Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05722/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05722-2/pdf.json

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

---

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 RE FILING AMENDED COMPLAINT

Matthew C. Helland, CA Bar No. 250451

Jodi L. Collova, CA Bar No. 261505 

NICHOLS KASTER, LLP 

One Embarcadero Center, Ste. 720 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 277-7235 

Facsimile: (415) 277-7238 

Email: helland@nka.com, 

 collova@nka.com 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 

JoAnna L. Brooks, CA Bar No. 182986 

Anne V. Leinfelder, CA No. 230272 

JACKSON LEWIS LLP 

199 Fremont Street, 10th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Telephone: (415) 394-9400 

Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 

Capital One Financial Corp. 

Additional Counsel Listed on Following Page 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

Angela Shepard, Carol Rhea, Jackie Sears, 

Cynthia Hushaw, Evaristo Bungcayao, 

Rebecca Molina, Monica Dominguez, and 

Shirley Young, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

COMSYS Information Technology 

Services, Inc.; COMSYS Services LLC; 

Capital One Financial Corp., and DOES 

1-50, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. CV 09 5722 PJH 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER RE FILING AMENDING 

COMPLAINT 

 

Case 4:09-cv-05722-PJH Document 25 Filed 06/01/10 Page 1 of 15
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-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE FILING AMENDED COMPLAINT

Stuart W. Miller, CA State Bar No. 127766 

John C. Post, CA State Bar No. 233236 

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 

505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Telephone: (415) 276-6500 

Facsimile: (415) 276-6599 

Email: stuartmiller@dwt.com 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS 

COMSYS Information Technology Services, Inc. 

and COMSYS Services LLC 

 

Case 4:09-cv-05722-PJH Document 25 Filed 06/01/10 Page 2 of 15
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

-3-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE FILING AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Angela Shepard, Carol Rhea, Jackie Sears, Cynthia Hushaw, Evaristo 

Bungcayao, Rebecca Molina, Monica Dominguez, and Shirley Young (“Plaintiffs”) ─ and 

Defendants COMSYS Information Technology Services, Inc., COMSYS Services LLC, Capital 

One Financial Corp., (collectively “the parties”) ─ by and through their attorneys, HEREBY 

STIPULATE AND AGREE as follows: 

Pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2), Plaintiffs shall have leave to file their First Amended 

Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Defendant Capital One Financial Corp. does not 

concede it is a proper party defendant. By stipulating to add GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. 

to the First Amended Complaint, Defendant Capital One Financial Corp. does not concede it or 

GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. is liable in any way for the allegations contained in the First 

Amended Complaint. 

Dated: NICHOLS KASTER, LLP

 

 By: s/Matthew C. Helland 

 Matthew C. Helland 

 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 

 JACKSON LEWIS LLP 

 

 By: s/JoAnna L. Brooks 

 JoAnna L. Brooks 

 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CAPITAL ONE 

 FINANCIAL CORP. 

 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 

 

 By: s/Stuart W. Miller 

 Stuart W. Miller 

 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS COMSYS 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, 

 INC. and COMSYS SERVICES LLC 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated:_______________________ _________________________________________ 

 Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton 

 United States District Court Judge 

6/1/10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton

Case 4:09-cv-05722-PJH Document 25 Filed 06/01/10 Page 3 of 15
Exhibit A 

Case 4:09-cv-05722-PJH Document 25 Filed 06/01/10 Page 4 of 15
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 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RESTITUTION 

Matthew C. Helland, CA Bar No. 250451 

helland@nka.com 

Jodi L. Collova, CA Bar No. 261505 

collova@nka.com 

NICHOLS KASTER, LLP 

One Embarcadero Center, Ste. 720 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: 415-277-7235 

Facsimile: 415-277-7238 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

Angela Shepard, Carol Rhea, Jackie Sears, 

Cynthia Hushaw, Evaristo Bungcayao, 

Rebecca Molina, Monica Dominguez, and 

Shirley Young, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

COMSYS Information Technology 

Services, Inc.; COMSYS Services LLC; 

Capital One Financial Corp., GreenPoint 

Mortgage Funding Inc. and DOES 1-50, 

inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. CV 09 5722 PJH 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

DAMAGES AND RESTITUTION 

(1) Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act, 

29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq.; 

(2) Violation of Cal. Wage Order No. 4; 

Cal. Labor Code § 510, 1194, 1198; 

(3) Violation of Cal. Labor Code § 201, 202 

& 203; 

(4) Failure to Provide Meal and/or Rest 

Periods; 

(5) Violation of California Unfair 

Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. code § 

17200 et seq. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

 

Case 4:09-cv-05722-PJH Document 25 Filed 06/01/10 Page 5 of 15
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

-2-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RESTITUTION 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Defendants COMSYS Information Technology Services, Inc., COMSYS Services 

LLC, GreenPoint Mortgage Funding Inc., and Capital One Financial Corp. (collectively 

“Defendants”), jointly employed Plaintiffs Angela Shepard, Carol Rhea, Jackie Sears, Cynthia 

Hushaw, Evaristo Bungcayao, Rebecca Molina, Monica Dominguez, and Shirley Young 

(collectively “Plaintiffs”) to work at Defendant Capital One Financial Corp.’s/ Defendant 

GreenPoint Mortgage Funding Inc.’s facility in Santa Rosa, California, from approximately 

December 2006 to April 2007. Defendant Capital One Financial Corporation acquired North 

Fork Bank in 2006, and in doing so, acquired North Fork Bank’s subsidiaries and affiliates, 

including Defendant GreenPoint Mortgage Funding Inc. 

2. During their employment, Plaintiffs were covered, non-exempt employees under 

Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and California laws and are entitled to overtime pay 

consistent with the requirements of these laws. Defendants failed to pay appropriate overtime 

compensation and/or provide meal and/or rest breaks to each Plaintiff as required by state and 

federal law. Plaintiffs seek relief under the FLSA and California laws, to remedy Defendants’ 

failure to pay all wages due, pay appropriate overtime compensation, pay meal and rest break 

premiums, and failure to pay wages due in accordance with applicable time limits. 

THE PARTIES

3. Plaintiff Angela Shepard resides in Lodi, California. 

4. Plaintiffs Evaristo Bungcayao and Shirley Young reside in Manteca, California. 

5. Plaintiffs Carol Rhea, Jackie Sears, Cindy Hushaw, Rebecca Molina, and Monica 

Dominguez, reside in Stockton, California. 

6. Upon information and belief, Defendant COMSYS Information Technology 

Services, Inc. (“COMSYS IT”) is a foreign corporation headquartered in Texas. Upon 

information and belief, Defendant COMSYS Services LLC (“COMSYS Services”), is a whollyowned subsidiary of Defendant COMSYS Information Technology Services, Inc. COMSYS IT 

and COMSYS Services (together “COMSYS Defendants”) provide staffing services for 

companies in several states throughout the United States, including in Marin County, California. 

Case 4:09-cv-05722-PJH Document 25 Filed 06/01/10 Page 6 of 15
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

-3-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RESTITUTION 

7. Upon information and belief, Defendant GreenPoint Mortgage Funding Inc. 

(“Greenpoint”) is a domestic corporation. During all relevant times, Defendant Greenpoint 

operated a facility in Santa Rosa, California (Marin County). The Santa Rosa facility was closed 

in August 2007. 

8. Defendant Capital One Financial Corporation (“Capital One”) is a foreign 

corporation headquartered in McLean, Virginia. Capital One acquired North Fork Bank in 2006, 

and in doing so, acquired all of North Fork Bank’s subsidiaries and affiliates, including 

GreenPoint. During all relevant times, Defendant Capital One/ Defendant GreenPoint operated a 

facility in Santa Rosa, California (Marin County) under the GreenPoint name. The Santa Rosa 

facility was closed in August 2007. 

9. Defendants Does 1-50, inclusive, are sued herein under fictitious names. Their 

true names and capacities are unknown to Plaintiffs. When their true names and capacities are 

ascertained, Plaintiffs will amend this complaint by inserting their true names and capacities 

herein. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the fictitiously-named 

Defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that the 

damages of Plaintiffs were proximately caused by such Defendants. 

10. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege that each of the Defendants 

herein was, at all times relevant to this action, the agent, employee, representative partner, 

integrated enterprise with, and/or joint venturer of the remaining Defendants and was acting 

within the course and scope of the relationship. Defendants had interrelated operations, common 

management, centralized control of labor relations, and common financial control. Plaintiffs are 

further informed, believe, and thereon allege that each of the Defendants herein gave consent to, 

ratified and authorized the acts alleged herein to the remaining Defendants. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as this case 

is being brought under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. All of the Plaintiffs have signed 

consent forms to join this lawsuit. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs 

Case 4:09-cv-05722-PJH Document 25 Filed 06/01/10 Page 7 of 15
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

-4-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RESTITUTION 

California state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, inasmuch those claims derive from the same 

nucleus of operative facts as the Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims. 

12. Venue is proper in the United States District Court, Northern District Court of 

California, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because, during all relevant times, Defendants 

conducted business in Marin County, California and employed Plaintiffs in Marin County, 

California, and because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this 

district. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

13. Defendant Capital One acquired North Fork Bank in 2006. 

14. In acquiring North Fork Bank, Defendant Capital One acquired all of North Fork 

Bank’s subsidiaries and affiliates, including GreenPoint. 

15. During all relevant times, Defendant Capital One and Defendant GreenPoint 

operated a mortgage loan business under the GreenPoint name. 

16. The COMSYS Defendants provide staffing services to various companies. 

17. The COMSYS Defendants hired Plaintiffs to work on a temporary basis at Capital 

One’s GreenPoint facility in Santa Rosa, California. 

18. Plaintiffs worked at Capital One’s GreenPoint facility in Santa Rosa, California, 

from approximately December 6, 2006 to April 6, 2007. 

19. Plaintiffs’ main job responsibility was to audit mortgage loans, which involved 

verifying documentation and obtaining documentation. 

20. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs primary job duties involved Capital One/ 

Greenpoint’s loan files. 

21. Upon information and belief, Capital One and GreenPoint determined Plaintiffs’ 

job duties. 

22. Plaintiffs communicated with Capital One/ Greenpoint personnel regarding issues 

pertaining to loan files. 

23. Capital One/ GreenPoint provided one or more Plaintiffs with financial goals 

sheets that listed the financial goals for both GreenPoint and Capital One. 

Case 4:09-cv-05722-PJH Document 25 Filed 06/01/10 Page 8 of 15
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

-5-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RESTITUTION 

24. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs received from Capital One/ GreenPoint 

technical support that was necessary to perform their job duties. 

25. Plaintiff Cynthia Hushaw’s I-9 Form listed GreenPoint as her employer. 

26. Plaintiffs performed work that simultaneously benefitted the COMSYS 

Defendants and Defendants Capital One/ GreenPoint. 

27. The COMSYS Defendants determined the applicable payroll calendar for 

Plaintiffs. 

28. Plaintiffs submitted timesheets to the COMSYS Defendants. 

29. The COMSYS Defendants provided paychecks to Plaintiffs. 

30. Plaintiffs received employment benefits from the COMSYS Defendants. 

31. Throughout their employment, Plaintiffs were paid on an hourly basis. 

32. Plaintiffs were not paid at a rate of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay 

for work performed in excess of forty hours per work week and for work performed in excess of 

eight hours per day. 

33. Instead, Plaintiffs were paid at their regular hourly rate of pay for overtime hours 

worked. 

34. Defendants did not provide Plaintiffs with an uninterrupted meal period of at least 

thirty minutes for each work period of at least five hours per day. 

35. While Plaintiffs often recorded a thirty minute meal period on their time cards, 

Plaintiffs sometimes still performed work during these thirty minute meal periods. 

36. Defendants did not provide Plaintiffs with a ten minute rest period for each work 

period of four hours, or substantial portion thereof, nor did they authorize or permit Plaintiffs to 

take a ten minute rest period for each work period of four hours, or substantial portion thereof. 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Failure to Pay Overtime In Violation Of The Fair Labor Standards Act)

37. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding 

paragraphs. 

Case 4:09-cv-05722-PJH Document 25 Filed 06/01/10 Page 9 of 15
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

-6-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RESTITUTION 

38. Plaintiffs consent in writing to be a party of this action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 

216(b). 

39. At all relevant times, Defendants have been, and continue to be, “employers” 

engaged in interstate commerce and/or in the production of goods for commerce, within the 

meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203. At all relevant times, Defendants employed Plaintiffs. 

At all relevant times, upon information and belief, each Defendant had gross operating revenues 

in excess of $500,000.00. 

40. The FLSA requires each covered employer such as Defendants to compensate all 

non-exempt employees at a rate of not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for 

work performed in excess of forty hours per work week. 

41. During their employment with Defendants, within the applicable statute of 

limitations, Plaintiffs worked in excess of forty hours per workweek. Despite the hours worked by 

Plaintiffs, Defendants willfully, in bad faith, and in knowing violation of the Federal Fair Labor 

Standards Act, failed and refused to pay them the appropriate overtime compensation for all the 

hours worked in excess of forty. 

42. The foregoing conduct, as alleged, constitutes a willful violation of the FLSA, 

within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a). 

43. Plaintiffs seek damages in the amount of their respective unpaid overtime 

compensation, liquidated damages from three years immediately preceding the filing of this 

action, plus interest, and costs as allowed by law, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(b) and 255(a), and 

such other legal and equitable relief as the Court deems just and proper. Plaintiffs seek recovery 

of their attorneys’ fees and costs to be paid by Defendants, as provided by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 

216(b). 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Failure to Pay Overtime In Violation Of Cal. Wage Order No. 4; Cal. Labor Code §§ 510, 

1194, 1198)

44. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding 

paragraphs. 

Case 4:09-cv-05722-PJH Document 25 Filed 06/01/10 Page 10 of 15
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

-7-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RESTITUTION 

45. Cal. Labor Code §§ 510, 1194, 1198, Cal. Wage Order No. 4, and other provisions 

of California law require employers, such as Defendants, to pay overtime compensation to all 

non-exempt employees for all hours worked over forty per week, or over eight per day. 

46. Plaintiffs are non-exempt employees entitled to be paid proper overtime 

compensation for all hours worked. 

47. Plaintiffs worked in excess of eight hours in a work day and/or forty hours in a 

work week in their employment with Defendants in California. 

48. Defendants failed and refused to pay Plaintiffs overtime compensation at a rate of 

one and one half times the regular rate of pay for overtime hours worked over eight in a day or 

forty in a week. 

49. Defendants failed and refused to pay Plaintiffs overtime compensation at a rate of 

double the regular rate of pay for overtime hours worked over twelve in a day, or over eight on 

the seventh consecutive day of work. 

50. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, as set forth 

herein, Plaintiffs have sustained damages, including loss of earnings for hours of overtime 

worked on behalf of Defendants in an amount to be established at trial, payment for prejudgment 

interest, and costs and attorneys’ fees, pursuant to statute and other applicable law. 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Failure To Timely Pay Wages In Violation Of Cal. Labor Code §§ 201, 202 & 203)

51. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding 

paragraphs. 

52. California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202 require Defendants to pay its employees all 

wages due within the time specified by law. California Labor Code § 203 provides that if an 

employer willfully fails to timely pay such wages, 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. 

53. Plaintiffs ceased employment with Defendants and are entitled to unpaid 

compensation, but to date have not received such compensation. 

Case 4:09-cv-05722-PJH Document 25 Filed 06/01/10 Page 11 of 15
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

-8-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RESTITUTION 

54. More than thirty days have passed since Plaintiffs have left Defendants’ employ in 

California. 

55. As a consequence of Defendants’ willful conduct in not paying proper 

compensation for all hours worked, Plaintiffs are entitled to thirty days’ wages under Labor Code 

§ 203, together with interest thereon, and attorneys’ fees and costs. 

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Failure to Provide Rest Breaks and Meal Periods)

56. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding 

paragraphs. 

57. Cal. Labor Code § 512 prohibits an employer from employing 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 thirty minutes, or for a work period of more than ten hours per day without 

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

58. Section 11 of Wage Order No. 4 provides in relevant part that: 

(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 

thirty minutes, except that when a work period of not more than six 

(6) hours will complete the day’s work the meal period may be 

waived by mutual consent of the employer and employee. Unless 

the employee is relieved of all duty during a thirty minute meal 

period, the meal period shall be considered an "on duty" meal 

period and counted as time worked. An “on duty” meal period shall 

be permitted only when the nature of the work prevents an 

employee from being relieved of all duty and when by written 

agreement between the parties an on-the-job paid meal period is 

agreed to. The written agreement shall state that the employee may, 

in writing, revoke the agreement at any time 

(B) 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 hour of pay at the employee’s 

regular rate of compensation for each work day that the meal period 

is not provided. 

59. Section 12 of Wage Order No. 4 states that: 

(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 hour worked daily at the rate of ten minutes net rest 

time per four hours or major fraction thereof. However, a rest 

period need not be authorized for employees whose total daily work 

Case 4:09-cv-05722-PJH Document 25 Filed 06/01/10 Page 12 of 15
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

-9-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RESTITUTION 

time is less than three and one-half hours. Authorized rest period 

time shall be counted, as hours worked, for which there shall be no 

deduction from wages 

(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 hour of pay at the employee’s 

regular rate of compensation for each work day that the rest period 

is not provided. 

60. Cal. Labor Code § 226.7 prohibits any employer from requiring any employee to 

work during any meal or rest period mandated by an applicable IWC wage order, and provides 

that an employer that fails to provide an employee with a required rest break or meal period shall 

pay that employee one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for 

each work day that the employer does not provide a compliant meal or rest period. 

61. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with meal periods as required by law, and 

failed to authorize and permit the Plaintiffs to take rest periods as required by law. Plaintiffs are 

therefore entitled to payment of the meal and rest period premiums as provided by law, but were 

not paid these premiums by Defendants. 

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 et seq.)

62. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding 

paragraphs. 

63. The foregoing conduct, as alleged, violates the California Unfair Competition Law 

(“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. Section 17200 of the Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 

prohibits unfair competition by prohibiting, inter alia, any unlawful or unfair business acts or 

practices. 

64. Beginning at a date unknown to Plaintiffs, Defendants committed, and continue to 

commit, acts of unfair competition, as defined by the UCL, by, among other things, engaging in 

the acts and practices described herein. Defendants’ conduct as herein alleged has injured the 

Plaintiffs by wrongfully denying them earned wages, and therefore was substantially injurious to 

Plaintiffs. 

Case 4:09-cv-05722-PJH Document 25 Filed 06/01/10 Page 13 of 15
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

-10-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RESTITUTION 

65. Defendants engaged in unfair competition in violation of the UCL by violating, 

inter alia, each of the following laws. Each of these violations constitutes an independent and 

separate violation of the UCL: 

A. Cal. Labor Code § 1198; 

B. Relevant Wage Orders; 

C. Cal. Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, and 204; and 

D. Cal. Labor Code § 510 

E. Cal. Labor Code §§ 512 and 226.7. 

66. Defendants’ course of conduct, acts, and practices in violation of the California 

laws mentioned in the above paragraph constitute a separate and independent violation of the 

UCL. Defendants’ conduct described herein violates the policy or spirit of such laws or otherwise 

significantly threatens or harms competition. 

67. The harm to Plaintiffs in being wrongfully denied lawfully earned wages 

outweighs the utility, if any, of Defendants’ policies or practices and therefore, Defendants’ 

actions described herein constitute unfair business practices or acts within the meaning of the 

UCL. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

68. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows: 

A. That Defendants are found to have violated the overtime provisions of the 

Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and California law as to Plaintiffs; 

B. That Defendants’ violations as described above are found to be willful; 

C. That Defendants are found to have violated sections 201, 202, and 203 of 

the California Labor Code for willful failure to pay all compensation owed at the time 

of separation to named Plaintiffs and the Class; 

D. That Defendants is found to have violated the provisions of the California 

Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Order(s) regarding meal and rest periods; 

Case 4:09-cv-05722-PJH Document 25 Filed 06/01/10 Page 14 of 15
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

-11-

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RESTITUTION 

E. That Defendants be ordered and enjoined to pay restitution to Plaintiffs due 

to Defendant’s unlawful activities, pursuant to California Business and Professions 

Code sections 17200, et seq.; 

F. An award to Plaintiffs for the amount of unpaid wages owed, including 

liquidated damages and/or interest thereon, and penalties subject to proof at trial; and 

G. For such other and further relief, in law or equity, available under the laws 

cited in this Complaint and as this Court may deem appropriate and just. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

69. Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs demand 

a trial by jury. 

Dated: NICHOLS KASTER, LLP 

 

 

 By: 

 Matthew C. Helland 

 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 

Case 4:09-cv-05722-PJH Document 25 Filed 06/01/10 Page 15 of 15