwise) to the Settlement, 

unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Class Counsel and Defendant’s Counsel may, at 

least ten (10) calendar days (or some other number of days as the Court shall specify) 

before the Final Approval Hearing, file responses to any written objections.

c. Paragraph 50 of the Settlement Agreement is amended to read: No challenge 

will be considered timely if it is postmarked more than the number of days set forth in the 

preceding paragraph of this Settlement Agreement. Absent an agreement between Class 

Counsel and Defendant’s Counsel regarding how to address the dispute, the Settlement 

Administrator shall have authority to resolve the challenge and make a final and binding 

determination without hearing or right of appeal. Defendant agrees to provide the 

Settlement Administrator with additional documents or other information associated with 

the challenge, if such exists. All disputes shall be resolved, either by agreement of Class 

Counsel and Defendant’s Counsel, or by decision of the Settlement Administrator as 

provided herein, prior to submitting the Settlement Administrator’s declaration to the 

Court for final approval. Responses to challenges shall be made within fourteen (14) days 

of receiving the challenge.

d. Paragraph 51 of the Settlement Agreement is amended to read: Settlement 

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 2 of 39
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

checks issued to the Class Representatives and Settlement Class Members shall remain 

valid for one-hundred and eighty (180) calendar days from the date of issuance. This 

expiration or cancellation date shall be clearly printed on the front of the check (“Void 

Date”). If the Class Representatives or any Settlement Class Members do not cash their 

settlement payment check(s) before the Void Date, the funds represented thereby will be 

tendered to the cy pres beneficiaries, to be selected by the parties, (the Legal Aid Society –

Employment Law Center, The Eagle Fund, and Stand by the Wounded) within five (5) 

days of the close of the 180 day period. The Settlement Administrator will perform one 

skip trace on any undeliverable settlement check. Settlement checks can be reissued to 

Settlement Class Members upon request within this 180 day period but any reissued checks 

shall have the same Void Date as the original settlement check. Those Settlement Class 

Members who fail to cash their settlement checks will be deemed to have waived 

irrevocably any right in or claim to a settlement payment, but the Settlement Agreement 

and its waivers and releases shall remain binding upon them.

e. Paragraph 52 of the Settlement Agreement is amended to read: Upon the final 

approval by the Court of this Settlement Agreement, and except as to such rights or claims 

as may be created by this Settlement Agreement, the Settlement Class Members release 

Defendant, its current or former subsidiaries, affiliates, owners, parents, predecessors, 

insurers, agents, employees, successors, assigns, officers, officials, directors, employers, 

attorneys, personal representatives, executors, and shareholders, including their respective 

pension, profit sharing, savings, health, and other employee benefit plans of any nature, the 

successors of such plans, and those plans’ respective current or former trustees and 

administrators, agents, employees, and fiduciaries (“Releasees”), of and from any and all 

claims, rights, demands, charges, complaint, causes of action, obligations or liability of any 

and every kind that were, or could have been, asserted in any version of any complaint 

filed in the Action, or are based on or arise out of the facts or law alleged in any version of 

any complaint the Second Amended Complaint filed in the Action, including those under 

any state and federal law for minimum wage and overtime, failure to provide meal breaks, 

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 3 of 39
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

failure to authorize and permit rest breaks, failure to timely pay wages at termination, 

failure to pay a proper piece rate, failure to pay wages due, failure to reimburse necessary 

business expenses, failure to provide accurate and itemized wage statements, unfair 

business practices, and violations of the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of

2004.

2. The Court conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes only, the proposed Plaintiff 

Classes, defined as follows:

California Class: All persons who worked in California for 

Defendant, or its entity, MediFit Community Services, LLC, at any 

point since June 16, 2011 as a group exercise instructor, personal 

trainer, or swim instructor.

FLSA Class: All persons who worked in California for Defendant, 

or its entity, MediFit Community Services, LLC, at any point since 

June 16, 2012 as a group exercise instructor, personal trainer, or 

swim instructor. 

3. The Court hereby conditionally certifies the proposed Plaintiff Classes contained 

therein and conditionally finds that, solely for the purposes of approving this settlement and for no 

other purpose and with no other effect on this litigation, the proposed Plaintiff Classes meet the 

requirements for certification under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 23(a) and 23(b), 

including that: (a) the proposed classes are ascertainable and so numerous that joinder of all 

members of the classes is impractical; (b) there are predominant questions of law or fact common 

to the proposed classes, and there is a well-defined community of interest amongst the members of 

the proposed classes with respect to the subject matter of the litigation; (c) the claims of 

Representative Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the members of the proposed classes; 

(d) Representative Plaintiffs and Class Counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of 

the members of the classes; (e) a class action is superior to other available methods for an efficient 

adjudication of this controversy; and (f) Class Counsel is qualified to act as counsel for the 

Representative Plaintiffs in their individual and representative capacities. 

4. The Court provisionally finds Scott Cole & Associates, APC to be sufficiently 

experienced and proficient in class action proceedings that they may act as Class Counsel and are, 

therefore, appointed as such. 

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 4 of 39
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

5. The Court provisionally appoints Francisco Flores and Giulia Ferraris as the 

representatives of the Plaintiff Classes (“Representative Plaintiffs,” “Class Representatives,” or 

“Plaintiffs”). 

6. The Court provisionally appoints Rust Consulting as the Settlement Administrator. 

7. The Court approves, as to form and content, the following: the Class Notice, attached as 

Exhibit A to this Order. The Class Notice shall be disseminated to the Plaintiff Class Members in 

the manner set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

8. The Court approves, as to form and content, the following: the Second Amended 

Complaint, attached as Exhibit B to this Order. The Second Amended Complaint is deemed filed 

upon the entry of this Order. 

9. The final approval hearing shall be held on November 9, 2016, at 2 p.m., in Courtroom 

2, 17th floor of this Court, to determine whether the proposed Settlement is fair, adequate, 

reasonable, and should be granted final approval. At that time, the Court will also consider 

Plaintiff’s application for attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, and any application for 

Enhancement Awards to the Representative Plaintiffs. 

10. Any Plaintiff Class member may choose to opt-out of and be excluded from the 

Settlement Classes by following the instructions for requesting exclusion from the Settlement that 

are set forth in the Class Notice. Any such person who chooses to op- out of and be excluded 

from the Settlement Classes will not be entitled to any recovery under the Settlement and will not 

be bound by the Settlement or have any right to object, appeal or comment thereon. Settlement 

Class members who have not requested exclusion shall be bound by the terms of the Settlement 

Agreement, including its Release, and the Court’s Judgment. 

11. Any Class Member who has not opted-out may object to the Settlement in writing as 

set forth in the Class Notice, and may also appear at the final approval hearing to object or to 

express his or her views regarding the Settlement. Class Counsel and Defendant’s Counsel may, 

at least ten (10) calendar days (or some other number of days as the Court shall specify) before the 

Final Approval Hearing, file responses to any written objections.

12. In the event that the Settlement does not become effective in accordance with the 

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 5 of 39
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

terms of the Settlement Agreement, or the Settlement is not finally approved, or is terminated, 

cancelled or fails to become effective for any reason, this Order shall be rendered null and void 

and shall be vacated, and the Parties shall revert back to their respective positions as of before 

entering into the Settlement Agreement. 

13. The Court reserves the right to adjourn or continue the date of the final approval 

hearing and all dates provided for in the Settlement Agreement without further notice to 

Settlement Class members, and retains jurisdiction to consider all further applications arising out 

of or connected with the proposed Settlement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2016

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 6 of 39
Exhibit A

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 7 of 39
Questions? ___________. toll free at 1-***-***- 

[ADDRESS]

www.___________________.com

28145761v.1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO FLORES and GIULIA 

FERRARIS, individually, and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

MEDIFIT CORPORATE SERVICES, 

INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 3:15-cv-03423-WHO

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION 

SETTLEMENT AND SETTLEMENT 

APPROVAL HEARING

To: All persons who worked for MediFit Corporate Services, Inc., or its entity MediFit Community Services, 

LLC, as a group exercise instructor, personal trainer, or swim instructor in California at any point since June 

16, 2011.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY

YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FROM THIS SETTLEMENT

This is a court approved notice. This is not an advertisement.

You are NOT being sued. However, your legal rights are affected whether you act or not.

I. INTRODUCTION

You received this Notice because the records of MediFit Corporate Servies, Inc. and/or MediFit Community Services, 

LLC (hereafter “MediFit”) show that you were employed by MediFit as a group exercise instructor, personal trainer, or 

swim instructor in California at some time during the period of June 16, 2011 to _________ (the “Class Period”). All 

individuals who fall within that description are considered “Class Members” under the terms of this Notice. 

We are providing this Notice to make you aware that a proposed class action settlement (the “Settlement”) of the 

above-captioned lawsuit (the “Action”) pending in the United States District Court, Northern District of California (the 

“Court”), has been reached by the parties and has been granted preliminary approval by the Court supervising the Action.

A final settlement hearing will be held on __________, 2016 at _____ _.m. to determine whether the Settlement should 

be granted final approval.

MediFit’s records indicate that you are a Class Member and might be entitled to compensation under the Settlement. The 

Settlement affects your legal rights unless you ask to be excluded from the Action, also known as “opting out” of the 

Settlement. The purpose of this Notice is to: (1) describe the Action, (2) inform you of the terms of the Settlement, and (3) 

inform you of your rights and options in connection with the Settlement. The Court file has the full settlement documents 

with more information on the lawsuit. MediFit will not fire, punish, retaliate, or otherwise discriminate against any employee 

because he or she chooses to or does not choose to participate in this Settlement, or objects to the Settlement.

II. SUMMARY OF THE ACTION

Plaintiffs Francisco Flores and Giulia Ferraris (“Plaintiffs”) allege in their Complaint that, during the Class Period, MediFit 

required Class Members to work off-the-clock, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, failed to provide accurate itemized 

wage statements, failed to reimburse expenses, and failed to pay wages timely upon Class Members’ terminations. Plaintiffs 

allege that these violations resulted in underpayment of wages to Class Members. Plaintiffs seek to maintain a class action for 

their claims on behalf of themselves and all persons who have been employed or are currently employed within the Class 

Period as a MediFit group exercise instructor, personal trainer, or swim instructor. Plaintiffs seek damages and civil penalties 

related to these claims under California law and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

MediFit denies any liability or wrongdoing of any kind in connection with Plaintiffs’ claims, and contends that Class 

Members are and were provided with meal and rest breaks as required by California law, that Class Members are and have 

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 8 of 39
Questions? ___________. toll free at 1-** *-***- 

[ADDRESS]

www.___________________.com

28145761v.1

2

been provided with itemized wage statements that comply with California law, that Class Members were not denied 

reimbursement of expenses, and that Class Members are and were properly compensated for all time worked and upon 

termination. Consequently, MediFit does not believe that any liability to Plaintiffs or Class Members exists, or that 

Plaintiffs or Class Members are entitled to any recovery. 

The Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement on [date of preliminary approval] on behalf of the following

settlement classes defined as:

California Class: All persons who worked in California for MediFit at any point since June 16, 2011 

as a group exercise instructor, personal trainer, or swim instructor.

FLSA Class: All persons who worked in California for MediFit at any point since June 16, 2012 as a 

group exercise instructor, personal trainer, or swim instructor.

The Court also preliminarily approved Plaintiffs Francisco Flores and Giulia Ferraris to serve as Class Representatives, and 

the law firm Scott Cole & Associates, APC to serve as Class Counsel.

The Court also scheduled a Final Approval Hearing on the Settlement at ____ _.m. on ________________, 2016, in 

Courtroom 2 on the 17th Floor at the United States District Court, Northern District of California, located at 450 Golden 

Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, at which time the Court will decide whether to grant final approval of the 

Settlement. 

III. SUMMARY OF SETTLEMENT TERMS

Settlement Amount. MediFit has agreed to pay $1,300,000 (the “Gross Settlement Fund”) to fully resolve this Action and 

obtain a release of claims as described below. From this Gross Settlement Fund, the following sums will be deducted if 

approved by the court:

 Settlement Administration. $20,500 to the Settlement Administrator, Rust Consulting, for the expense of 

notifying the Class Members of the Settlement, processing opt-outs submitted by Class Members, and 

distributing Settlement Payments.

 Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses. Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fees not to exceed 25% of the Gross Settlement 

Fund ($325,000) for the work Class Counsel performed in this Action, and for work to be performed through 

settlement finalization and Class Counsel’s litigation expenses, not to exceed $20,000.

 Enhancement Awards to Representative Plaintiffs. Enhancement Awards not to exceed $4,500 to Plaintiff 

Flores and $1,500 Plaintiff Ferraris to compensate them for their service on behalf of the Class in initiating and 

prosecuting the action. These payments are in addition to whatever payments Plaintiffs are otherwise entitled 

to receive as Class Members.

 Payment to the LWDA. $5,000 to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) for 

settlement of claims brought under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). The payment to the LWDA 

represents seventy-five percent (75%) of the total PAGA payment of $3,750. The other twenty-five percent 

(25%) of the total PAGA payment, or $1,250, shall be added to the Net Settlement Fund and distributed among 

Class Members as discussed below.

Calculation of Class Member Awards. Each Class Member will be eligible to receive a gross (pre-tax) share of the Net 

Settlement Fund (i.e., the Gross Settlement Fund, minus approved Class Counsel fees and litigation costs, all settlement

administration expenses, the Enhancement Awards, and payment to the LWDA). The share distributed to each Class 

Member is referred to as the “Individual Settlement Share” and will be calculated as follows:

1. Ninety-five percent of the Net Settlement Fund will be allocated to settle the claims of the California Class, 

with the remaining five percent being allocated to settle the claims of the FLSA Class.

2. Both the California and FLSA portions of the Net Settlement Amount will be divided by the total number 

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 9 of 39
Questions? ___________. toll free at 1-** *-***- 

[ADDRESS]

www.___________________.com

28145761v.1

3

of pay periods worked by all California or FLSA Class Members during either the California or FLSA 

Settlement Periods.

3. To calculate the Individual Settlement Share for each Class Member, the amount to be paid per pay period

will be multiplied by the total number of pay periods that each Class Member worked during the respective 

Settlement Periods.

Tax Withholding. Thirty-three percent of each Individual Settlement Share is treated as wages that are subject to the normal 

payroll taxes and withholdings and W-2 reporting. Thirty-three percent will be considered interest and the remaining thirtyfour percent will be considered penalties. The interest and penalties are not subject to payroll taxes, but are subject to IRS 

Form 1099 reporting. Aside from any payroll taxes for which MediFit is responsible, any and all tax obligations arising from 

any payments to Class Member will be the sole responsibility of the individual receiving such payment(s). 

Releases. Upon Final Approval of the Settlement, each Class Member shall be deemed to have fully, finally, and forever 

released the Releasees, as defined in the Settlement, from any and all individual and class claims, debts, liabilities, demands, 

obligations, penalties, guarantees, costs, expenses, attorneys’ fees, damages, action or causes of action of whatever kind or

nature, whether known or unknown, that are based on or arise out of the facts alleged in the Second Amended Complaint

filed in the Action, including those under any state and federal law for minimum wage and overtime, failure to provide meal 

breaks, failure to authorize and permit rest breaks, failure to timely pay wages at termination, failure to pay a proper piece 

rate, failure to pay wages due, failure to reimburse necessary business expenses, failure to provide accurate and itemized 

wage statements, unfair business practices, and violations of the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, which 

arose between June 16, 2011 and the date the Court grants final approval to the Settlement or December 31, 2016, whichever 

is sooner.

All Class Members shall be bound by this release unless they opt-out of the Settlement. However, only those Class Members 

who cash their settlement checks will be bound by the release of FLSA claims.

Conditions of Settlement. This Settlement is conditioned upon the Court entering an Order after the Final Approval 

Hearing finally approving the Settlement.

IV. COMPENSATION INFORMATION

MediFit’s records indicate that you worked at one or more of its California locations from_____________ to 

________________.

MediFit’s records indicate that you worked a total of ________ pay periods during this time frame. Accordingly, your 

estimated Individual Settlement Share (before taxes and withholdings) is roughly $_____________.

If you wish to challenge the accuracy of the above information, you must send a written, signed challenge along with 

supporting documents to the Settlement Administrator at the address given in Section IX below, via First Class Mail, 

postmarked no later than __________. Absent an agreement between Class Counsel and MediFit’s Counsel regarding how to 

address the dispute, the Settlement Administrator shall have authority to resolve the challenge and make a final and binding 

determination without hearing or right of appeal.

Please note: The above amount is an estimate only and will change if the fees and costs awards are different than estimated 

(as described in Section III, above). All Settlement Awards are subject to tax withholdings and reporting to the IRS and state 

tax authorities. You will receive a W-2 for the wages and IRS Form 1099-MISC for interest and penalties.

Settlement checks shall remain valid for 180 days from the date of issuance. If you do not cash your settlement payment 

check within this time period, or if your check is returned as undeliverable, your settlement check will be voided and a stop 

payment will be placed on it. Settlement checks can be reissued to Class Members upon request within this 180-day period, 

but any reissued checks shall have the same Void Date as the original settlement check. If you fail to cash your settlement 

check, or if your check is returned as undeliverable, the funds will be tendered to a charity selected by the parties, but the 

Settlement Agreement shall remain binding upon you.

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 10 of 39
Questions? ___________. toll free at 1-** *-***- 

[ADDRESS]

www.___________________.com

28145761v.1

4

V. RIGHT TO OPT OUT

If you do not wish to participate in the Settlement of your claims, you may exclude yourself from the Settlement or “opt 

out.” If you opt out, you will receive no compensation from the Settlement, and you will not be bound by its terms.

To opt out, you must submit a signed, written request by first-class U.S. mail to the Settlement Administrator at the 

address below, postmarked no later than , 2016. The request to opt out must contain your full name 

and the last four digits of your Social Security Number, and must state in substance the following:

“I have read the Class Notice and I wish to opt-out of the class action and do not wish to participate in 

the settlement of the case Flores, et al. v. MediFit Corporate Services, Inc.”

VI. RIGHT TO OBJECT

If you are a Class Member, and you do not exclude yourself from the Settlement Class (opt out), you may object to the 

settlement before final approval of the settlement by the Court.

You can ask the Court to deny approval by filing an objection. You cannot ask the Court to order a larger settlement; the 

Court can only approve or deny the settlement. If the Court denies approval, no settlement payments will be sent out and 

the lawsuit will continue. If that is what you want to happen, you must object.

You may object to the proposed settlement in writing. You may also appear at the Final Approval Hearing, either in 

person or through your own attorney. If you appear through your own attorney, you are responsible for paying that 

attorney. All written objections and supporting papers must (a) clearly identify the case name and number (Flores, et al. 

v. MediFit Corporate Services, Inc., Case Number 3:15-cv-03423-WHO), (b) be submitted to the Court either by mailing 

them to the Class Action Clerk, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, located at the Philip 

Burton Federal Building & United States Court House, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, or by filing 

them in person at any location of the United states District Court for the Northern District of California, and (c) be filed 

or postmarked on or before ___________________.

If you object to the Settlement, you will remain a member of the Class, and if the Court approves the Settlement, you will 

be bound by the terms of the Settlement in the same way as Class Members who do not object. Any Class Member who 

does not submit an objection in the manner described above shall have waived any objection to the Settlement. If the court 

enters an order finally approving the settlement, you will be bound by its terms even if you submit an objection.

VII. HEARING ON THE SETTLEMENT

The Final Approval Hearing on the adequacy, reasonableness, and fairness of the Settlement will be held at _____ _.m. on 

_______, 2016 in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor of the United States District Court, Northern District of California, located at 

450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. This hearing date may change without further notice to the 

Settlement Class. Class Members should check the settlement website at www.____________.com, or the Court’s PACER 

site (described in section IX, below), to confirm that the date has not changed. You are not required to attend the Final 

Approval Hearing, although any Class Member is welcome to attend the hearing.

VIII. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

This Notice summarizes the proposed settlement. For the precise terms and conditions of the settlement, please see the 

Settlement Agreement and the Court’s Order Granting Preliminary Approval (“Court’s Order”), available at 

www.___________________.com. The Court’s Order contains the precise terms of the release of class members’ 

claims, as stated in this Notice. The release of class members’ claims in the Settlement Agreement contains different 

language from the release of class members’ claims in the Court’s Order and this Notice. The language in the Court’s 

Order and this Notice is the controlling language for the release of class members’ claims. You will also find other 

documents related to this matter at the website listed above, including the Second Amended Complaint.

You may also obtain additional information regarding the settlement by contacting Class Counsel at the address 

provided below, by accessing the Court docket in this case through the Court’s Public Access to Court Electronic 

Records (PACER) system at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov, or by visiting the office of the Clerk of the Court for the 

United States District Court for the Northern District of California, located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, 

California, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Court holidays.

Class Counsel may be contacted at:

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 11 of 39
Questions? ___________. toll free at 1-** *-***-****

[ADDRESS]

www.___________________.com

28145761v.1

5

Scott Edward Cole, Esq.

SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC

1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor

Oakland, CA 94612

510-891-9800

You may also contact the Settlement Administrator at:

[ADD]

PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK’S OFFICE TO INQUIRE ABOUT 

THIS SETTLEMENT OR THE CLAIMS PROCESS. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT COUNSEL FOR 

DEFENDANT.

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 12 of 39
Exhibit B

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 13 of 39
-1- 

Second Amended Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Restitution 

28022281v.1 

SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

THE WACHOVIA TOWER 

1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR 

OAKLAND, CA 94612 

TEL: (510) 891-9800 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Scott Edward Cole, Esq. (S.B. # 160744) 

Jeremy A. Graham, Esq. (S.B. # 234166) 

SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 

1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor 

Oakland, California 94612 

Telephone: (510) 891-9800 

Facsimile: (510) 891-7030 

Email: scole@scalaw.com 

Email: jgraham@scalaw.com 

Web: www.scalaw.com 

Attorneys for Representative Plaintiffs 

And the Plaintiff Class 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FRANCISCO FLORES and GIULIA 

FERRARIS, individually, and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

MEDIFIT CORPORATE SERVICES, 

INC., and DOES 1 through 100, 

inclusive, 

Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 3:15-cv-03423-WHO 

CLASS ACTION

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND 

RESTITUTION 

[Jury Trial Demanded] 

Representative Plaintiffs allege as follows: 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

1. This is a class action, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, seeking unpaid 

wages (including overtime wages), and interest thereon, reimbursement of business expenses, 

rest and meal period penalties, waiting time penalties, liquidated damages and other penalties, 

injunctive and other equitable relief and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, under, inter alia, 

Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, California Labor Code §§ 200-204, inclusive, 221, 

223, 226, 226.7, 400-410, 510, 512, 1174, 1194, 1194.2, 1197 and 2802, California Business and 

Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. and California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5. The 

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 14 of 39
-2- 

Second Amended Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Restitution 

28022281v.1 

SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

THE WACHOVIA TOWER 

1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR 

OAKLAND, CA 94612 

TEL: (510) 891-9800 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Representative Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly 

situated (hereinafter referred to as the “Class Members” and/or the “Plaintiff Class”) who are, or 

have been, employed by defendant MediFit Corporate Services, Inc. (“MediFit” and/or 

“Defendant”) as non-exempt Personal Trainers, Group Fitness Instructors (also referred to as 

Group Exercise Instructors) and Swim Instructors (collectively “Fitness Instructors”) within the 

applicable statutory period. The Representative Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class 

Members, also seek injunctive relief and restitution of all benefits Defendant has enjoyed from 

its unfair, unlawful and/or fraudulent business practices under Business and Professions Code §§ 

17200-17208. 

2. The “Class Period” is designated as the time from June 16, 2011 through the trial 

date, based upon the allegation that the violations of California’s wage and hour laws, as 

described more fully below, have been ongoing since that time. During the Class period, 

Defendant has had a consistent policy of, inter alia, (1) permitting, encouraging, and/or requiring 

its Fitness Instructors to work “off-the-clock,” without compensation therefore, (2) permitting, 

encouraging, and/or requiring its Fitness Instructors to perform reported hours of work without 

compensation therefore, (3) failing to reimburse its Fitness Instructors for business expenses 

related to the operations of Defendant, (4) willfully failing to pay compensation (including 

unpaid overtime) in a prompt and timely manner to the Representative Plaintiffs and/or those 

Class Members whose employment with Defendant terminated, (5) willfully failing to provide 

the Representative Plaintiffs and Class Members with accurate semi-monthly itemized wage 

statements of the total number of hours each of them worked and the applicable deductions 

during each pay period, and (6) willfully failing to provide meal periods and/or rest periods to 

Representative Plaintiffs and/or Class Members. 

INTRODUCTION

3. Nearly a hundred years ago, California enacted its first daily overtime law, 

thereby setting California’s first workday standard, long before the federal government enacted 

overtime protections for workers. 

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 15 of 39
-3- 

Second Amended Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Restitution 

28022281v.1 

SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

THE WACHOVIA TOWER 

1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR 

OAKLAND, CA 94612 

TEL: (510) 891-9800 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4. According to findings of the California Legislature, numerous studies have linked 

long work hours to increased rates of accident and injury and a loss of family cohesion when 

either or both parents are kept away from home for extended periods of time, on either a daily or 

weekly basis. 

5. Defendant provides on-site health and fitness services to its clients which include 

corporations, medical fitness centers, and commercial fitness clubs. Within the Class Period, 

Defendant has provided its services to numerous clients throughout California. In so doing, 

Defendant has employed hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals in recent years alone as 

Fitness Instructors, non-overtime-exempt employees who are entitled to, inter alia, be paid for 

all hours worked, at their regular rate of pay, to full and uninterrupted meal and rest periods, to 

be reimbursed for all business expenses related to MediFit’s operations, and to be paid said 

wages and reimbursed for said business-related expenses in a timely manner. 

6. Defendant’s Fitness Instructors are responsible for facilitating MediFit’s clients’ 

health and fitness goals through the instruction of various class formats and personal training 

sessions. 

7. Group Fitness Instructors are responsible for facilitating group exercise sessions 

or classes with Defendant’s members. Group Fitness Instructors often teach several classes a 

day, and are responsible for performing additional pre- and post-session duties such as, inter 

alia, auditioning/trying-out to facilitate classes, completing paperwork, attending staff meetings, 

soliciting clients, preparing rooms for classes, putting away equipment and cleaning rooms after 

classes, meeting with members before and after classes, meeting with other employees, and a 

host of other activities required for the performance of their positions with and for the benefit of 

Defendant. 

8. Personal Trainers are responsible for facilitating individual training sessions with 

Defendant’s members, specifically tailored to address the individual member’s personal fitness 

goals. Personal Trainers often hold several sessions a day, and are responsible for performing 

additional pre- and post-session duties such as, inter alia, completing paperwork, attending staff 

meetings, soliciting clients, setting up for training sessions, putting away equipment, scheduling 

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 16 of 39
-4- 

Second Amended Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Restitution 

28022281v.1 

SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

THE WACHOVIA TOWER 

1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR 

OAKLAND, CA 94612 

TEL: (510) 891-9800 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

training sessions, meeting with clients before and after sessions, meeting with other employees, 

and a host of other activities required for the performance of their positions with and for the 

benefit of Defendant. 

9. Swim Instructors are responsible for facilitating swimming lessons/instruction 

with Defendant’s members. Swim Instructors often hold several sessions per day, and are 

responsible for performing additional pre- and post-session duties such as, inter alia, completing 

booking clients, rehearsing routines, interacting with members before and after classes, and a 

host of other activities required for the performance of their positions with and for the benefit of 

Defendant. 

10. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no matter how many hours are spent by Fitness 

Instructors performing tasks for the benefit of this employer, Fitness Instructors are paid only a 

set base rate and on a piece-rate format for each class or session they instruct or facilitate. 

11. Moreover, the Representative Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, based 

thereon, allege that MediFit knew and/or should have known that its Fitness Instructors are and, 

at all times during the Class Period, were performing work off-premises (e.g., at home, at 

continuing education/training programs, etc.), including, inter alia, attending continuing 

education classes and training programs, researching and preparing customized workout plans 

for individual clients, planning out classes, corresponding with clients and other employees, and 

a host of other activities for which Class Members were not being compensated. Further, the 

Representative Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, based thereon, allege that MediFit knew 

and/or should have known that its Fitness Instructors are and, at all times during the Class 

Period, were incurring business-related expenses for which they were not being reimbursed by 

Defendant. 

12. Despite actual knowledge of these facts and legal mandates, Defendant has 

enjoyed an advantage over its competition and has disadvantaged its workers by electing not to 

pay all wages due, electing not to provide reimbursement of business-related expenses to its 

Fitness Instructors, and by failing to offer all required meal and rest periods. 

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 17 of 39
-5- 

Second Amended Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Restitution 

28022281v.1 

SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

THE WACHOVIA TOWER 

1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR 

OAKLAND, CA 94612 

TEL: (510) 891-9800 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

13. The Representative Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, based thereon, allege 

that officers of MediFit knew of these facts and legal mandates, yet, nonetheless, repeatedly 

authorized and/or ratified the violation of the laws cited herein. 

14. Despite Medifit’s knowledge of the Class’ entitlement to wages for all hours 

worked and expense reimbursements for all applicable work periods, MediFit failed and 

continues to fail to provide the same thereto in willful violation of California state statutes, 

Industrial Welfare Commission Orders and Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations. This 

action is brought to redress and end this long-time pattern of unlawful conduct. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

15. This Court has jurisdiction over the Representative Plaintiffs’ and Class 

Members’ claims for unpaid wages, expenses and/or penalties under, inter alia, Title 8 of the 

California Code of Regulations, California Labor Code §§ 200-204, inclusive, 221, 223, 226, 

226.7, 400-410, 510, 1174, 1194, 1194.2, 1197 and 2802, California Business and Professions 

Code §§ 17200, et seq. and California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5. 

16. This Court has further jurisdiction over the Representative Plaintiffs’ and Class 

Members’ claims for injunctive relief and restitution of ill-gotten benefits arising from 

Defendant’s unfair, unlawful and/or fraudulent business practices under Business & Professions 

Code §§ 17203 and 17204. 

17. Venue as to Defendant is proper in this judicial district, pursuant to Code of Civil 

Procedure § 395(a). Defendant transacts business in the County of San Mateo, has agents, and is 

otherwise within this Court’s jurisdiction for purposes of service of process. The unlawful acts 

alleged herein have a direct effect on the Representative Plaintiffs and those similarly situated 

within the State of California and within San Mateo County. Defendant offers its services and 

has employed numerous Class Members in San Mateo County, as well as in other counties 

within the State of California. 

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 18 of 39
-6- 

Second Amended Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Restitution 

28022281v.1 

SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

THE WACHOVIA TOWER 

1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR 

OAKLAND, CA 94612 

TEL: (510) 891-9800 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

PLAINTIFFS

18. Representative Plaintiff Francisco Flores is a natural person and was, from 

approximately April 2010 through September 2013, during the relevant time period identified 

herein, employed by MediFit Corporate Services, Inc. as a non-exempt employee at the San 

Mateo Athletic Club at the College of San Mateo, located in San Mateo, California, as a Fitness 

Instructor. Representative Plaintiff Flores facilitated personal training sessions and several 

different classes for Defendant during the Class Period, including yoga, pilates, step, body 

conditioning, spinning, and kickboxing. 

19. Representative Plaintiff Giulia Ferraris is a natural person and was, from 

approximately November 2011 through the present, during the relevant time period identified 

herein, employed by MediFit Corporate Services, Inc. as a non-exempt employee at the San 

Mateo Athletic Club, as a Swim Instructor. Representative Plaintiff Ferraris provided swim 

lessons/instruction to Defendant’s members. 

20. As Fitness Instructors employed by Defendant, the Representative Plaintiffs were 

repeatedly paid a substandard wage insofar as they were denied full pay for all hours worked for 

work performance as a Fitness Instructor and reimbursement for expenses made on behalf of 

Defendant. The Representative Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon, allege that 

this conduct of MediFit is/was commonplace at every location where Defendant’s services were 

offered and/or provided. 

21. As used throughout this Complaint, the terms “Class Members” and/or the 

“Plaintiff Class” refer to the named plaintiff herein as well as each and every person eligible for 

membership in the Plaintiff Class, as further described and defined herein. 

DEFENDANT

22. At all times herein relevant, defendant MediFit Corporate Services, Inc. was, and 

is, a corporation doing business within this judicial district and elsewhere across the State of 

California. 

23. The Representative Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, on that basis, allege 

that Defendant has, and does, directly and/or indirectly, employed and/or exercised control over 

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 19 of 39
-7- 

Second Amended Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Restitution 

28022281v.1 

SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

THE WACHOVIA TOWER 

1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR 

OAKLAND, CA 94612 

TEL: (510) 891-9800 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

the wages, hours and working conditions of the Representative Plaintiffs and members of the 

Class. 

24. Those defendants identified as Does 1 through 100, inclusive, are and were, at all 

relevant times herein-mentioned, officers, directors, partners, and/or managing agents of 

some/each of the remaining defendants. The Representative Plaintiffs are informed and believe 

and, on that basis allege that, at all relevant times herein mentioned, each of the defendants 

identified as Does 1 through 100, inclusive, employed and/or exercised control over the wages, 

hours and/or working conditions of the Representative Plaintiffs and Class Members at various 

California locations, as identified in the preceding paragraph. 

25. The Representative Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names and capacities of 

those defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 100, inclusive and, therefore, sue these 

defendants by such fictitious names. The Representative Plaintiffs will seek leave of Court to 

amend this Complaint when the same are ascertained. The Representative Plaintiffs are informed 

and believe and, on that basis, allege that each of the fictitiously-named defendants is responsible 

in some manner for, gave consent to, ratified and/or authorized the conduct herein alleged and 

that the Representative Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ damages, as herein alleged, were 

proximately caused thereby. 

26. The Representative Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, on that basis, allege 

that, at all relevant times herein mentioned, each of the defendants was the agent and/or 

employee of each of the remaining defendants and, in doing the acts herein alleged, was acting 

within the course and scope of such agency and/or employment. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

27. The Representative Plaintiffs bring this action individually and as a class action 

on behalf of all persons similarly situated and proximately damaged by MediFit’s conduct, as set 

forth in this Complaint, including, but not necessarily limited to, the following plaintiff class: 

California Class: All persons employed by MediFit Corporate Services, Inc., or its 

entity MediFit Community Services, LLC, in the State of California as nonexempt group fitness instructors, personal trainers or swim instructors at any time 

on or after June 16, 2011. 

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 20 of 39
-8- 

Second Amended Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Restitution 

28022281v.1 

SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

THE WACHOVIA TOWER 

1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR 

OAKLAND, CA 94612 

TEL: (510) 891-9800 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

FLSA Class: All persons employed by MediFit Corporate Services, Inc., or its 

entity MediFit Community Services, LLC, in the State of California as nonexempt group fitness instructors, personal trainers or swim instructors at any time 

on or after June 16, 2012. 

28. Defendant, its officers, and directors are excluded from the class. 

29. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 because there is a well-defined community of interest 

in the litigation and the proposed Class is easily ascertainable. 

a. Numerosity: A class action is the only available method for the fair and 

efficient adjudication of this controversy. The members of the class are so 

numerous that joinder of all members is impractical, if not impossible, 

insofar as the Representative Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, on 

that basis, allege that the total number of Class Members exceeds 

hundreds of individuals. Membership in the Plaintiff Class will be 

determined upon analysis of employee and payroll, among other, records 

maintained by Defendant. 

Commonality: The Representative Plaintiffs and the Class Members share 

a community of interests in that there are numerous common questions 

and issues of fact and law which predominate over any questions and 

issues solely affecting individual members, thereby making a class action 

superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication 

of the controversy. These common questions include, but are not 

necessarily limited to: 

1) Whether Defendant violated one or more of California’s Wage 

Orders, the California Labor Code and/or California Business and 

Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. by failing to pay all wages due 

to its Fitness Instructors; 

2) Whether Defendant violated California Labor Code §§ 400-410 

and/or § 2802 by requiring its Fitness Instructors to pay all or a 

portion of the normal business expenses of Defendant; 

3) Whether Defendant violated and/or continues to violate, California 

Labor Code § 1174 by failing to keep accurate records of its 

Fitness Instructors’ hours of work; 

4) Whether Defendant violated, and continues to violate California 

Labor Code §§ 201-203 by failing to pay all wages due and owing 

at the time particular Class Members’ employment with Defendant 

terminated; 

5) Whether Defendant violated and/or continues to violate California 

Labor Code § 226 by failing to provide semi-monthly itemized 

wage statements to Class Members of total hours worked and all 

applicable hourly rates in effect during each relevant pay period; 

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 21 of 39
-9- 

Second Amended Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Restitution 

28022281v.1 

SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

THE WACHOVIA TOWER 

1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR 

OAKLAND, CA 94612 

TEL: (510) 891-9800 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

6) Whether Defendant violated California Labor Code §§ 226.7 

and/or 512 by failing to consistently provide duty-free meal and/or 

rest periods to Representative Plaintiffs and the Class Members. 

b. Typicality: The Representative Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims 

of the Plaintiff Class. The Representative Plaintiffs and all members of the 

class sustained injuries and damages arising out of and caused by 

MediFit’s common course of conduct in violation of state law, as alleged 

herein. 

c. Superiority of Class Action: Since the damages suffered by individual 

class members, while not inconsequential, may be relatively small, the 

expense and burden of individual litigation by each member makes, or 

may make it, impractical for class members to seek redress individually 

for the wrongful conduct alleged herein. Should separate actions be 

brought or be required to be brought by each individual class member, the 

resulting multiplicity of lawsuits would cause undue hardship and expense 

for the Court and the litigants. The prosecution of separate actions would 

also create a risk of inconsistent rulings, which might be dispositive of the 

interests of other class members who are not parties to the adjudications 

and/or may substantially impede their ability to adequately protect their 

interests. 

d. Adequacy of Representation: The Representative Plaintiffs in this class 

action are adequate representatives of the Plaintiff Class, in that the 

Representative Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the Plaintiff Class 

and the Representative Plaintiffs have the same interests in the litigation of 

this case as the Class Members. The Representative Plaintiffs are 

committed to vigorous prosecution of this case, and have retained 

competent counsel, experienced in litigation of this nature. The 

Representative Plaintiffs are not subject to any individual defenses unique 

from those conceivably applicable to the class as a whole. The 

Representative Plaintiffs anticipate no management difficulties in this 

litigation. 

COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

30. As described herein, MediFit has, for years, knowingly failed to adequately 

compensate those Fitness Instructors within the class definition identified above for wages due, 

including minimum wage and overtime, under California Labor Code §§ 200, et seq. and 

applicable California Wage Orders, thereby enjoying a significant competitive edge over other 

companies within its industry. 

31. Moreover, Defendant has failed to provide the Plaintiff Class with net ten minute 

rest periods for work shifts exceeding four hours or a major fraction thereof, and has failed to 

provide uninterrupted, unrestricted meal periods of at least 30 minutes for work shifts exceeding 

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 22 of 39
-10- 

Second Amended Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Restitution 

28022281v.1 

SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

THE WACHOVIA TOWER 

1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR 

OAKLAND, CA 94612 

TEL: (510) 891-9800 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

five hours. Defendant did not compensate the Representative Plaintiffs, as Fitness Instructors 

entitled to statutorily-mandated meal and rest periods, for any missed or interrupted meal or rest 

periods. Representative Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, on that basis, allege that 

Defendant also did not compensate Class Members, Fitness Instructors entitled to statutorilymandated meal and rest periods, for missed or interrupted meal or rest periods. 

32. Even upon the termination or resignation of the employment of Representative 

Plaintiffs and numerous other Class Members during the Class Period, MediFit declined to pay 

these wages, in blatant violation of California Labor Code §§ 201 and/or 202. 

33. Moreover, according to Defendant’s policies, Representative Plaintiffs and Class 

Members were required to incur business expenses related to the operations of Defendant. 

34. Moreover, California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202 require MediFit to pay all 

wages due to members of the Class immediately upon discharge. California Labor Code § 203 

provides that, if an employer willfully fails to timely pay such wages, the employer must, as a 

penalty, continue to pay the subject employees’ wages until the back wages are paid in full or an 

action is commenced, for a period not to exceed 30 days of wages. 

35. Furthermore, despite its knowledge of the Representative Plaintiffs’ and the Class 

Members’ entitlement to pay for all work performed, MediFit violated California Labor Code 

§ 1174(d) by failing to provide or require the use, maintenance or submission of time records by 

members of the Class that reflect all hours worked thereby. The time records Defendant 

maintained during the Class did not accurately reflect all hours actually worked by the 

Representative Plaintiffs and the Class Members. 

36. Finally, MediFit failed to provide Representative Plaintiffs and members of the 

Class with accurate semi-monthly itemized wage statements of the total number of hours worked 

by each, and all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period, in violation of California 

Labor Code § 226. In so doing, Defendant has not only failed to pay its workers the full amount 

of compensation due, it has, until now, effectively shielded itself from its employees’ scrutiny 

for its unlawful conduct by concealing the magnitude (the full number of hours worked) and the 

financial impact of its wrongdoing. 

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 23 of 39
-11- 

Second Amended Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Restitution 

28022281v.1 

SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

THE WACHOVIA TOWER 

1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR 

OAKLAND, CA 94612 

TEL: (510) 891-9800 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

37. Representative Plaintiffs and all persons similarly situated who comprise the 

Class are entitled to unpaid compensation, yet, to date, have not received such compensation, 

despite the severance of their employment with MediFit. 

38. More than 30 days have passed since certain Class Members, the Representative 

Plaintiffs included, have left MediFit’s employ. 

39. As a consequence of MediFit’s willful conduct in not paying compensation for all 

hours worked, certain Class Members are entitled to 30 days wages as a penalty, pursuant to 

California Labor Code § 203, together with attorneys’ fees and costs. 

40. As a direct and proximate result of MediFit’s unlawful conduct, as set forth 

herein, Representative Plaintiffs and members of the Class identified herein have sustained 

damages, as described above, including loss of earnings for hours worked on behalf of 

Defendant, missed meal periods, and missed rest periods, in an amount to be established at trial. 

As a further direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, as set forth herein, 

Representative Plaintiffs and many Class Members herein are entitled to recover “waiting time” 

penalties/wages (pursuant to California Labor Code § 203) and penalties for failure to provide 

semi-monthly statements of hours worked and all applicable hourly rates (pursuant to California 

Labor Code § 226) in an amount to be established at trial. As a further direct and proximate 

result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, as set forth herein, Representative Plaintiffs and Class 

Members are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to the California Labor Code 

and/or California Civil Code § 1021.5, among other authorities. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

UNLAWFUL FAILURE TO PAY WAGES 

(Labor Code §§ 200 et seq., 510, 1194 and 1198) 

41. Representative Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action each and every 

allegation of the preceding paragraphs, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth 

herein. 

42. During the Class Period, Representative Plaintiffs and the Class Members 

frequently worked in excess of eight hours in a workday and/or forty hours in a workweek. For 

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 24 of 39
-12- 

Second Amended Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Restitution 

28022281v.1 

SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

THE WACHOVIA TOWER 

1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR 

OAKLAND, CA 94612 

TEL: (510) 891-9800 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

example, Representative Plaintiff Flores estimates that he worked approximately 14 hours of 

overtime per week as a Fitness Instructor for Defendant during the Class Period. Similarly, 

Representative Plaintiff Ferraris estimates that she worked approximately 2-3 hours per week 

off-the-clock without compensation. The precise number of overtime/uncompensated hours will 

be proven at trial. 

43. During said time period, MediFit refused to compensate Representative Plaintiffs 

and the Class Members for some and/or all of the wages (including overtime wages) earned, in 

violation of the applicable California Wage Order, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations 

and the provisions of the California Labor Code. Despite working in excess of eight hours in a 

workday and over forty hours in a workweek on numerous occasions, Representative Plaintiffs 

were not provided overtime wages by Defendant. Representative Plaintiffs are informed and 

believe and, on that basis, allege that Defendant consistently fails to provide overtime wages to 

Class Members. 

44. At all relevant times, MediFit was aware of, and was under a duty to comply with 

the wage and overtime provisions of the California Labor Code, including, but not limited to 

California Labor Code §§ 200, et seq., 510, 1194 and 1198. 

45. By refusing to properly compensate Representative Plaintiffs and the Class 

Members for wages earned (either at these Class Members’ regular rate of pay and/or at their 

applicable overtime rates) and/or at a level sufficient to satisfy California’s minimum wage 

provisions, MediFit violated the California Labor Code, as well as Title 8 of the California Code 

of Regulations and the applicable IWC Wage Order. 

46. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, as set forth 

herein, Representative Plaintiffs and the Class Members have sustained damages, including loss 

of earnings for hours worked, including overtime hours worked, on behalf of Defendant, in an 

amount to be established at trial, and are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs of suit. 

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 25 of 39
-13- 

Second Amended Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Restitution 

28022281v.1 

SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

THE WACHOVIA TOWER 

1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR 

OAKLAND, CA 94612 

TEL: (510) 891-9800 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO REIMBURSE EXPENSES AND/OR PROHIBITED CASH BOND 

(California Labor Code §§ 406 and 2802) 

47. Representative Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action each and every 

allegation of the preceding paragraphs, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth 

herein. 

48. During the Class Period, MediFit required the Representative Plaintiffs and 

members of the Class to incur expenses related to the business operations of Defendant. These 

expenses include(d), without limitation, costs related to travel, continuing education and/or 

fitness certification, licenses, materials, and equipment used in exercise instruction sessions. For 

example, Representative Plaintiffs were required by Defendant to obtain certifications and 

continuing education credits, including, inter alia, group fitness instructor certification, personal 

trainer certification, class certifications, and various continuing education credits for work 

performance as Fitness Instructors. These certifications and credits were obtained through 

classes, courses, and programs paid for by Representative Plaintiffs. In order to obtain these 

certifications and credits, Representative Plaintiffs traveled to classes and conventions, on their 

own expense. Representative Plaintiffs were also required to provide, and pay for, music for the 

classes and sessions they facilitated for Defendant as Fitness Instructors, as well as various other 

equipment. 

49. These expenditures were incurred in direct consequence of the discharge of the 

duties of Representative Plaintiffs and members of the Class, or of their obedience to the 

directions of the employer and have not yet been reimbursed by Defendant. 

50. At all relevant times, MediFit was aware of and was under a duty to comply with 

various provisions of the California Labor Code, including, but not necessarily limited to §§ 406 

and 2802(a). 

51. California Labor Code § 406 provides: 

Any property put up by an employee, or applicant as a part of the contract 

of employment, directly or indirectly, shall be deemed to be put up as a 

bond and is subject to the provisions of this article whether the property is 

put up on a note or as a loan or an investment and regardless of the 

wording of the agreement under which it is put up. 

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 26 of 39
-14- 

Second Amended Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Restitution 

28022281v.1 

SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

THE WACHOVIA TOWER 

1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR 

OAKLAND, CA 94612 

TEL: (510) 891-9800 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

52. California Labor Code § 2802(a) provides: 

An employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary 

expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of 

the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the 

directions of the employer, even though unlawful, unless the employee, at 

the time of obeying the directions, believed them to be unlawful. 

53. By requiring the Representative Plaintiffs and members of the Class to incur 

uncompensated expenses in direct consequence of the discharge of their duties, Representative 

Plaintiffs and members of the Class were forced and/or brought to contribute to the capital and 

expenses of Defendant’s business which is legally a cash bond and which must be refunded by 

Defendant to each Class Member. 

54. California Labor Code § 2802 (b) and (c) provides for interest at the statutory post 

judgment rate of ten percent simple interest per annum from the date of the expenditure, plus 

attorneys’ fees to collect reimbursement. 

55. Therefore, Representative Plaintiffs demand reimbursement for expenditures or 

losses incurred by themselves and other members of the Class in direct consequence of the 

discharge of their duties, or of their obedience to the directions of the employer, plus return of all 

cash bonds or other coerced investments in the business of Defendant, with interest, at the 

statutory rate, plus attorneys’ fees. 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL AND REST PERIODS 

(California Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512)

56. Representative Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action each and every 

allegation of the preceding paragraphs, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth 

herein. 

57. At all relevant times, Defendant was aware of and was under a duty to comply 

with California Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512. 

58. California Labor Code §226.7 provides: 

(a) No employer shall require any employee to work during any meal 

or rest period mandated by an applicable order of the Industrial 

Welfare Commission. 

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 27 of 39
-15- 

Second Amended Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Restitution 

28022281v.1 

SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

THE WACHOVIA TOWER 

1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR 

OAKLAND, CA 94612 

TEL: (510) 891-9800 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

(b) If an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period or rest 

period in accordance with an applicable order of the Industrial 

Welfare Commission, the employer shall pay the employee one 

additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of 

compensation for each work day that the meal or rest period is not 

provided. 

59. Moreover, California Labor Code § 512 provides: 

An employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more 

than five hours per day without providing the employee with a meal 

period of not less than 30 minutes, except that if the total work period 

per day of the employee is no more than six hours, the meal period may 

be waived by mutual consent of both the employer and employee. An 

employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more than 

10 hours per day without providing the employee with a second meal 

period of not less than 30 minutes, except that if the total hours worked 

is no more than 12 hours, the second meal period may be waived by 

mutual consent of the employer and the employee only if the first meal 

period was not waived. 

60. By failing to consistently provide uninterrupted and unrestricted meal and rest 

periods to Representative Plaintiffs and Class Members, Defendant violated California Labor 

Code §§ 226.7 and/or 512, and §§ 11 and 12 of the applicable IWC Wage Order. 

61. Section 11 of the applicable Wage Order provides: 

a. No employer shall employ any person for a work period of more than five 

(5) hours without a meal period of not less than 30 minutes .... 

b. An employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more than 

ten (10) hours per day without providing the employee with a second meal 

period of not less than 30 minutes .... 

c. If an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period in accordance 

with the applicable provisions of this order, the employer shall pay the 

employee one (1) hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of 

compensation for each workday that the meal period is not provided. 

62. Moreover, Section 12 of the applicable Wage Order provides: 

a. Every employer shall authorize and permit all employees to take rest 

periods, which insofar as practicable shall be in the middle of each work 

period. The authorized rest period time shall be based on the total hours 

worked daily at the rate of ten (10) minutes net rest time per four (4) hours 

or major fraction thereof .... 

b. If an employer fails to provide an employee a rest period in accordance 

with the applicable provisions of this order, the employer shall pay the 

employee one (1) hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of 

compensation for each workday that the rest period is not provided. 

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 28 of 39
-16- 

Second Amended Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Restitution 

28022281v.1 

SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

THE WACHOVIA TOWER 

1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR 

OAKLAND, CA 94612 

TEL: (510) 891-9800 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

63. Defendant consistently failed to provide Representative Plaintiffs and Class 

Members with meal and rest periods compliant to the relevant laws described above. 

Representative Plaintiffs consistently did not receive compliant meal and rest periods during the 

Class Period. Representative Plaintiffs believe, and therefore allege, that the other Class 

Members share a similar experience. By failing to consistently (1) provide meal periods within 

the first five hours of a work shift, (2) provide uninterrupted thirty-minute meal periods, and/or 

(3) authorize and permit ten-minute rest periods to Representative Plaintiffs and Class Members, 

Defendant violated the California Labor Code and §§ 11 and 12 of the applicable IWC Wage 

Order. 

64. Even where Defendant’s records specifically evidence that no meal and/or rest 

periods were provided to Representative Plaintiffs and Class Members, Defendant refuses to 

provide these employees with one hour of compensation for these respective violations as 

mandated by California law. Specifically, Defendant never paid the one hour of compensation 

for failing to provide meal and rest periods compliant to the relevant laws described above to the 

Representative Plaintiffs as Fitness Instructors entitled to compliant meal and rest periods. 

Further, Representative Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, on that basis, allege that 

Defendant has never paid the one hour of compensation to any Class Member for failing to 

provide them with meal and rest periods compliant to the relevant laws described above that they 

are entitled to as Fitness Instructors. 

65. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, as set forth 

herein, Representative Plaintiffs and Class Members have sustained damages, including lost 

compensation resulting from missed meal and/or rest periods, in an amount to be established at 

trial. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, as set forth 

herein, certain Class Members are entitled to recover “waiting time” and other penalties, in an 

amount to be established at trial, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs, and restitution, pursuant to 

statute. 

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 29 of 39
-17- 

Second Amended Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Restitution 

28022281v.1 

SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

THE WACHOVIA TOWER 

1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR 

OAKLAND, CA 94612 

TEL: (510) 891-9800 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE ITEMIZED WAGE STATEMENTS 

(California Labor Code §§ 226 and 1174) 

66. Representative Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action each and every 

allegation of the preceding paragraphs, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth 

herein. 

67. California Labor Code § 226(a) provides: 

Each employer shall semimonthly, or at the time of each payment of 

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

the check, draft or voucher paying the employee’s wages, or separately 

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

statement in writing showing: (1) gross wages earned; (2) total number of 

hours worked by each employee whose compensation is based on an 

hourly wage; (3) all deductions; provided, that all deductions made on 

written orders of the employee may be aggregated and shown as one item; 

(4) net wages earned; (5) the inclusive date of the period for which the 

employee is paid; (6) the name of the employee and his or her social 

security number; and (7) the name and address of the legal entity which is 

the employer. 

68. The IWC Wage Orders also establish this requirement in § 7(B) thereof (8 Cal. 

Code Regs. § 11010, et seq.). 

69. Moreover, California Labor Code § 226(e) provides: 

An employee suffering injury as a result of a knowing and intentional 

failure by an employer to comply with subdivision (a) is entitled to 

recover the greater of all actual damages or fifty dollars ($50) for the 

initial pay period in which a violation occurs and one hundred dollars 

($100) per employee for each violation in a subsequent pay period, not 

exceeding an aggregate penalty of four thousand dollars ($4,000), and is 

entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney's fees 

70. Finally, California Labor Code § 1174 provides: 

Every person employing labor in this state shall: (d) Keep, at a central 

location in the state...payroll records showing the hours worked daily by 

and the wages paid to...employees.... These records shall be kept in 

accordance with rules established for this purpose by the commission, but 

in any case shall be kept on file for not less than two years. 

71. Representative Plaintiffs seek to recover actual damages, costs and attorneys’ fees 

under these provisions on behalf of themselves and the Class. 

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 30 of 39
-18- 

Second Amended Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Restitution 

28022281v.1 

SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

THE WACHOVIA TOWER 

1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR 

OAKLAND, CA 94612 

TEL: (510) 891-9800 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

72. MediFit failed to provide timely, accurate itemized wage statements to 

Representative Plaintiffs and the Class in accordance with Labor Code § 226(a) and the 

applicable IWC Wage Order. Because Defendant failed to provide Representative Plaintiffs and 

Class Members with wages for all hours worked, including overtime wages, and meal and rest 

period penalty payments, improperly accounted the hours Representative Plaintiffs and Class 

Members performed work for Defendant as Fitness Instructors, and also failed to reimburse them 

for business expenses, none of the statements provided by Defendant have accurately 

and/or completely reflected actual gross wages earned, net wages earned, or the appropriate 

deductions of such Class Members. 

73. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, as set forth 

herein, Representative Plaintiffs and the Class Members have sustained damages in an amount to 

be established at trial, and are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs of suit. 

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO PAY WAGES ON TERMINATION 

(California Labor Code § 203) 

74. Representative Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action each and every 

allegation of the preceding paragraphs, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth 

herein. 

75. California Labor Code § 203 provides that: 

If an employer willfully fails to pay, without abatement or reduction, in 

accordance with Sections 201, 201.5, 202, and 205.5, any wages of an 

employee who is discharged or who quits, the wages of the employee shall 

continue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid 

or until an action therefore is commenced; but the wages shall not 

continue for more than 30 days. 

76. Representative Plaintiff Flores was employed by MediFit during the Class Period, 

employment which was thereafter severed, on or about September 2013, yet has still not yet been 

paid all wages due for work performed for Defendant as a Fitness Instructor. Likewise, numerous 

Class Members were employed by MediFit during the Class Period, employment which was 

thereafter voluntarily or involuntarily severed, yet were not paid all wages due immediately upon 

the involuntary termination or within seventy-two hours of the voluntary termination of their 

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 31 of 39
-19- 

Second Amended Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Restitution 

28022281v.1 

SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

THE WACHOVIA TOWER 

1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR 

OAKLAND, CA 94612 

TEL: (510) 891-9800 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

respective employment positions with Defendant. Said non-payment and/or untimely payment 

was the direct and proximate result of a willful refusal to do so by MediFit. 

77. More than thirty days has elapsed since Representative Plaintiffs and particular 

Class Members were terminated and/or resigned from Defendant’s employ. 

78. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s willful conduct in failing to pay 

said Class Members for all hours worked, Representative Plaintiffs and certain Class Members 

are entitled to recover “waiting time” penalties of thirty days’ wages, pursuant to California 

Labor Code § 203, in an amount to be established at trial, together with attorneys’ fees and costs. 

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES 

(California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200-17208) 

79. Representative Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action each and every 

allegation of the preceding paragraphs, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth 

herein. 

80. Representative Plaintiffs further bring this cause of action seeking equitable and 

statutory relief to stop the misconduct of MediFit, as complained of herein, and to seek 

restitution from Defendant of amounts acquired through the unfair, unlawful, deceitful and 

fraudulent business practices described herein. 

81. The knowing conduct of Defendant, as alleged herein, constituted and continues 

to constitute an unlawful and/or fraudulent business practice, as set forth in California Business 

& Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. Specifically, Defendant conducted business activities 

while failing to comply with the legal mandates cited herein. 

82. Defendant’s knowing failure to adopt policies in accordance with and/or to adhere 

to these laws, all of which are binding upon and burdensome to Defendant’s competitors, 

engenders an unfair competitive advantage for Defendant, thereby constituting an unfair business 

practice, as set forth in California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200-17208. 

83. MediFit has clearly established a policy of accepting a certain amount of 

collateral damage, as represented by the damages to Representative Plaintiffs and the Class 

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 32 of 39
-20- 

Second Amended Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Restitution 

28022281v.1 

SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

THE WACHOVIA TOWER 

1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR 

OAKLAND, CA 94612 

TEL: (510) 891-9800 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

herein alleged, as incidental to its business operations, rather than accept the alternative costs of 

full compliance with fair, lawful and honest business practices ordinarily borne by responsible 

competitors of Defendant and as set forth in legislation and the judicial record.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGE 

(California Labor Code § 1194) 

84. Representative Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action each and every 

allegation of the preceding paragraphs, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth 

herein. 

85. At all relevant times, Defendant was aware of and was under a duty to comply 

with California Labor Code § 1194 et seq.

86. California Labor Code § 1194(a) in relevant part provides: 

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. 

87. During the Class Period, Defendant employed persons within the Plaintiff Class 

who did not receive the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked on Defendant's behalf. 

Said non-payment was the direct and proximate result of a willful refusal to do so by Defendant. 

Representative Plaintiffs, for example, did not receive any compensation whatsoever from 

Defendant for periods during which they did not conduct a personal training session or group 

fitness class despite performing other duties for Defendant as Fitness Instructors, including, inter 

alia, completing paperwork, responding to electronic mail messages, following up with clients, 

and corresponding with other employees. 

88. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's unlawful conduct, as set forth 

herein, certain Class Members have sustained damages, including loss of earnings for hours 

worked on behalf of Defendant, in an amount to be established at trial, and are entitled to recover 

attorneys’ fees and costs of suit. 

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 33 of 39
-21- 

Second Amended Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Restitution 

28022281v.1 

SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

THE WACHOVIA TOWER 

1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR 

OAKLAND, CA 94612 

TEL: (510) 891-9800 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT CLAIM 

(California Labor Code §§ 2699) 

89. Representative Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action each and every 

allegation of the preceding paragraphs, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth 

herein. 

90. California Labor Code § 2699(a) states: 

Notwithstanding any other provision of the 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... 

91. Representative Plaintiff Ferraris, and each and every other Class Member, are 

“aggrieved employees,” as defined by California Labor Code § 2699(c), because they were 

employed by Defendant and were some of many employees against whom violations of law were 

committed. 

92. Plaintiff has met and/or will meet all of the requirements set forth in California 

Labor Code § 2699.3 necessary to maintain a civil action against Defendant for violations of 

(and/or recovery under) California Labor Code §§ 200-204, inclusive, 226, 226.7, 400-410, 

inclusive, 510, 512, 1174, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1198 and 2802. 

93. Representative Plaintiff Ferraris brings this action on behalf of herself and all 

Class Members alleging violations of the California Labor Code sections cited in the preceding 

paragraph. 

94. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, as set forth 

herein, Representative Plaintiff Ferraris and Class Members are entitled to recover various 

penalties as provided by California Labor Code § 2699, in an amount to be established at trial, as 

well as costs and attorneys’ fees, pursuant to statute. 

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 34 of 39
-22- 

Second Amended Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Restitution 

28022281v.1 

SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

THE WACHOVIA TOWER 

1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR 

OAKLAND, CA 94612 

TEL: (510) 891-9800 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT CLAIM 

(29 U.S.C. § 216(b)) 

95. Representative Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action each and every 

allegation of the preceding paragraphs with the same force and effect as though fully set forth 

herein. 

96. At all relevant times hereto, Defendant has been, and is, an employer engaged in 

commerce, as defined under 29 U.S.C. §203(b) and (d). As such, Defendant employed the FLSA 

Class Members as fitness instructors. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant has been an 

“enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce,” as defined under 

29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1). 

97. Representative Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that 

Defendant has required, or requires, the FLSA Class Members as part of their employment to 

work without additional compensation, such as overtime, in excess of the forty hours per week 

maximum under 29 U.S.C. §207(a)(1). That Section provides the following: 

Except as otherwise provided in this section, no employer shall employ any of his 

employees.. .for a workweek longer than forty hours unless such employee 

receives compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above specified 

at a rate which is not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he 

is employed. 

98. Representative Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon, allege that 

Defendant has required and/or requires the FLSA Class Members, as part of their employment, 

to work without compensation for all hours worked, to work beyond forty hours per week 

without the payment of overtime compensation therefor and/or to work at a wage less than the 

minimum wage, pursuant to, inter alia, 29 U.S.C. §206 and 207(a)(1). 

99. Indeed, in the performance of their duties for Defendant, the FLSA Class 

Members often did work over forty hours per week, yet did not receive overtime compensation 

for the work, labor and services they provided to Defendant, as required by the FLSA. The 

precise number of unpaid overtime hours will be proven at trial. 

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 35 of 39
-23- 

Second Amended Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Restitution 

28022281v.1 

SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

THE WACHOVIA TOWER 

1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR 

OAKLAND, CA 94612 

TEL: (510) 891-9800 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

100. Representative Plaintiffs propose to undertake appropriate proceedings to have 

the FLSA Class Members aggrieved by Defendant’s unlawful conduct notified of the pendency 

of this action and given the opportunity to join this action as plaintiffs, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 

§216(b), by filing written consents to joinder with the Court. 

101. Defendant’s violations of the FLSA were willful and are ongoing. 

102. As a result of the foregoing, Representative Plaintiffs seek judgment against 

Defendant on their own behalf, and on behalf of those FLSA Class Members similarly situated 

who file written consents to joinder in this action, for all unpaid wages, including overtime 

wages owed by Defendant to the Representative Plaintiffs and Class Members, pursuant to 29 

U.S.C. §206 and 207, together with an award of an additional equal amount as liquidated 

damages, and costs, interests, and reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to, inter alia, 29 

U.S.C.§216(b). 

RELIEF SOUGHT

WHEREFORE, the Representative Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the 

Plaintiff Class, pray for judgment and the following specific relief against Defendants, jointly 

and separately, as follows:

1. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that this action is a proper class action 

and certify the proposed class under Federal Rule of Civil Proedure 23; 

2. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendant violated the wage and 

overtime provisions of the California Labor Code and the applicable California Industrial 

Welfare Commission Wage Order as to the Representative Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class, as 

applicable; 

3. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendant willfully violated its 

legal duties to pay wages, including overtime wages and/or the applicable minimum wage, under 

the California Labor Code and the applicable California IWC Wage Order; 

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 36 of 39
-24- 

Second Amended Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Restitution 

28022281v.1 

SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

THE WACHOVIA TOWER 

1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR 

OAKLAND, CA 94612 

TEL: (510) 891-9800 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendant violated California 

Labor Code §§ 406 and 2802(a), inter alia, by willfully failing to reimburse the Representative 

Plaintiffs and Class Members for expenses incurred on behalf of Defendant; 

5. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendant violated the record 

keeping provisions of California Labor Code §§ 226(a) and 1174(d) and section 7 of the 

applicable IWC Wage Order as to Representative Plaintiffs and members of the Class, and 

willfully failed to provide accurate semi-monthly itemized wage statements thereto; 

6. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendant violated California 

Labor Code § 203 by willfully failing to pay all compensation owed at the time of the 

termination of the employment of Representative Plaintiffs and other terminated Class Members 

or within the statutorily-permitted grace period for payment of said wages; 

7. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendant violated California 

Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq., by failing to pay Representative Plaintiffs and 

Class Members all wages due, in a timely manner and/or by failing to provide Class Members 

with accurate and complete itemized wage statements; 

8. That the Court make an award to the Representative Plaintiffs and the Class of 

damages and/or restitution for the amount of unpaid wages, including minimum wages and/or 

overtime compensation, including interest thereon, and penalties in an amount to be proven at 

trial; 

9. That the Court make an award to the Representative Plaintiffs and the Class for 

reimbursement of all employer related expenses incurred by said Class Members; 

10. That the Court make an award to the Representative Plaintiffs and Class Members 

of one hour of wages at each employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday a meal 

period was not provided; 

11. That the Court make an award to the Representative Plaintiffs and Class Members 

of one hour of wages at each employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday a rest 

period was not authorized and permitted; 

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 37 of 39
-25- 

Second Amended Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Restitution 

28022281v.1 

SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

THE WACHOVIA TOWER 

1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR 

OAKLAND, CA 94612 

TEL: (510) 891-9800 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

12. That the Court order Defendant to pay restitution to Representative Plaintiffs and 

the Class due to Defendant’s unlawful activities, pursuant to California Business and Professions 

Code §§ 17200-08; 

13. That the Court further enjoin Defendant, ordering it to cease and desist from 

unlawful activities in violation of California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.; 

14. For all other Orders, findings and determinations identified and sought in this 

Complaint; 

15. For Interest on the amount of all economic losses, at the prevailing legal rate; 

16. That the Court declare, adjudge, and decree that this action is a proper 

representative action pursuant to California Labor Code section 2699; 

17. That the Court make an award to Plaintiff Ferraris and Aggrieved Employees of 

civil penalties for violations of the Labor Code, pursuant to Labor Code section 2699; 

18. For reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 1194 and 

2699(g) and/or California Civil Code § 1021.5; and 

19. For costs of suit and any and all such other relief as the Court deems just and 

proper. 

Dated: July 12, 2016 SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC

By: /s/ Scott Edward Cole 

 Scott Edward Cole, Esq. 

 Attorneys for the Representative Plaintiffs 

and the Plaintiff Class 

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 38 of 39
-26- 

Second Amended Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Restitution 

28022281v.1 

SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

THE WACHOVIA TOWER 

1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR 

OAKLAND, CA 94612 

TEL: (510) 891-9800 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

JURY DEMAND

Representative Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Plaintiff Class, hereby demand 

a trial by jury. 

Dated: July 12, 2016 SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC

By: /s/ Scott Edward Cole 

 Scott Edward Cole, Esq. 

 Attorneys for the Representative Plaintiffs 

and the Plaintiff Class 

Case 3:15-cv-03423-WHO Document 46 Filed 07/22/16 Page 39 of 39