Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02784/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02784-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

____________________________________________________________________________________

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER PERMITTING Case No. CV 07-02784 CW 

PLAINTIFF TO FILE FIRST AMENDED 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 

ERIC A. GROVER (SBN 136080) 

eagrover@kellergrover.com 

JADE BUTMAN (SBN 235920) 

jbutman@kellergrover.com 

KELLER GROVER LLP 

425 Second Street, Suite 500 

San Francisco, California 94107 

Phone: (415) 543-1305 

Facsimile: (415) 543-7861 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Catherine E. Sullivan 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CATHERINE E. SULLIVAN, on behalf 

of herself and all others similarly 

situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

KELLY SERVICES, INC, and DOES 1 

TO 10, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

 __

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. CV 07-02784 CW 

CLASS ACTION

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER PERMITTING PLAINTIFF 

TO FILE FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT 

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW Document 15 Filed 07/26/07 Page 1 of 14
_________________________________________1__________________________________________

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER PERMITTING Case No. CV 07-02784 CW 

PLAINTIFF TO FILE FIRST AMENDED 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 

WHEREAS, Plaintiff Catherine E. Sullivan (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant 

Complaint in Alameda County Superior Court on April 20, 2007; 

WHEREAS, Defendant subsequently removed the action to federal court; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiff now seeks to file the attached First Amended Complaint 

which, among other things, adds a cause of action based on Labor Code section 2699; 

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by Plaintiff and Defendant, 

through their respective counsel, that the First Amended Complaint may be filed. 

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that, in agreeing that Plaintiff may e-file her 

First Amended Complaint, Defendant has not waived any rights to challenge the 

sufficiency of the First Amended Complaint or the legal or factual validity of any 

claims alleged therein. 

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that Defendant’s Answer to Plaintiff’s 

Complaint shall serve as its answer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. 

Dated: July 17, 2007 KELLER GROVER LLP

 By: _________/s/___________________ 

 ERIC A. GROVER 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 Catherine E. Sullivan 

Dated: July 17, 2007 SHEPPARD MULLIN RITCHER & HAMPTON LLP

 By: _________/s/___________________ 

 DEREK HAVEL 

 Attorneys for Defendant 

 Kelly Services, Inc. 

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW Document 15 Filed 07/26/07 Page 2 of 14
_________________________________________2__________________________________________

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER PERMITTING Case No. CV 07-02784 CW 

PLAINTIFF TO FILE FIRST AMENDED 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 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _________________ _______________________________

 United States District Court Judge 

7/26/07

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW Document 15 Filed 07/26/07 Page 3 of 14
Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW Document 15 Filed 07/26/07 Page 4 of 14
____________________________________________________________________________________

First Amended Complaint Case No. CV 07-02784 CW 

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 

ERIC A. GROVER (SBN 136080) 

eagrover@kellergrover.com 

JADE BUTMAN (SBN 235920) 

jbutman@kellergrover.com 

KELLER GROVER LLP 

425 Second Street, Suite 500 

San Francisco, California 94107 

Phone: (415) 543-1305 

Facsimile: (415) 543-7861 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Catherine E. Sullivan 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CATHERINE E. SULLIVAN, on behalf 

of herself and all others similarly 

situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

KELLY SERVICES, INC, and DOES 1 

TO 10, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

 __

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. CV 07-02784 CW 

CLASS ACTION

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

FOR DAMAGES AND 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: 

1. VIOLATION OF LABOR 

CODE §§ 201-203, 2699 

2. UNFAIR BUSINESS 

PRACTICES (Violation of California 

Business and Professions Code 

§§ 17200, et seq.)

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW Document 15 Filed 07/26/07 Page 5 of 14
_________________________________________1__________________________________________

_First Amended Complaint Case No. CV 07-02784 CW

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 Catherine E. Sullivan (hereafter “Plaintiff”), by and through her 

attorneys, alleges upon personal knowledge as to herself and her acts stated herein, and 

upon information and belief as to all other matters, as follows: 

I. INTRODUCTION 

 1. This class action is on behalf of a class of former employees of Defendant 

KELLY SERVICES, INC. (“KELLY SERVICES”). Defendant failed to pay these 

workers their final checks in a timely manner, in violation of Labor Code §§ 201-202. 

 2. Plaintiff, CATHERINE E. SULLIVAN, was employed by KELLY 

SERVICES from March 16 through August 11, 2006. Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff 

her final paycheck on her last day of work, violating Labor Code § 201. Consequently, 

Plaintiff is entitled to waiting time penalties under Labor Code § 203. 

 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant’s 

practice of not paying its employees’ final paycheck in a timely manner following 

discharge or resignation extends to scores of people formerly employed by Defendant, 

going back four years. 

 4. California law, as set forth in Labor Code §§ 201 and 202, provides that 

if an employer discharges an employee, the employer must pay the employee his or her 

earned and unpaid wages immediately. The employee must also be paid immediately if 

he or she resigns and provides at least 72 hours notice of resignation. Finally, if an 

employee resigns without providing 72 hours notice of resignation, the employer must 

pay the employee the final check within 72 hours. 

 5. Plaintiff seeks all available remedies for violations of Labor Code § 201 

and 202, and, to the extent allowable by law, restitution and/or disgorgement in 

connection with Defendant’s violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law. 

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

 6. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims alleged herein pursuant to the 

Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), as this is a class action and the 

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW Document 15 Filed 07/26/07 Page 6 of 14
_________________________________________2__________________________________________

First Amended Complaint Case No. CV 07-02784 CW 

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 

amount in controversy (including attorneys’ fees) exceeds the sum of $5 million and 

involves a California plaintiff and an out-of-state defendant. Based on the Class Action 

Fairness Act, this Court may assume jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s state law claims based on 

California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. and California Labor Code 

§§ 201-203 and 2699. Plaintiff has complied with all requirements set forth in Labor 

Code § 2699.3 necessary to commence a civil action seeking Labor Code § 2699 

penalties. 

 7. Venue is proper in this Court because Plaintiff is a resident of Marin 

County, California and Defendant is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of 

business in Michigan.. Defendant has 17 offices in California and systematically and 

continually does business in the State of California, including in this judicial district. 

III. THE PARTIES 

 8. Plaintiff Catherine E. Sullivan is a California resident. She worked for 

KELLY SERVICES as a temporary employee sent to Managed Health Network to work 

on projects from March 16 through August 11, 2006. 

 9. Defendant KELLY SERVICES, INC. is a Delaware corporation. 

Defendant owns and/or operates temporary agencies in California. Defendant sends 

people it hires to work on projects for its clients throughout the state. 

 10. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of the Defendants 

sued as DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and will seek leave to amend this Complaint to 

allege their true names and capacities once they are ascertained. Upon information and 

belief, Plaintiff makes all allegations contained in this Complaint against all of the 

Defendants, including Does 1 through 10, inclusive. 

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

A. Defendant Failed to Pay Plaintiff Her Final Check on Her Final Day 

 11. Plaintiff was a temporary employee of Defendant and was sent out to one 

client to work on projects. 

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW Document 15 Filed 07/26/07 Page 7 of 14
_________________________________________3__________________________________________

First Amended Complaint Case No. CV 07-02784 CW 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 12. Plaintiff’s tenure at KELLY SERVICES lasted through August 11, 2006. 

At that time, Defendant took Plaintiff off her assignment and did not reassign her to a 

new project. 

 13. Plaintiff did not receive her final check on the final day she worked for 

Defendant. 

 14. Plaintiff had to wait until August 16, 2006 to receive her final check. 

V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

 15. Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a class of people 

similarly situated. This action is brought and can be properly maintained as a class 

action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Questions of law and fact common to the class 

predominate over questions affecting individual members. This class action satisfies the 

numerosity, typicality, adequacy, predominance and superiority requirements of Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 23. Therefore, a class action is superior to other methods of adjudicating the 

claims. 

 16. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all 

times herein mentioned, KELLY SERVICES engaged in a policy and practice of not 

timely paying wages owing to its California employees assigned to its customers when 

those employees resigned or were dischareded from their employment. 

 17. Definition of Plaintiff Class. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of 

herself and a class of KELLY SERVICES employees assigned to work for KELLY 

SERVICES’ customers whose employment in California ended from four years prior to 

the filing of this action through the date this action is resolved and who did not receive 

their final check on the final day they worked for Defendant. Plaintiff reserves the right 

under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable case law to amend or modify 

the class description, or to seek to limit certification to specific issues. 

 18. Numerosity of the Class. The Plaintiff Class is so numerous that 

individual joinder of all members is impractical under the circumstances of this case. 

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW Document 15 Filed 07/26/07 Page 8 of 14
_________________________________________4__________________________________________

First Amended Complaint Case No. CV 07-02784 CW 

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 

While the exact number of Class Members is unknown to Plaintiff at this time and can 

only be ascertained after discovery directed to Defendant, Plaintiff believes and 

therefore alleges that the Class consists of more than 5000 individuals. 

 19. Typicality of Claims. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the 

members of the Class, and Plaintiff’s interests are consistent with and not antagonistic to 

those of the other Class Members she seeks to represent. Plaintiff and all Class 

Members have sustained damages and face irreparable harm arising out of Defendant’s 

common course of conduct as alleged herein. The damages sustained by each member 

of the Class were caused directly by Defendant’s wrongful conduct as alleged herein. 

 20. Adequacy of Representation. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately 

protect the interests of the members of the Class. Plaintiff’s claims are not antagonistic 

to those of the members of the Class. Plaintiff has retained attorneys who are 

experienced in the prosecution of class actions, including wage and hour class actions, 

and Plaintiff intends to prosecute this action vigorously. 

 21. Community of Interest; Existence and Predominance of Common 

Questions of Law or Fact. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members 

of the Class and predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class 

Members. These common legal and factual questions, which do not vary among Class 

Members, and which may be determined without reference to the individual 

circumstances of any Class Member, include, but are not limited to, the following: 

 (a) Does KELLY SERVICES maintain a policy and practice of not 

assuring that the final wages of its employees are timely paid in compliance with Labor 

Code §§ 201 and 202? 

 (b) Is KELLY SERVICES liable for waiting-time remedies pursuant 

to Labor Code § 203 if it does not pay its employees within the time frames prescribed 

in Labor Code §§ 201 and 202? 

 (c) Is the violation of Labor Code §§ 201 and 202 a basis upon which 

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW Document 15 Filed 07/26/07 Page 9 of 14
_________________________________________5__________________________________________

First Amended Complaint Case No. CV 07-02784 CW 

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 

an unfair business practice cause of action can be maintained? 

 (d) Is KELLY SERVICES liable for Labor Code § 2699 penalties for 

its failure to comply with Labor Code §§ 201-203? 

 22. Superiority. A class action is superior to other available methods for the 

fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, since individual litigation of the 

claims of each Class Member is impracticable. Even if every individual Class Member 

could afford individual litigation, the court system could not. It would be unduly 

burdensome to the courts in which the individual litigation of the numerous cases would 

proceed. Individualized litigation 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 factual issues. 

By contrast, the conduct of this action as a class action presents few management 

difficulties, conserves the resources of the parties and of the court system, and protects 

the rights of each Class Member. Plaintiff anticipates no difficulty in the management 

of this action as a class action. 

 23. The prosecution of separate actions by individual Class Members may 

create a risk of conflicting adjudications that, as a practical matter, would be dispositive 

of the interests of the other Class Members not parties to those adjudications or that 

would substantially impair or impede the ability of those non-party Class Members to 

protect their interests. 

 24. The prosecution of individual actions by Class Members would establish 

inconsistent standards of conduct for Defendant. 

 25. Defendant has acted or has refused to act in a manner generally 

applicable to the Class, thereby making appropriate final and injunctive relief or 

corresponding declaratory relief with regard to members of the Class as a whole, as 

requested herein. Likewise, Defendant’s conduct as described above is unlawful, 

continuing and capable of repetition and will continue unless restrained and enjoined by 

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW Document 15 Filed 07/26/07 Page 10 of 14
_________________________________________6__________________________________________

First Amended Complaint Case No. CV 07-02784 CW 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

the Court. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

(Violation of Labor Code §§ 201, 202 and 203) 

 26. The preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are realleged and 

incorporated by reference. 

 27. KELLY SERVICES employed and paid Plaintiff and other Class 

Members to work on projects for clients in California. 

 28. Plaintiff is informed and believes and consequently alleges that 

throughout the three year time period embraced by this cause of action, KELLY 

SERVICES’ employment of more than 5000 employees in California ended by 

discharge or resignation and these Class Members were not timely paid their final 

uncontested wages as required by Labor Code §§ 201 and/or 202. Plaintiff is informed 

and believes that KELLY SERVICES had a policy and practice of paying such persons 

without regard for the requirements of Labor Code §§ 201 and/or 202. 

 29. Pursuant to Labor Code § 203, KELLY SERVICES is obligated to pay 

the Class Members one day of wages for each day their wages were late up to a 

maximum of 30 calendar days of wages, plus, to the extent allowed by law, interest and 

cost of suit incurred herein. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 

(Violation of Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.)

 30. The preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are realleged and 

incorporated by reference. 

 31. Throughout the period starting four years before the filing of this action, 

Defendant engaged in and continued to engage in unlawful and unfair business practices 

in California by practicing, employing and utilizing the employment practices alleged 

above, namely failing to pay its employees’ final wages within the time periods 

specified under Labor Code §§ 201 and 202. 

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW Document 15 Filed 07/26/07 Page 11 of 14
_________________________________________7__________________________________________

First Amended Complaint Case No. CV 07-02784 CW 

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 

 32. Defendant’s use of such unlawful and unfair business practices 

constitutes unfair competition and provides an unfair advantage over Defendant’s 

competitors, in violation of California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. 

 33. Plaintiff seeks, on her behalf and on behalf of a class of people similarly 

situated, full restitution of monies, restoration of property and/or disgorgement of profits 

generated thereby, as necessary and according to proof, to restore any and all monies 

withheld, acquired and/or converted by the Defendant and/or profits generated thereby 

by means of the unfair practices complained of herein. 

 34. Plaintiff seeks, on her behalf and on behalf of a class of people similarly 

situated and on behalf of the general public, an injunction prohibiting Defendant from 

continuing to engage in the unlawful and unfair business practices complained of herein. 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 

(Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 

Labor Code §§ 201-203, 2699) 

 35. The preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are realleged and 

incorporated by reference. 

 36. Plaintiff is an “aggrieved employee” as that term is defined in Labor 

Code § 2699(a) because she is a person employed by the alleged violator and against 

whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed. 

 37. Plaintiff has met all of the requirements set forth in Labor Code § 2699.3 

necessary to commence a civil action against Defendant for violations of Labor Code 

§§ 201-203. 

 38. By its actions herein, Defendant has failed to comply with the 

requirements of Labor Code §§ 201-203 as it relates to Plaintiff and the members of the 

putative class. 

 39. Plaintiff therefore brings this action on behalf of herself and all former 

employees within the State of California who, within the applicable statutory period, did 

not timely receive all legally required wage payments to which they were entitled 

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW Document 15 Filed 07/26/07 Page 12 of 14
_________________________________________8__________________________________________

First Amended Complaint Case No. CV 07-02784 CW 

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 

pursuant to Labor Code §§ 201-202. 

 40. Therefore, plaintiff, for herself and the members of the putative class, 

seeks the penalties provided for by Labor Code §§ 2699 for violations of Labor Code 

§§ 201-203. 

 41. Plaintiff further seeks reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 

Labor Code §§ 2699(g)(1). 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant, as follows: 

CLASS CERTIFICATION:

 1. That this action be certified as a class action; 

 2. That Plaintiff be appointed as the representative of the class; and 

 3. That Counsel for Plaintiff be appointed as class counsel. 

AS TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:

4. Upon the First Cause of Action, for all wages due Plaintiff and any Class 

Members who have left the employment of KELLY SERVICES in an 

amount according to proof, with interest thereon from the date such 

continuation wages were due; 

5. For all amounts owed Plaintiff and the Class for Defendant’s violation of 

Labor Code § 203; and 

6. For interest and reasonable costs allowed by law and according to proof. 

AS TO THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:

7. For restitution, restoration of property and/or disgorgement of profits as 

allowed by law and according to proof; 

 8. For injunctive relief; and 

9. For attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Code 

§ 1021.5. 

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW Document 15 Filed 07/26/07 Page 13 of 14
_________________________________________9__________________________________________

First Amended Complaint Case No. CV 07-02784 CW 

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 

AS TO THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION:

10. For the civil penalties specified in Labor Code § 2699 for Plaintiff and 

the members of the putative class for each violation of Labor Code 

§§ 201-203 during the applicable statute of limitations period. 

11. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as provided for by Labor Code 

§ 2699(g)(1). 

Dated: June ___, 2007 Respectfully submitted, 

 KELLER GROVER LLP 

 By: 

 ERIC A. GROVER 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 Catherine E. Sullivan 

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW Document 15 Filed 07/26/07 Page 14 of 14