Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05547/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05547-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

TO GRANT PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 3:14-CV-05547 (EMC)

WGM_TRAILER

GARY D. FRIEDMAN (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

gary.friedman@weil.com

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES, LLP

767 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10153

Telephone: (212) 310-8000

Facsimile: (212) 310-8007

CHRISTOPHER J. COX (Bar No. 151650)

chris.cox@weil.com

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES, LLP

201 Redwood Shores Parkway

Redwood Shores, CA 94065

Telephone: (650) 802-3029

Facsimile: (650) 802-3100

Attorneys for Defendant

TUESDAY MORNING, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

CYNTHIA MCMAHON, on behalf of 

herself, all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

TUESDAY MORNING, INC., a Texas 

corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:14-cv-05547 (EMC)

(Removed from Contra Costa Superior Court 

Case No. C-14-02113)

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER TO GRANT PLAINTIFF 

LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT FOR SETTLEMENT 

PURPOSES

Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen

Case 3:14-cv-05547-EMC Document 83 Filed 02/24/17 Page 1 of 16 Case 3:14-cv-05547-EMC Document 73 Filed 01/26/17 Page 1 of 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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

TO GRANT PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 CASE NO. 3:14-CV-05547 (EMC)

Defendant Tuesday Morning, Inc. (“Defendant”) and Plaintiff Cynthia McMahon 

(“Plaintiff”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel of record, 

hereby stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, on December 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed her Notice of Motion and Motion for 

Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (ECF No. 63);

WHEREAS, pursuant to this Court’s December 7, 2016 Order re Supplemental Briefing 

(ECF No. 66), the Parties submitted the Joint Supplemental Brief in Response to the Court’s 

December 7, 2016 Order With Respect to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class 

Action Settlement (ECF No. 69), which, in part, informed the Court that the Parties will file the 

instant Stipulation proposing an amendment to the operative complaint for settlement purposes to 

clarify the inclusion of a PAGA claim in the instant action;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that Plaintiff may 

file the [Proposed] First Amended Complaint, which is attached as Exhibit 1 to this Stipulation. 

The [Proposed] First Amended Complaint will be deemed filed and served as of the date on the 

Order granting this Stipulation.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Respectfully submitted,

DATED: January 26, 2017 WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP

By: /s/ Gary D. Friedman 

Gary D. Friedman (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

Attorneys for Defendant

TUESDAY MORNING, INC.

Case 3:14-cv-05547-EMC Document 83 Filed 02/24/17 Page 2 of 16 Case 3:14-cv-05547-EMC Document 73 Filed 01/26/17 Page 2 of 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 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

TO GRANT PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

2 CASE NO. 3:14-CV-05547 (EMC)

DATED: January 26, 2017 SETAREH LAW GROUP

By: /s/ Shaun Setareh 

Shaun Setareh

Attorneys for Plaintiff

CYNTHIA MCMAHON

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the filer attests that concurrence in the filing of 

this document has been obtained from each of the above signatories.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: By:

The Honorable Edward M. Chen

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05547-EMC Document 73 Filed 01/26/17 Page 3 of 3

2/24/17

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Edward M. Chen

Case 3:14-cv-05547-EMC Document 83 Filed 02/24/17 Page 3 of 16
EXHIBIT A 

Case 3:14-cv-05547-EMC Document 73-1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 1 of 13 Case 3:14-cv-05547-EMC Document 83 Filed 02/24/17 Page 4 of 16
McMahon v. Tuesday Morning, Inc., et al. First Amended Class Action Complaint

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

Shaun Setareh (SBN 204514)

shaun@setarehlaw.com

Thomas Segal (SBN 222791)

thomas@setarehlaw.com

SETAREH LAW GROUP

9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907

Beverly Hills, California 90212

Telephone: (310) 888-7771

Facsimile: (310) 888-0109

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

CNYTHIA MCMAHON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

CYNTHIA MCMAHON, on behalf of herself, 

all others similarly situated, and the general 

public,

Plaintiff,

vs.

TUESDAY MORNING, INC., a Texas 

corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:14-cv-05547 (EMC)

CLASS ACTION

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR:

1. Failure to Provide Rest Periods (Lab. 

Code §§ 204, 223, 226.7, and 1198); 

2. Failure to Timely Pay All Final Wages 

(Lab. Code §§ 201-203);

3. Unfair Competition (Bus. & Prof. Code 

§§ 17200, et seq.); 

4. Civil Penalties (Lab. Code §§ 2698, et 

seq.).

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 3:14-cv-05547-EMC Document 73-1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 2 of 13 Case 3:14-cv-05547-EMC Document 83 Filed 02/24/17 Page 5 of 16
1

McMahon v. Tuesday Morning, Inc., et al. First Amended Class Action Complaint

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

Plaintiff, CYNTHIA MCMAHON (hereafter “Plaintiff”), on behalf of herself, all others 

similarly situated, and the general public, complains and alleges as follows: 

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff brings this class and representative action against defendant TUESDAY 

MORNING, INC., a Texas corporation and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive (hereafter 

“Defendants”) for alleged violations of the Labor and Business and Professions Codes. As set 

forth below, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to provide them with rest periods, 

failed to pay premium wages for unprovided rest periods, and failed to pay for all wages upon 

termination. Based on these alleged Labor Code violations, Plaintiff now brings this class and 

representative action to recover unpaid wages, restitution, and related relief on behalf of herself,

all others similarly situated, and the general public. 

2. Venue is proper in this forum because Defendant has numerous and substantial 

contacts with the Northern District, including multiple store locations in Northern California 

which employ class members. 

PARTIES

A. Plaintiff

3. Plaintiff worked for Defendants in an hourly position in a retail store during all 

relevant time periods.

B. Defendants

4. Defendant Tuesday Morning, Inc. is a Texas corporation authorized to do 

business in California. 

5. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names, capacities, relationships, and extent of 

participation in the conduct alleged herein, of the Defendants sued as Does 1-50, inclusive, but 

is informed and believes that said Defendants are legally responsible for the conduct alleged 

herein and therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this 

complaint to allege both the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants when ascertained.

6. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each Defendant acted in all respects 

pertinent to this action as the agent of the other Defendants, carried out a joint scheme, business 

Case 3:14-cv-05547-EMC Document 73-1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 3 of 13 Case 3:14-cv-05547-EMC Document 83 Filed 02/24/17 Page 6 of 16
2

McMahon v. Tuesday Morning, Inc., et al. First Amended Class Action Complaint

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

plan or policy in all respects pertinent hereto, and that the acts of each Defendant are legally 

attributable to each of the other Defendants. 

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

7. This action has been brought and may be maintained as a class action pursuant to 

Code of Civil Procedure § 382 because there is a well-defined community of interest among the 

persons who comprise the readily ascertainable classes defined below and because Plaintiff is 

unaware of any difficulties likely to be encountered in managing this case as a class action.

8. Relevant Time Period: The relevant time period is defined as the time period 

beginning four years prior to the filing of this action until judgment is entered.

9. The class and subclass members are defined as follows: 

Rest Break Class: All hourly employees of Defendants in California who 

worked a shift in excess of 3.5 hours during the Relevant Time Period.

Wage Statement Penalties Class: All Hourly Employee Class members 

employed by Defendants in California during the period beginning one 

year before the filing of this action and ending when final judgment is 

entered.

Waiting Time Penalties Class: All Rest Break Class members who 

separated from their employment with Defendants during the period 

beginning three years before the filing of this action and ending when final 

judgment is entered. 

UCL Class: All Rest Break Class members employed by Defendants in 

California during the Relevant Time Period.

10. Reservation of Rights: Pursuant to Rule of Court 3.765(b), Plaintiff reserves the 

right to amend or modify the class definitions with greater specificity, by further division into 

subclasses, and/or by limitation to particular issues. 

11. Numerosity: The class members are so numerous that the individual joinder of 

each individual class member is impractical. While Plaintiff does not currently know the exact 

number of class members, Plaintiff is informed and believes that the actual number exceeds the 

minimum required for numerosity under California law. 

12. Commonality and Predominance: Common questions of law and fact exist as 

Case 3:14-cv-05547-EMC Document 73-1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 4 of 13 Case 3:14-cv-05547-EMC Document 83 Filed 02/24/17 Page 7 of 16
3

McMahon v. Tuesday Morning, Inc., et al. First Amended Class Action Complaint

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

to all class members and predominate over any questions which affect only individual class 

members. These questions include, but are not limited to:

A. Have Defendants maintained a policy or practice of failing to provide 

employees with their rest breaks?

B. Have Defendants failed to pay additional wages to class members when 

they have not been provided with required rest periods? 

C. Have Defendants applied policies or practices that result in late and/or 

incomplete final wage payments?

D. Are Defendants liable to class members for waiting time penalties under 

Labor Code § 203?

E. Are class members entitled to restitution of money or property that 

Defendants may have acquired from them through unfair competition? 

13. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the other class members’ claims. 

Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants have a policy or practice 

of failing to comply with the Labor Code and the Business and Professions Code as alleged 

herein. 

14. Adequacy of Class Representative: Plaintiff is an adequate class representative 

in that she has no interests that are adverse to, or otherwise conflict with, the interests of absent 

class members and is dedicated to vigorously prosecuting this action on their behalf. Plaintiff 

will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the other class members. 

15. Adequacy of Class Counsel: Plaintiff’s counsel are adequate class counsel in 

that they have no known conflicts of interest with Plaintiff or absent class members, are 

experienced in wage and hour class action litigation, and are dedicated to vigorously 

prosecuting this action on behalf of Plaintiff and absent class members.

16. Superiority: A class action is vastly superior to other available means for fair 

and efficient adjudication of the class members’ claims and would be beneficial to the parties 

and the Court. Class action treatment will allow a number of similarly situated persons to 

simultaneously and efficiently prosecute their common claims in a single forum without the 

Case 3:14-cv-05547-EMC Document 73-1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 5 of 13 Case 3:14-cv-05547-EMC Document 83 Filed 02/24/17 Page 8 of 16
4

McMahon v. Tuesday Morning, Inc., et al. First Amended Class Action Complaint

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

unnecessary duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual actions would entail. In 

addition, the monetary amounts due to many individual class members are likely to be relatively 

small and would thus make it difficult, if not impossible, for individual class members to both 

seek and obtain relief. Moreover, a class action will serve an important public interest by 

permitting class members to effectively pursue the recovery of moneys owed to them. Further, a 

class action will prevent the potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments inherent in 

individual litigation. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST PERIODS

(Lab. Code §§ 204, 223, 226.7, and 1198)

(Plaintiff and the Rest Break Class)

17. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully 

alleged herein. 

18. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the Rest Break Class members have been 

non-exempt employees of Defendants entitled to the full rest period protections of both the 

Labor Code and the Wage Order. 

19. Section 12 of the Wage Order imposes an affirmative obligation on employers to 

permit and authorize employees to take required rest periods at a rate of no less than ten minutes 

of net rest time for each four hour work period, or major portion thereof, that must be in the 

middle of each work period insofar as is practicable. 

20. Labor Code § 226.7 and Section 12 the Wage Order both prohibit employers 

from requiring employees to work during required rest periods and require employers to pay 

non-exempt employees an hour of premium wages at the employees regular rate of pay, on each 

workday that the employee is not provided with the required rest period.

21. Compensation for missed rest periods constitutes wages within the meaning of 

the California Labor Code § 200.

22. Labor Code § 1198 makes it unlawful to employ a person under conditions that 

violate the Wage Order.

Case 3:14-cv-05547-EMC Document 73-1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 6 of 13 Case 3:14-cv-05547-EMC Document 83 Filed 02/24/17 Page 9 of 16
5

McMahon v. Tuesday Morning, Inc., et al. First Amended Class Action Complaint

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

23. Plaintiff alleges that at relevant times during the applicable limitations period, 

Defendants maintained a policy or practice of not providing members of the Rest Break Class

with net rest periods of a least ten (10) minutes for each four (4) hour work period, or major 

portion thereof, as required by the Wage Order.

24. At all relevant times, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other class members 

additional premium wages when required rest periods were not provided. 

25. Pursuant to Labor Code §§ 204, 218.6, and 226.7, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself, 

Rest Break Class members, seeks to recover unpaid premium wages, interest thereon, and costs 

of suit.

26. Plaintiff does not assert that she missed every single rest break for each and 

every shift that she worked; nor does she necessarily assert or allege that every single Rest 

Break Class member is entitled to premium pay as a result of Defendants conduct.

27. Pursuant to Labor Code § 1194, Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, the 

substantial benefit doctrine, and/or the common fund doctrine, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and 

Rest Break Class members, seeks to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY ALL FINAL WAGES

(Lab. Code §§ 201-203)

(Plaintiff and Waiting Time Penalties Class)

28. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if 

fully alleged herein. 

29. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Waiting Time Penalties Class

members have been entitled, upon the end of their employment with Defendants, to timely 

payment of all wages earned and unpaid before termination or resignation. 

30. At all relevant times, pursuant to Labor Code § 201, employees who have 

been discharged have been entitled to payment of all final wages immediately upon termination. 

31. At all relevant times, pursuant to Labor Code § 202, employees who have 

resigned after giving at least seventy-two (72) hours-notice of resignation have been entitled to 

Case 3:14-cv-05547-EMC Document 73-1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 7 of 13 Case 3:14-cv-05547-EMC Document 83 Filed 02/24/17 Page 10 of 16
6

McMahon v. Tuesday Morning, Inc., et al. First Amended Class Action Complaint

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

payment of all final wages at the time of resignation. 

32. At all relevant times, pursuant to Labor Code § 202, employees who have 

resigned after giving less than seventy-two (72) hours-notice of resignation have been entitled 

to payment of all final wages within seventy-two (72) hours of giving notice of resignation.

33. During the applicable limitations period, Defendants failed to pay 

Plaintiff all of her final wages in accordance with Labor Code § 201 by failing to timely pay her 

all of her final wages. 

34. Plaintiff is informed and believes that, at all relevant times, Defendants 

have failed to timely pay Waiting Time Penalties Class members all of their final wages in 

accordance with Labor Code §§ 201 or 202.

35. Plaintiff is informed and believes that, at all relevant times, Defendants 

have maintained a policy or practice of paying Waiting Time Penalties Class members their 

final wages without regard to the requirements of Labor Code §§ 201 and 202 by failing to 

timely pay them all final wages. 

36. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants’ failures to timely pay 

all final wages to her and Waiting Time Penalties Class members have been willful in that 

Defendants have the ability to pay final wages in accordance with Labor Code §§ 201 and 202 

but have intentionally adopted policies or practice that are incompatible with those 

requirements. 

37. Pursuant to Labor Code §§ 203 and 218.6, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself 

and Waiting Time Penalties Class members, seeks waiting time penalties from the dates that 

their final wages have first become due until paid, up to a maximum of 30 days, and interest 

thereon. 

38. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, the substantial benefit 

doctrine, and/or the common fund doctrine, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and Waiting Time 

Penalties Class members, seeks awards of reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees.

///

///

Case 3:14-cv-05547-EMC Document 73-1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 8 of 13 Case 3:14-cv-05547-EMC Document 83 Filed 02/24/17 Page 11 of 16
7

McMahon v. Tuesday Morning, Inc., et al. First Amended Class Action Complaint

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

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

UNFAIR COMPETITION

(Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.)

(By Plaintiff and UCL Class)

39. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if 

fully alleged herein.

40. Business and Professions Code § 17200 defines “unfair competition” to 

include any unlawful business practice. 

41. Business and Professions Code §§ 17203–17204 allow a person who has 

lost money or property as a result of unfair competition to bring a class action in accordance 

with Code of Civil Procedure § 382 to recover money or property that may have been acquired 

from similarly situated persons by means of unfair competition. 

42. California law requires employers to pay hourly, non-exempt, employees 

for all hours they are permitted or suffered to work, including hours that the employer knows or 

reasonably should know that employees have worked. 

43. Plaintiff and the UCL Class realleges and incorporates by reference the 

FIRST cause of action herein. 

44. Plaintiff lost money or property as a result of the aforementioned unfair 

competition. 

45. Defendants have, or may have, acquired money by means of unfair 

competition.

46. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, by committing the 

Labor Code violations described in this complaint, Defendants violated Labor Code §§ 215, 

216, 225, 226.6, and/or 1199, which make it a misdemeanor to commit the Labor Code 

violations mentioned herein.

47. Defendants have committed criminal conduct through their policies and practices 

of, inter alia, failing to comport with their affirmative obligation on employers.

///

Case 3:14-cv-05547-EMC Document 73-1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 9 of 13 Case 3:14-cv-05547-EMC Document 83 Filed 02/24/17 Page 12 of 16
8

McMahon v. Tuesday Morning, Inc., et al. First Amended Class Action Complaint

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

Wages and Premium Wages

48. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and UCL Class members have been non-exempt 

employees of Defendants and entitled to the full protections of both the Labor Code and the 

Wage Order. 

49. As stated above, Defendants have violated the Labor Code in multiple respects 

with regard to Plaintiff and UCL Class members, including but not limited to failing to pay 

them wages, failing to pay them premium wages.

50. Defendants have, or may have, acquired money or property from UCL Class

members by means of unfair competition in that Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon 

alleges that Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiff and UCL Class members wages and 

premium wages in for missed rest periods.

Relief Sought

51. The unlawful conduct of Defendants alleged herein amounts to and 

constitutes unfair competition within the meaning of Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et 

seq. Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq., protects against unfair competition and 

allows a person who has suffered an injury-in-fact and has lost money or property as a result of 

an unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent business practice to seek restitution on her own behalf and on 

behalf of other similarly situated persons in a class action proceeding. 

52. As a result of Defendants’ violations of the Labor Code as during the 

applicable limitations period as alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered an injury-in-fact and has 

lost money or property in the form of earned wages. Specifically, Plaintiff has lost money or 

property as a result of the aforementioned conduct.

53. Plaintiff is informed and believes that other similarly situated persons 

have been subject to the same unlawful policies or practices of Defendants.

54. Due to its unfair and unlawful business practices in violation of the Labor 

Code as alleged herein, Defendants have gained a competitive advantage over other comparable 

companies doing business in the State of California that comply with their legal obligations 

under the Labor Code.

Case 3:14-cv-05547-EMC Document 73-1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 10 of 13 Case 3:14-cv-05547-EMC Document 83 Filed 02/24/17 Page 13 of 16
9

McMahon v. Tuesday Morning, Inc., et al. First Amended Class Action Complaint

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

55. Pursuant to Business & Professions Code § 17203, Plaintiff, on behalf of 

herself and the other members of the UCL Class, seeks declaratory relief and restitution of all 

monies rightfully belonging to them that Defendants did not pay them or otherwise retained by 

means of its unlawful and unfair business practices. 

56. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, the substantial benefit

doctrine and/or the common fund doctrine, Plaintiff and the other members of the UCL Class 

are entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees in connection with their unfair competition 

claims.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

CIVIL PENALTIES

(Lab. Code §§ 2698, et seq.)

57. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if 

fully alleged herein.

58. During the applicable limitations period, Defendants have violated Labor 

Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 223, 226(a), 226.7, 1198, 1199 and other code sections that 

Plaintiff may have asserted in her formal letter to the California Labor and Workfroce 

Development Agency, dated November 12, 2014. 

59. Labor Code §§ 2699(a) and (g) authorize an aggrieved employee, of 

behalf of herself and other current and former employees, to bring a representative civil action 

to recover civil penalties pursuant to the procedures specified in Labor Code § 2699.3 that may, 

but need not, be brought or maintained as a class action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 

382.

60. Plaintiff, as a former employee against whom Defendants committed one 

or more of the alleged Labor Code violations during the applicable limitations period, is an 

aggrieved employee within the meaning of Labor Code § 2699(c).

61. Plaintiff has complied with the procedures for bringing suit specified in 

Labor Code § 2699.3. 

62. Pursuant to Labor Code §§ 2699(a) and (f), Plaintiff seeks the following 

Case 3:14-cv-05547-EMC Document 73-1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 11 of 13 Case 3:14-cv-05547-EMC Document 83 Filed 02/24/17 Page 14 of 16
10

McMahon v. Tuesday Morning, Inc., et al. First Amended Class Action Complaint

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

civil penalties for Defendants’ violations of Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 223, 226(a), 

226.7, 1198 and 1199:

A. For violations of Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 226.7, 1198, and 1199,

$100 for each employee per pay period for each initial violation and $200

for each employee per pay period for each subsequent violation (penalties

set by Labor Code § 2699(f)(2));

B. For violations of Labor Code § 203, a penalty in an amount not exceeding 

30 days pay as waiting time (penalties set by Labor Code § 256).

C. For violations of Labor Code § 204, $100 for each employee for each 

initial violation that was neither willful nor intentional, $200 for each 

employee, plus 25% of the amount unlawfully withheld from each 

employee, for each initial violation that was either willful or intentional, 

and $200 for each employee, plus 25% of the amount unlawfully 

withheld from each employee, for each subsequent violation, regardless 

of whether the subsequent violation was either willful or intentional 

(penalties set by Labor Code § 210); 

D. For violations of Labor Code § 223, $100 for each employee for each 

initial violation that was neither willful nor intentional, $200 for each 

employee, plus 25% of the amount unlawfully withheld from each 

employee, for each initial violation that was either willful or intentional, 

and $200 for each employee, plus 25% of the amount unlawfully 

withheld from each employee, for each subsequent violation, regardless 

of whether the subsequent violation was either willful or intentional 

(penalties set by Labor Code § 225.5); and

E. For violations of Labor Code § 226(a), if this action is deemed to be an 

initial citation, $250 for each employee for each violation. Alternatively, 

if an initial citation or its equivalent occurred before the filing of this 

action, $1,000 for each employee for each violation (penalties set by 

Case 3:14-cv-05547-EMC Document 73-1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 12 of 13 Case 3:14-cv-05547-EMC Document 83 Filed 02/24/17 Page 15 of 16
11

McMahon v. Tuesday Morning, Inc., et al. First Amended Class Action Complaint

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

Labor Code § 226.3). 

63. Pursuant to Labor Code § 2699(g), Plaintiff seeks awards of reasonable costs and 

attorneys’ fees in connection with her claims for civil penalties.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the 

general public, prays for relief and judgment against Defendants as follows:

A. An order that the action be certified as a class action;

B. An order that Plaintiff be appointed class representative;

C. An order that counsel for Plaintiff be appointed class counsel;

D. Unpaid Wages;

E. Actual Damages;

F. Restitution;

G. Pre-judgment interest;

H. Statutory penalties;

I. Costs of suit; 

J. Reasonable attorneys’ fees; and

K. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, hereby 

demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.

DATED: January 26, 2017 SETAREH LAW GROUP

BY_/s/ Shaun Setareh_________

SHAUN SETAREH

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

CYNTHIA MCMAHON

Case 3:14-cv-05547-EMC Document 73-1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 13 of 13 Case 3:14-cv-05547-EMC Document 83 Filed 02/24/17 Page 16 of 16