Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05986/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05986-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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 

 

Case No. C09-05986PJH

Counsel Of Record On Following Page 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANDREW KING, CLIFFORD SHAW 

AND DEIDRA CULPEPPER on 

behalf of themselves and others 

similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

S & B ENGINEERS AND 

CONSTRUCTORS LTD., a Texas 

Corporation doing business in 

California, and DOES 1 through 50, 

inclusive, 

Defendants. 

Case No. C09-05986PJH 

Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton, Judge 

STIPULATION TO AMEND 

COMPLAINT; ORDER THEREON 

Action Filed: November 19, 2009 

Case 4:09-cv-05986-PJH Document 22 Filed 05/03/10 Page 1 of 32
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 

Case No. C09-05986PJH

ELLYN MOSCOWITZ, Bar No. 129287 

(emoscowitz@moscowitzlaw.com) 

LAW OFFICES OF ELLYN MOSCOWITZ, P.C. 

20 N. Raymond, Suite 240 

Pasadena, CA 91103 

Telephone: 626.568.0200 

Facsimile: 626.568.0210 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

RICHARD N. HILL, Bar No. 083629 

(rhill@littler.com) 

LITTLER MENDELSON 

A Professional Corporation 

650 California Street, 20th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Telephone: 415.433.1940 

Facsimile: 415.399.8490 

DEMERY RYAN, Bar No. 217176 

(dryan@littler.com) 

LITTLER MENDELSON 

A Professional Corporation 

2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90067 

Telephone: 310.553.0308 

Facsimile: 310.553.5583 

Attorneys for Defendant

Case 4:09-cv-05986-PJH Document 22 Filed 05/03/10 Page 2 of 32
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

STIPULATION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) (Amended and 

Supplemental Pleadings) and Local Rule 7-12 (Stipulations), the parties to the 

above-entitled action, by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate as 

follows, subject to the Court’s approval: 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed its Complaint in this matter on November 19, 

2009; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendants have reached a conditional settlement 

agreement which includes a payment to the California Labor & Workforce 

Development Agency (“LWDA”) for penalties under the California Private 

Attorney General Act (“PAGA”, Cal. Labor Code Section 2699 et. seq.); 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs agreed to exhaust all administrative remedies with the 

LWDA, pursuant to Cal. Labor Code Section 2699.3(a), and to amend the 

Complaint to include a claim under PAGA; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies with the 

LWDA by 1) sending written notice via certified mail to the LWDA, pursuant to 

Labor Code § 2699.3(a)(1), on March 22, 2010 (attached hereto as Exhibit A), and 

2) the LWDA notified Plaintiffs that it does not intend to assume jurisdiction over 

the applicable penalty claims, pursuant to Labor Code § 2699.3(a)(2)(A), on April 

19, 2010 (attached hereto as Exhibit B); 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs wish to file an amended complaint in the form of the 

First Amended Class Action Complaint (the “First Amended Complaint”), attached 

hereto as Exhibit C; 

NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to the foregoing, the parties hereby agree and 

stipulate as follows: 

Subject to the Court’s approval of this Stipulation, plaintiffs may file the 

First Amended Complaint attached hereto as Exhibit C. 

Case 4:09-cv-05986-PJH Document 22 Filed 05/03/10 Page 3 of 32
May 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton

Case 4:09-cv-05986-PJH Document 22 Filed 05/03/10 Page 4 of 32
EXHIBIT A 

Case 4:09-cv-05986-PJH Document 22 Filed 05/03/10 Page 5 of 32
LAW OFFICES OF ELLYN MOSCOWITZ, P.C. 

 Principal, All Offices Pasadena

 Ellyn Moscowitz 20 N. Raymond Ave., Suite 240 Adam Luetto 

 Pasadena, California 91103 Erika Gurrola 

 Oakland Tel: (626) 568-0200 ♦ Fax: (626) 568-0210 

 Matthew Kleckner* ____________ 

 M. Cristina Molteni 

 Ken Lau Writer’s email: 

 Yuri Gottesman emoscowitz@moscowitzlaw.com 

 

 *Also Admitted in Ohio 

 

Oakland Office ♦ 1629 Telegraph Avenue, 4th Floor ♦ Oakland, California 94612 ♦ Tel: (510) 899-6240 ♦ Fax: (510) 899-6245 

March 22, 2010 

Via Certified Mail and Email

 

Victoria Bradshaw 

Director, Labor Work Force Development Agency 

801 K Street 

Sacramento, CA. 95814 

Re: Labor Code Private Attorney General Act Notice 

On Behalf of Aggrieved Employees: 

Deidra Culpepper, Andrew King and Clifford Shaw, on 

behalf of themselves and others similarly situated 

 

Against: 

S & B Engineers and Constructors, Ltd. 

Dear Ms. Bradshaw: 

Please consider this a request under Labor Code § 2699.3 that the Labor and Workforce 

Development Agency investigate the violations described below or, alternatively, notify us of its 

intent not to investigate them, so that we may pursue a claim for civil penalties under the Labor 

Code Private Attorney General Act against S & B Engineers and Constructors, Ltd. Our 

office represents the above-named aggrieved employees. They filed a Class Action Unfair 

Competition Act Lawsuit on November 19, 2009, (King, et al. v. S & B Engineers and 

Constructors, Ltd., Case No. C09-05986) alleging violations of the Labor Code and Industrial 

Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order 16-2001 and wish to seek penalties in the suit on 

behalf of the aggrieved employees. 

The employees’ allegations include: 

• Failure to pay wages for all hours worked in violation of Labor Code § 

510 and IWC Wage Order 16-2001; 

Case 4:09-cv-05986-PJH Document 22 Filed 05/03/10 Page 6 of 32
Victoria Bradshaw 

March 22, 2010 

Page 2 

• Failure to pay minimum wages in violation of Labor Code §§ 1182.11 & 

1194 et seq.; 

• Failure to pay daily overtime in violation of Labor Code § 510 and IWC 

Wage Order 16-2001; 

• Failure to provide rest periods in violation of Labor Code § 226.7 and 

IWC Wage Order 16-2001; 

• Failure to provide meal periods in violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7 & 512 

and IWC Wage Order 16-2001; 

• Waiting time penalties under Labor Code §§ 202 & 203; 

• Failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements in violation of 

Labor Code § 226. 

Please let us know within the required time period whether the State will pursue these penalties 

or whether we are free to pursue our civil suit against this employer and seek those penalties. 

Sincerely, 

Ellyn Moscowitz 

cc: 

Via Certified Mail 

Richard Hill 

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 

650 California Street 

20th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94108-2693 

Case 4:09-cv-05986-PJH Document 22 Filed 05/03/10 Page 7 of 32
EXHIBIT B 

Case 4:09-cv-05986-PJH Document 22 Filed 05/03/10 Page 8 of 32
Case 4:09-cv-05986-PJH Document 22 Filed 05/03/10 Page 9 of 32
EXHIBIT C 

Case 4:09-cv-05986-PJH Document 22 Filed 05/03/10 Page 10 of 32
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

Ellyn Moscowitz, Esq. (SBN 129287) 

emoscowitz@moscowitzlaw.com 

LAW OFFICES OF ELLYN MOSCOWITZ, P.C. 

20 N. Raymond Avenue, Suite 240 

Pasadena, California 91103 

Tel. (626) 568-0200 

Fax (626) 568-0210 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

ANDREW KING, CLIFFORD SHAW, and DEIDRA CULPEPPER 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANDREW KING, CLIFFORD SHAW, and 

DEIDRA CULPEPPER, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

S & B ENGINEERS AND 

CONSTRUCTORS LTD., a Texas 

corporation doing business in California, and 

DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

_____________________________________

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

 Case No.: C09-05986PJH 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION 

COMPLAINT 

(1) UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES 

(Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 

et seq.) 

(2) FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGE 

(Labor Code §§1182.11, 1194, 1197 and 

Wage Order 16-2001)

(3) FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME AND 

DOUBLETIME (Labor Code §§ 510, 511 

and Wage Order 16-2001)

(4) FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL AND 

REST PERIODS (Labor Code §§ 226.7, 

512 and Wage Order 16-2001)

(5) FAILURE TO FURNISH ACCURATE 

WAGE STATEMENTS (Labor Code §§ 

226, 226.3)

(6) WAITING TIME PENALTIES (Labor 

Code §§ 201-203)

(7) PAGA PENALTIES (Labor Code § 2698 

et seq.)

 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Case 4:09-cv-05986-PJH Document 22 Filed 05/03/10 Page 11 of 32
2 

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

Individual and representative Plaintiffs ANDREW KING, CLIFFORD SHAW and DEIDRA 

CULPEPPER (“Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, complain against 

Defendants S & B ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTORS, LTD., a Texas corporation doing business 

in California (hereinafter “S & B”), and DOES 1 through 50 (hereinafter collectively as “Defendants”) 

as follows: 

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a proposed state-wide class of employees who worked 

in California to challenge S & B’s: 

(a) failure to pay daily overtime to employees who worked more than 8 hours in a day as 

mandated by California Labor Code § 510 and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage 

Order 16-2001 (hereinafter “Wage Order 16”); 

(b) failure to pay overtime wages to employees who worked more than eight hours in a day 

and were not subject to a bona fide alternative workweek schedule as mandated by 

California Labor Code §§ 510 and 511 and Wage Order 16; 

(c) failure to provide second meal periods to employees who worked more than 10 hours in 

a day as mandated by California Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 and Wage Order 16; 

(d) failure to provide third rest periods to employees who worked more than 10 hours in a 

day as provided by California Labor Code § 226.7 and Wage Order 16; 

(e) failure to provide complete and accurate itemized wage statements, as required by 

California Labor Code § 226; 

(f) failure to pay any wages whatsoever, including the minimum wage, to employees for 

compensable travel time, including on company provided transportation within the 

refineries and other facilities; 

(g) failure to take certain bonus payments into account when calculating the regular rate, 

thereby leading to incorrect and lower overtime and double-time rate; and 

(h) failure to pay former employees all wages due and owing at the time of discharge or 

voluntary quit, in violation of California Labor Code §§ 201, 202, and 203. 

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a proposed plaintiff class of all hourly, 

Case 4:09-cv-05986-PJH Document 22 Filed 05/03/10 Page 12 of 32
3 

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

non-exempt on-site construction workers at the Chevron El Segundo refinery, including but not 

limited to pipefitters, welders, boilermakers, fire watches, hole watches, bottle watches, safety 

attendants, electricians, crane operators, asbestos workers, ironworkers, and quality assurance 

personnel employed by S & B at job sites located within the State of California from January 1, 2009 

to the present. Plaintiffs seek recovery of all allowable compensation for the above-described 

violations, including unpaid wages, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime and double-time pay, 

penalties for missed meal and rest periods, restitution and restoration of sums owed, statutory 

penalties, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. 

II. JURISDICTION

Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing a Complaint in the Superior Court of the State of 

California, County of Alameda, originally entitled ANDREW KING, CLIFFORD SHAW AND 

DEIDRA CULPEPPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. S & 

B ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTORS, LTD., a Texas corporation doing business in California as 

S & B, and Does 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, and designated Alameda Superior Court Case No. RG 

09485375. Defendants removed this action to the United States District Court for the Northern 

District pursuant to 28 U.S.C §§ 1441(a) and (b) and 1446. This court has diversity jurisdiction over 

the action. 

 (a) Plaintiffs are citizens of the State of California. 

 (b) Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that Defendant S & B is a limited 

liability partnership organized and formed under the law of the State of Texas and has its principle 

place of business in the State of Texas. 

(c) The action is a civil action where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum 

$75,000, exclusive of interests and costs. 

 

Case 4:09-cv-05986-PJH Document 22 Filed 05/03/10 Page 13 of 32
4 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

5

8

12

14

19

22

28

3

4

6

7

9

10

11

13

15

16

17

18

20

21

23

24

25

26

27

III. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff ANDREW KING is an adult who, at all times relevant hereto, was working for 

S & B at the Chevron Refinery in El Segundo California from January 1, 2009 to the present. Plaintiff 

KING was employed by S & B as a pipefitter at the rate of pay of $26.00 per hour. 

2. Plaintiff CLIFFORD SHAW is an adult who, at all times relevant hereto, was working 

for S & B at the Chevron Refinery in El Segundo California from January 1, 2009 to the present. 

Plaintiff SHAW was employed by S & B as a pipefitter helper at the rate of pay of $19.00 per hour. 

3. Plaintiff DEIDRA CULPEPPER is an adult who, at all times relevant hereto, was 

working for S & B at the Chevron Refinery in El Segundo California from January 1, 2009 to the 

present. Plaintiff CULPEPPER was employed by S & B as a pipefitter helper at the rate of pay of 

$19.00 per hour. 

4. Plaintiffs are individuals who were employed by S & B as construction employees and 

bring this action on their own behalf as well as on behalf of the class more fully described below. 

5. S & B is a corporation doing business in California, including an office in El Segundo, 

California, and is a “person” as defined by California Labor Code § 18 and California Business and 

Professions Code § 17201. In addition, it is an “employer” as that term is used in the California Labor 

Code and in the California Industrial Welfare Commission’s Orders regulating wages, hours, and 

working conditions. 

6. S & B is also an “employer” as that term is used in the California Labor Code and in 

the California Industrial Welfare Commission’s Orders regulating wages, hours, and working 

conditions. 

7. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued herein as 

Does 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sue those Defendants by those fictitious names. Plaintiffs 

will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are 

informed and believe and thereupon allege that each of the fictitiously named Defendants is 

responsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged and that Plaintiffs’ damages as alleged are 

proximately caused by those occurrences. 

Case 4:09-cv-05986-PJH Document 22 Filed 05/03/10 Page 14 of 32
5 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

4

8

11

14

18

21

3

5

6

7

9

10

12

13

15

16

17

19

20

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

8. S & B provides safety support and maintenance, turnaround and construction services 

for the oil and natural gas, petrochemical, water and wastewater, and food industries in California. 

9. Plaintiffs, at all relevant times herein, were employed by S & B as non-exempt hourly 

employees, in on-site construction occupations, as defined by Wage Order 16, 8 CCR § 11160(2)(C). 

During their employment with S & B, Plaintiffs typically worked 10- to 12-hour shifts, six to seven 

days per week. 

10. S & B regularly required Plaintiffs and other putative class members to work more than 

12 hours per day and/or more than eight hours on the seventh day in a workweek, but did not pay them 

for overtime at the correct time and one-half as well as double-time rate of pay. 

11. S & B regularly required Plaintiffs and other putative class members who were not 

subject to a bona fide alternative workweek schedule to work more than eight hours per day, but did 

not pay them for overtime at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay. 

12. S & B failed to pay Plaintiffs and other putative class members for all hours worked by 

failing to pay them any wages, including minimum wage, for compensable travel time, including time 

spent traveling on company-provided shuttles or buses to their work locations within the Chevron 

refinery. 

13. S & B failed to pay Plaintiffs and other putative class members all wages due and 

owing by failing to take certain bonus payments into account when calculating the regular rate, 

thereby leading to incorrect and lower overtime and double-time rates. 

14. During the respective periods in which Plaintiffs were employed by S & B, Plaintiffs 

were required to work shifts of more than 10 hours. When Plaintiffs and other putative class members 

were required by S & B to work shifts of more than 10 hours, they were not provided a second meal 

period of at least 30 minutes, as required by Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 and Wage Order 16, 

§ (10)(B). On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that they and other putative class members were 

not informed of their right to take a second meal period and never waived their right to a second meal 

period. Further, Plaintiffs and other putative class members sometimes worked more than 12 hours in 

a day and, pursuant to Labor Code § 512(a), meal periods are not waiveable for employees who work 

Case 4:09-cv-05986-PJH Document 22 Filed 05/03/10 Page 15 of 32
6 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1 more than 12 hours in a day. 

2

7

20

22

27

28

3

4

5

6

15. During the respective periods in which Plaintiffs were employed by S & B, Plaintiffs 

were required to work shifts of more than 10 hours. When Plaintiffs and other putative class members 

were required by S & B to work shifts of more than 10 hours, they were not provided with discrete rest 

periods of at least 10 minutes for every four hours of work performed, or major fraction thereof, as 

required by Labor Code § 226.7 and Wage Order 16, § (16)(11). 

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

16. Labor Code § 226 provides that every employer is required, “semimonthly or at the 

time of each payment of wages,” to provide each employee an itemized wage statement, including, 

inter alia, the total hours worked by the employee (except for salaried employees), and “all applicable 

hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each 

hourly rate by the employee.” Lab. Code § 226(a). During the respective periods in which Plaintiffs 

were employed by S & B, S & B failed to provide complete and accurate itemized wage statements as 

required by Labor Code § 226 in that the wage statements provided did not include the correct hourly 

rates of pay in effect during the pay period and/or did not include the accurate number of hours 

worked and/or did not provide the correct regular, overtime or double-time rates of pay. The wage 

statements provided by S & B to Plaintiffs and other putative class members were incomplete and 

defective in that they did not include and state the hourly rates at which employees were paid and the 

correct “corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee.” Labor Code § 

226(a). 

21

1

23

24

25

26

18. Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action on behalf of all of S & B’s non-exempt 

construction employees harmed by Defendants’ failure to follow and satisfy the requirements of the 

Labor Code and Wage Order 16. Plaintiffs seek back pay, restitution and restoration of property, 

penalties, and attorneys’ fees and costs under Wage Order 16 and, among other sections, Labor Code 

§§ 226, 226.7, 558 and 1194 and Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. 

7. S & B failed to pay former employees all wages due and owing at the time of discharge 

or voluntary quit, in violation of California Labor Code §§ 201, 202, and 203. 

Case 4:09-cv-05986-PJH Document 22 Filed 05/03/10 Page 16 of 32
7 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

12

13

14

V. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

19. As to the penalty claims under the California Private Attorney General Act (Cal. 

Labor Code Section 2699 et. seq.), Plaintiffs have exhausted their administrative remedies by the 

filing of a claim letter to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) on 

March 22, 2010. The LWDA notified Plaintiffs that it does not intend to assume jurisdiction over 

the applicable penalty claims on April 19, 2010, pursuant to Labor Code § 2699(a)(2)(A). 

Therefore, Plaintiffs have exhausted their administrative remedy to the penalty claims. 

VI. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

20. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated as a 

class action under Code of Civil Procedure § 382. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to represent the class of 

all hourly non-exempt construction employees who performed work for S & B from January 1, 2009 

through the present at the Chevron Refinery in El Segundo, California. Plaintiffs also seek to 

represent the following sub-classes: 

(a) All hourly non-exempt construction employees who performed work for S & B 

at the Chevron Refinery in El Segundo, California from January 1, 2009 

through the present and until compliance with the law, inclusive, who were not 

paid correct overtime when they worked more than 12 hours in a day and/or 

more than eight hours on the seventh day in a workweek; 

(b) All hourly non-exempt construction employees who performed work for S & B 

at the Chevron Refinery in El Segundo, California from January 1, 2009 

through the present and until compliance with the law, inclusive, who were not 

subject to a bona fide alternative workweek schedule and who were not paid one 

and one-half times their regular rate when they worked more than eight hours in 

a day; 

(c) All hourly non-exempt construction employees who performed work for S & B 

at the Chevron Refinery in El Segundo, California from January 1, 2009 

through the present and until compliance with the law, inclusive, who were not 

Case 4:09-cv-05986-PJH Document 22 Filed 05/03/10 Page 17 of 32
8 

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

2

paid any wages whatsoever, including minimum wage, for certain hours 

worked, including their time spent traveling on company mandated 

transportation within the refineries and other facilities to their work locations; 

(d) All hourly non-exempt construction employees who performed work for S & B 

at the Chevron Refinery in El Segundo, California from January 1, 2009 

through the present and until compliance with the law, inclusive, who worked 

more than 10 hours in a day and were not provided a second meal period; 

(e) All hourly non-exempt construction employees who performed work for S & B 

at the Chevron Refinery in El Segundo, California from January 1, 2009 

through the present and until compliance with the law, inclusive, who worked 

more than 10 hours in a day but were not permitted to take a third rest period; 

(f) All hourly non-exempt construction employees who performed work for S & B 

at the Chevron Refinery in El Segundo, California from January 1, 2009 

through the present and until compliance with the law, inclusive, who did not 

receive complete and accurate wage statements; 

(g) All hourly non-exempt construction employees who performed work for S & B 

at the Chevron Refinery in El Segundo, California from January 1, 2009 

through the present and until compliance with the law, inclusive, whose regular 

rates of pay were miscalculated by S & B as a result of S & B’s failure to take 

certain bonus payments into account, thereby leading to an incorrect and lower 

overtime and double-time rates; and 

(h) All hourly non-exempt construction employees who performed work for S & B 

at the Chevron Refinery in El Segundo, California from January 1, 2009 

through the present and until compliance with the law, inclusive, who were not 

paid all wages due upon discharge or voluntary quit as required by Labor Code 

§§ 201-203. 

1. The class and subclasses Plaintiffs seek to represent, as described above, contain 

numerous members and are clearly ascertainable. Plaintiffs reserve the right under Rule 3.765 of the 

Case 4:09-cv-05986-PJH Document 22 Filed 05/03/10 Page 18 of 32
9 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

California Rules of Court, to amend or modify the class and sub-class descriptions with greater 

specificity or further division into additional sub-classes or limitation to particular issues. 

3

7

11

14

15

16

20

22

23

26

27

28

4

5

6

8

9

10

23. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the class, as Plaintiffs now suffer and have 

suffered in the past from the same violations of the law as other putative class members. Plaintiffs 

have retained competent counsel to represent themselves and the class, and Plaintiffs will fairly and 

adequately represent the interests of the class. 

12

13

24. This action may properly be maintained as a class action under Code of Civil Procedure 

§ 382 because there is a well-defined community of interest in the litigation and the proposed class and 

subclasses are easily ascertainable. 

17

18

19

21

24

25

22. Defendants, by their practices and policies, have unlawfully violated the rights of 

employees under the laws and regulations of the State of California. The questions raised are, 

therefore, of common or general interest to the class members, and they have a well-defined 

community of interest in the questions of law and fact raised in this action. 

Numerosity

25. The members of the proposed class are so numerous that joinder of all the members of 

the class is impracticable. While the precise number of class members has not been determined at this 

time, Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants have employed as many as 700 workers or 

more in the relevant time period. 

26. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ employment records would contain relevant 

information as to the number of putative class members. 

Commonality

27. There are questions of law and fact common to the class that predominate over any 

questions affecting only individual class members. Those common questions of law and fact include, 

without limitation, the following: 

(a) Whether Defendants violated Labor Code § 226 by failing to provide required 

information on wage statements, such as hours worked, and whether those 

statements were accurate; 

Case 4:09-cv-05986-PJH Document 22 Filed 05/03/10 Page 19 of 32
10 

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

27

25

26

28

(b) Whether Defendants paid class members for all hours worked, including their 

time spent traveling on company mandated transportation within the refineries 

and other facilities to their work locations; 

(c) Whether Defendants paid class members at the correct overtime rate for hours 

worked in excess of 12 in a day and/or in excess of eight hours on the seventh 

day in a workweek; 

(d) Whether Defendants paid class members who were not subject to a bona fide 

alternative workweek schedule at the correct time and one-half for hours 

worked in excess of eight; 

(e) Whether Defendants failed to provide class members with all of their required 

meal periods; 

(f) Whether Defendants failed to provide class members with all of their required 

rest periods; 

(g) Whether Defendants failed to pay departing class members all wages due at the 

time of discharge or voluntary quit in violation of Labor Code §§ 201-203; 

(h) Whether Defendants failed to calculate the regular rate of pay correctly by 

failing to account for certain bonuses in that calculation; 

(i) Whether Defendants had a policy or practice of not paying class members for 

travel time, including on company provided transportation within the refineries; 

(j) Whether Plaintiffs and the members of the class are entitled to equitable relief 

pursuant to Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.

Typicality & Adequacy of Representation

28. The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the proposed class. Plaintiffs and 

all members of the proposed class sustained injuries and economic loss arising out of and caused by 

Defendants’ common course of conduct in violation of laws and regulations alleged herein. 

29. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of all proposed class members. 

Plaintiffs have no interests that are antagonistic to those of the proposed class and are not subject to 

Case 4:09-cv-05986-PJH Document 22 Filed 05/03/10 Page 20 of 32
11 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

any unique defenses. Plaintiffs also have retained counsel who are experienced in class actions and in 

representing the rights of employees. 

3

4

9

13

24

25

26

27

28

5

6

7

8

10

11

12

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Superiority of Class Action

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

of this controversy. Individual joinder of all proposed class members is not practicable, and questions 

of law and fact common to the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual 

members of the class. Each member of the class has been damaged and is entitled to recovery by 

reason of Defendants’ illegal policies and/or practices. 

31. Class action treatment will allow those similarly-situated persons to litigate their claims 

in the manner that is most effective and economical for the parties and the judicial system. Plaintiffs 

are unaware of any difficulties that are likely to be encountered in the management of this action that 

would preclude its maintenance as a class action. 

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

adjudication of this controversy because individual litigation of the claims of all proposed class 

members is impractical. Even if every proposed class member could afford individual litigation, the 

court system could not. It would be unduly burdensome to the courts if individual litigation of 

numerous cases were to be required. Individualized litigation also would also present the potential for 

varying, inconsistent, or contradictory judgments and would magnify the delay and expense to all 

parties and to the court system resulting from multiple trials of the same complex factual issues. By 

contrast, the conduct of this action as a class action, with respect to some or all of the issues presented 

herein, gives rise to fewer management difficulties, conserves the resources of the parties and the court 

system, and protects the rights of each proposed class member. Plaintiffs do not anticipate difficulties 

in the management of this action. 

VII. LABOR CODE PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT (“PAGA”) 

REPRESENTATIVE ACTION DESIGNATION

33. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 32, inclusive, as though set forth 

fully herein. 

Case 4:09-cv-05986-PJH Document 22 Filed 05/03/10 Page 21 of 32
12 

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

23

25

22

24

26

27

28

34. The Causes of Action alleged herein are appropriately suited for a Representative Action 

under PAGA (Labor Code § 2698 et seq.) because: 

 a. This action involves allegations of violations of provisions of the California Labor 

Code that either do not provide for a civil penalty or provide for civil penalty to be assessed 

and collected by the LWDA or any departments, divisions, commissions, boards, agencies 

or employees; 

 b. Plaintiffs are “aggrieved employees” because they was employed by the alleged 

violator and had one or more of the alleged violations committed against them, and 

therefore is properly suited to represent the interests of all other current and form 

employees of Defendants; 

c. Plaintiffs seek to recover all applicable penalties under PAGA on behalf of 

themselves and all other current and former employees, including but not limited to, all 

unpaid or underpaid wages pursuant to Labor Code § 558 and Reynolds v. Bement (2005) 

36 Cal.4th 1075, 1089; 

d. Plaintiffs have satisfied the procedural requirements of Labor Code § 2699.3, as set 

forth above. 

VIII. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES – CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200, et seq. -- 

ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 

35. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 34, inclusive, as though set 

forth fully herein. 

36. California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. prohibits unfair 

competition in the form of any unlawful, unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent business practices. 

37. Beginning at an exact date unknown to Plaintiffs, but at least since January 1, 2009, S 

& B committed unlawful acts as defined by California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et 

seq. Defendants have engaged in unlawful and unfair business practices including, but not limited to, 

violations of: 

Case 4:09-cv-05986-PJH Document 22 Filed 05/03/10 Page 22 of 32
13 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

14

17

25

12

13

38. The violations of those laws and the acts and practices described in this Complaint 

constitute unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices, and unfair competition, within the 

meaning of Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. 

15

16

39. As a direct and proximate result of those acts and practices, Defendants have received 

and continue to hold as ill-gotten gains money and property belonging to Plaintiffs and the class, in 

that Defendants have profited in those amounts from their unlawful practices. 

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

40. Business and Professions Code § 17203 provides that the Court may restore to any 

person in interest any money or property which may have been acquired by means of such unfair 

competition and order restitution by Defendants to Plaintiffs for the practices alleged therein. 

Plaintiffs and putative class members are entitled to restitution pursuant to Business and Professions 

Code §§ 17203 and 17208 for all wages unlawfully withheld from them during the four years prior to 

the filing of this Complaint and through the present and until the violations have been corrected, 

together with all civil penalties owed in connection with those violations. Plaintiffs will, upon leave of 

the Court, amend this Complaint to state such amounts when they become ascertained. 

26

27

28

41. Plaintiffs’ success in this action will enforce important rights affecting the public 

interest, and in that regard, Plaintiffs sue on behalf of the proposed class as well as on behalf of 

themselves and others similarly situated. Plaintiffs seek and are entitled to unpaid wages, unpaid 

overtime, and injunctive relief, and any other remedy owing to Plaintiffs and all others similarly 

(a) Labor Code §§ 201-203 (wages at discharge); 

(b) Labor Code § 204 (payment of wages); 

(c) Labor Code § 226 (itemized wage statements); 

(d) Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 (failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks) 

(e) Labor Code § 510 (day worked is 8 hours); 

(f) Labor Code § 511 (alternative workweeks schedules) 

(g) Labor Code §§ 1174 and 1174.5 (failure to maintain accurate records); 

(h) Labor Code §§ 1194 (failure to pay all wages, including overtime and minimum 

wage); and 

(i) Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 16-2001. 

Case 4:09-cv-05986-PJH Document 22 Filed 05/03/10 Page 23 of 32
14 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1 situated. 

2

4

7

11

12

13

14

15

16

18

21

26

3

42

5

6

4

8

9

10

44. Plaintiffs herein take upon themselves enforcement of these laws and lawful claims. 

There is a financial burden incurred in pursuing this action and it would be against the interests of 

justice to penalize Plaintiffs by forcing them to pay attorneys’ fees from the recovery in this action. 

Therefore, an award of attorneys’ fees is appropriate. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 1021.5. 

17

19

20

22

23

24

25

27

28

. Injunctive relief is necessary and appropriate to prevent Defendants from repeating or 

continuing their wrongful business practices alleged above. 

3. In order to prevent Defendants from profiting and benefiting from their wrongful and 

illegal acts, an order requiring Defendants to restore to Plaintiffs all monies and property unlawfully 

gained through Defendants’ unlawful conduct is appropriate and necessary. 

 Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray judgment as set forth below. 

IX. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(FAILURE TO PROVIDE SECOND MEAL PERIOD -- 

ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 

45. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 

through 44 above as though set forth fully herein. 

46. At all times relevant herein, Defendants S & B were “employers” of Plaintiffs and 

members of the proposed class within the meaning of Labor Code §§ 510, 511 and 512 and Wage 

Order 16, § (2)(I). 

47. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class were 

“employees” of S & B within the meaning of Labor Code §§ 510, 511 and 512 and Wage Order 16, 

§ (2)(H). At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class also were employed by S 

& B in on-site construction occupations, as defined in and within the meaning of Wage Order 16, § 

(2)(C). 

48. As alleged above, Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class were required by S & B 

at various times to work more than 10 hours in a single day, including 12- to 14-hour shifts and, 

occasionally, shifts lasting longer than 16 hours. On such occasions, when Plaintiffs and members of 

Case 4:09-cv-05986-PJH Document 22 Filed 05/03/10 Page 24 of 32
15 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

the proposed class worked more than 10 hours on a single day, S & B had a policy and practice of 

refusing and/or failing to provide employees a second meal period of not less than 30 minutes, as 

required by Labor Code § 512(a) and Wage Order 16, § (10)(B). On information and belief, Plaintiffs 

allege that they and members of the proposed class regularly did not waive their rights to a second 

meal period. 

6

10

16

19

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

15

50. Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class lost money and property as a direct result 

of the unlawful practices of S & B as alleged above in that they were required to work shifts in excess 

of 10 hours, were not provided a second meal period and were not compensated correctly for having 

been denied a second meal period. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class are 

entitled to proper compensation for each meal period that they wrongfully were denied and the waiting 

time penalties attached thereto. 

17

18

51. S & B’s violations of Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 and Wage Order 16, as alleged 

above, are on-going, and will continue unless and until this Court enters an injunction barring those 

violations. 

20

5

49. Defendants’ practice of failing to provide employees a second meal period of not less 

than 30 minutes when employees were required to work more than 10 hours in a day, and of requiring 

employees to work through such meal periods, constitutes a violation Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512(a) 

and Wage Order 16, § (10)(B). 

2. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs and expenses incurred in 

this action pursuant to Labor Code §§ 226 (g) and 1194 and Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5. 

53. Plaintiffs and putative class members are entitled to recover civil penalties for 

Defendants’ unlawful failure to provide meal periods pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorneys 

General Act (“PAGA”), Labor Code section 2698, et seq. Under Labor Code section 2699(g)(1), 

Plaintiffs are also entitled to recover costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees. 

Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below. 

Case 4:09-cv-05986-PJH Document 22 Filed 05/03/10 Page 25 of 32
16 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

6

14

18

20

22

24

25

26

27

28

5

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

15

16

17

19

21

23

X. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(FAILURE TO PROVIDE THIRD REST PERIODS – 

ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 

54. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 

through 53 above as though set forth fully herein. 

55. As alleged above, Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class were required by 

Defendants S & B at various times to work more than 10 hours in a single day. Often, the shifts lasted 

12 to 14 hours and occasionally they lasted more than 16 hours. On such occasions, when Plaintiffs 

and members of the proposed class worked more than 10 hours in a single day, S & B had a policy and 

practice of refusing and/or failing to authorize and permit employees to take a third rest period of not 

less than 10 minutes, as required by Labor Code § 226.7 and Wage Order 16, § (11)(A). On 

information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that they and members of the proposed class regularly did not 

waive their rights to a third rest period. 

56. Defendants’ practice of failing to provide employees a third rest period of not less than 

10 minutes when employees were required to work more than 10 hours in a day, and of requiring 

employees to work through such rest periods, constitutes a violation of Labor Code § 226.7 and Wage 

Order 16, § (11)(A). 

57. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class are entitled to restitution and 

premium pay for each rest period they were wrongfully denied as provided by Labor Code § 226.7. 

58. S & B’s violations of Labor Code § 226.7 and Wage Order 16, as alleged above, are 

on-going, and will continue unless and until this Court enters an injunction barring such violations. 

59. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs and expenses incurred in 

this action pursuant to Labor Code §§ 226(g) and 1194 and Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5. 

60. Plaintiffs and putative class members are entitled to recover civil penalties for 

Defendants’ unlawful failure to provide rest breaks pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorneys 

General Act (“PAGA”), Labor Code section 2698, et seq. Under Labor Code section 2699(g)(1), 

Plaintiffs are also entitled to recover costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees. 

 Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below. 

Case 4:09-cv-05986-PJH Document 22 Filed 05/03/10 Page 26 of 32
17 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

6

12

16

20

24

25

26

27

28

5

7

8

9

10

11

13

14

15

17

18

19

21

22

23

XI.FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(FAILURE TO PROVIDE ITEMIZED WAGE STATEMENTS – 

ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 

61. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 

through 60 above as though set forth fully herein. 

62. As alleged above, during all or some portion of the proposed class period, Defendants 

violated Labor Code § 226 in that they failed to provide their employees, including Plaintiffs and 

members of the proposed class, with complete and accurate itemized wage statements. In particular, 

the statements provided by Defendants failed to accurately state “all applicable hourly rates in effect 

during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the 

employee,” as required by Labor Code § 226(a)(9). 

63. Pursuant to Labor Code § 226(e), Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class are 

entitled to recover the greater of actual damages or $50 for the initial pay period in which a violation 

occurred and $100 for each subsequent pay period in which Defendants failed to comply with the 

statute, up to a maximum of $4000 per employee. 

64. Pursuant to Labor Code § 226(g), Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief and an order 

by this Court requiring Defendants to comply with all provisions of Labor Code § 226. Plaintiffs also 

are entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in bringing this action. Lab. Code 

§ 226(e); Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5. 

65. Plaintiffs and putative class members are entitled to recover civil penalties for 

Defendants’ unlawful failure to provide itemized wage statements pursuant to the Labor Code Private 

Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), Labor Code section 2698, et seq. Under Labor Code section 

2699(g)(1), Plaintiffs are also entitled to recover costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees. 

 Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below. 

Case 4:09-cv-05986-PJH Document 22 Filed 05/03/10 Page 27 of 32
18 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

19

22

26

5

17

18

20

21

23

24

25

27

28

XII. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(UNPAID STRAIGHT TIME, MINIMIM WAGE, OVERTIME AND DOUBLE-TIME PAY – 

ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 

66. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 65, inclusive, as though fully 

set forth herein. 

67. Labor Code § 510 and Wage Order 16, provide, among other things: 

(a) One and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked 

in excess of eight hours and up to and including 12 hours in any workday, and 

for the first eight hours worked on the seventh consecutive day of work in a 

workweek; and 

(b) Double the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 12 

hours in any workday and for all hours worked in excess of eight hours on the 

seventh consecutive day of work in a workweek. 

68. Eight hours of labor constitutes a day’s work, unless it is otherwise stipulated by the 

parties to a contract. 

69. Plaintiffs and the members of the class have worked for Defendants in excess of 12 

hours in a day and in excess of eight hours on the seventh day in a workweek, but have not received 

pay for those hours at double the regular rate of pay. 

70. At times when no bona fide alternative workweek schedule was in effect, Plaintiffs and 

the members of the class have worked for Defendants in excess of eight hours in a day without 

receiving pay for those hours at one and one-half times the regular rate of pay. 

71. S & B also failed to pay Plaintiffs and other putative class members for all hours 

worked by failing to pay them, as appropriate, straight time, minimum wage, overtime or double-time 

wages for compensable travel time, including time spent traveling on company-provided shuttles or 

buses to their work locations within the refineries. 

72. Plaintiffs seek to recover all unpaid straight time, overtime and double time wages and 

interest due to Plaintiffs and other putative class members, as well as minimum wage and liquidated 

damages, if appropriate, pursuant to Labor Code §§ 1194 and 1194.2. 

Case 4:09-cv-05986-PJH Document 22 Filed 05/03/10 Page 28 of 32
19 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

4

8

9

10

11

12

13

15

20

25

27

2

3

7

5

6

7

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

28

3. Plaintiffs seek attorneys’ fees under Labor Code § 1194 which provides for a private 

right of action to recover unpaid overtime and minimum wage compensation and also provides for the 

recovery of attorney’s fees and costs. 

74. Plaintiffs and putative class members are entitled to recover civil penalties for 

Defendants’ unlawful failure to provide minimum wage, overtime and double-time pursuant to the 

Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), Labor Code section 2698, et seq. Under Labor 

Code section 2699(g)(1), Plaintiffs are also entitled to recover costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees. 

Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray judgment as set forth herein below. 

XIII. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(WAITING TIME PENALTY – 

ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 

75. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference in this cause of action each allegation of paragraphs 

1 through 74, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 

76. Labor Code §§ 201, 202 and 204 require an employer to pay its employees all wages 

due within the time specified by law. Labor Code § 203 provides that if an employer willfully fails to 

pay those wages within the time specified by Labor Code §§ 201 or 202, the employer must continue 

to pay the subject employees’ wages until the back wages are paid in full or an action is commenced, 

up to a maximum of thirty days of wages. 

77. Defendants unfairly and unlawfully have failed to pay Plaintiffs and the class all wages 

earned in their employment on regular paydays and when due, as established by Labor Code §§ 201, 

202, and 204. Defendants’ failures to pay include, but are not limited to failures to pay for all hours 

worked, failures to pay overtime, and failures to pay wages owed and due at time of discharge or 

voluntary quit. 

78. Plaintiffs and all other class members who ceased employment with S & B are entitled 

to unpaid compensation, but to date have not received that compensation. 

79. More than 30 days have passed since Plaintiffs and certain class members left S & B’s 

employ. 

Case 4:09-cv-05986-PJH Document 22 Filed 05/03/10 Page 29 of 32
20 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

15

25

28

14

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

80. As a consequence of S & B’s willful failure to timely compensate Plaintiffs and class 

members timely for all hours worked, Plaintiffs and class members whose employment ended during 

the Class Period are entitled to 30 days’ wages under Labor Code § 203, together with interest thereon. 

81. Plaintiffs and putative class members are entitled to recover civil penalties for Defendants’ 

unlawful failure to provide wages upon discharge pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorneys 

General Act (“PAGA”), Labor Code section 2698, et seq. Under Labor Code section 2699(g)(1), 

Plaintiffs are also entitled to recover costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees. 

Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray judgment as set forth herein below. 

XIV. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(PAGA CLAIM – 

ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 

82. Plaintiffs realleges and incorporates by this reference paragraphs 1 through 81 

inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 

83. Defendants and each of them have violated numerous sections of the California Labor 

Code which are aforementioned in the paragraphs incorporated. Specifically, Defendants and each of 

them violated California Labor Code §§ 204, 221, 510, 515, 515.5, 1194, 1197, 1198 and 1771 by 

failing to pay earned wages to the employees, including Plaintiffs, such as regular, overtime and 

double time wages, as well as minimum prevailing wages. Defendants also violated California Labor 

Code 201, 202 and 203 by failing to pay all wages due upon the employee’s resignation or discharge. 

Defendants also violated California Labor Code 512 and 226.7 by failing to provide second meal 

periods and third rest breaks. Based on the failure to pay wages for overtime and working meal and 

break periods, Defendants also violated California Labor Code 226 by failing to provide accurate, 

itemized wage statements. 

84. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon alleges, that Defendant have 

violated the California Labor Code in the same manner with respect to other current and former nonexempt employees within the previous four years. 

Case 4:09-cv-05986-PJH Document 22 Filed 05/03/10 Page 30 of 32
21 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

6

9

12

15

19

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

3

4

5

85. Pursuant to Labor Code 2699, any provision of the Labor Code that provides for a civil 

penalty to be assessed and collected by the LWDA or any of its departments, divisions, commission, 

boards, agencies, or employees, for violation of the 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, pursuant to the procedures specified in Labor Code 2699.3. 

7

8

8

10

11

87. The LWDA notified Plaintiffs that it does not intend to assume jurisdiction over the 

applicable penalty claims on April 19, 2010, pursuant to Labor Code § 2699(a)(2)(A). Therefore, 

Plaintiffs have exhausted their administrative remedy as to the penalty claims. 

13

14

88. Pursuant to section 2699.3(a)(2)(A), an aggrieved employee may commence a civil 

action for penalties on behalf of himself, the State of California, and Defendants’ other aggrieved 

employees and former employees. 

16

17

18

89. Plaintiffs request that Defendants cure all unlawful practices and abate each violation 

alleged by Plaintiff in the incorporated paragraphs for each of its remaining employees. Plaintiffs 

further requests that Defendants comply with the underlying statutes as specified in this complaint, and 

any aggrieved employee, included but not limited to Plaintiff, is made whole. 

20

21

22

90. For bringing this action, Plaintiffs are entitled to attorney’s fees in connection with the 

filing of this lawsuit and any other legal expenses accrued during the process of making Defendants 

comply with the California Labor Code. Also, Plaintiffs are entitled to receive at least 25% of all 

statutory penalties assessed against Defendants. 

6. On March 22, 2010, Plaintiffs sent written notice, via certified mail, to the LWDA and 

the Defendants regarding the California Labor Code’s specific provisions that were violated, including 

the facts and theories to support the alleged violations. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

 Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows: 

1. For an order certifying this action as a class action; 

2. For compensatory damages in amount according to proof at time of trial representing 

amount of unpaid straight time, overtime and double time compensation owed to 

Plaintiffs and the class members for the failure to pay all wages due and owing, as well 

as minimum wage and liquidated damages as appropriate, during the applicable 

Case 4:09-cv-05986-PJH Document 22 Filed 05/03/10 Page 31 of 32
22 

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

limitations period preceding the filing of the Complaint and up to and including the 

present and until the date of compliance with the law; 

3. For compensatory damages in amount according to proof at time of trial representing 

amount of unpaid compensation owed to Plaintiffs and the class members for missed 

meal and rest periods due and owing during the applicable limitations period preceding 

the filing of the Complaint and up to and including the present and until the date of 

compliance with the law; 

4. For disgorgement of profits and restitution and restoration of all costs incurred and/or 

losses caused by the failure to provide proper meal and rest breaks and to pay all wages 

due and owing in violation of Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.; 

5. For compensatory damages in an amount according to proof at time of trial to Plaintiffs 

and the class members for the failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements 

during the three years preceding the filing of the Complaint and up to and including the 

present and until the date if compliance with the law; 

6. For the statutory amounts provided by Labor Code § 226(e) for the three years 

preceding the filing of the Complaint and up to and including the present and until the 

date of compliance with the law; 

7. For waiting time penalties as provided by Labor Code § 203: 

8. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as allowed by Labor Code §§ 226(e) and 

1194(a), 2699 et seq. and Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5; 

9. For all interest on any sums as allowed by law; 

10. For all costs of this suit as allowed by law; and 

11. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper. 

Dated: April ___, 2010 LAW OFFICES OF ELLYN MOSCOWITZ, P.C. 

 By: ___________________________________ 

 ELLYN MOSCOWITZ 

 Attorney for Plaintiffs and the proposed Plaintiff Class 

Case 4:09-cv-05986-PJH Document 22 Filed 05/03/10 Page 32 of 32