Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05563/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05563-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

Jahan C. Sagafi (Cal. Bar No. 224887)

Julia Rabinovich (Cal. Bar No. 290730)

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP

One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 638-8800

Facsimile: (415) 638-8810

E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com

E-mail: jrabinovich@outtengolden.com

Justin M. Swartz (admitted pro hac vice)

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP

3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor

New York, New York 10016

Telephone: (212) 245-1000

Facsimile: (646) 509-2060

E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff and proposed Class Members

Additional counsel listed on following page

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO / OAKLAND DIVISION

JASON ZAJONC, individually and on 

behalf all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, 

f/k/a Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated,

MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY 

LLC, and MORGAN STANLEY,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05563-EMC

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER REGARDING FILING OF FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document 85 Filed 08/07/15 Page 1 of 27 Case3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document84 Filed08/05/15 Page1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

- ii -

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

RE: FILING OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 14-CV-05563-EMC

Gregg I. Shavitz (admitted pro hac vice)

Susan H. Stern (admitted pro hac vice)

Paolo C. Meireles (admitted pro hac vice)

Michael John Palitz (admitted pro hac vice)

SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.

1515 S. Federal Hwy., Suite 404

Boca Raton, Florida 33432

Telephone: (561) 447-8888

Facsimile: (561) 447-8831

E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com

E-mail: sstern@shavitzlaw.com

E-mail: pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com

Seth R. Lesser (admitted pro hac vice)

Fran L. Rudich (admitted pro hac vice)

KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP 

Two International Drive, Suite 350

Rye Brook, NY 10573

Telephone: (914) 934-9200 x303

Facsimile: (914) 934-9220

E-mail: seth@klafterolsen.com 

E-mail: fran@klafterolsen.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff and proposed Class Members

Case 3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document 85 Filed 08/07/15 Page 2 of 27 Case3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document84 Filed08/05/15 Page2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

- 1 -

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

RE: FILING OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 14-CV-05563-EMC

JOINT STIPULATION

Plaintiff Jason Zajonc (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Morgan 

Stanley Smith Barney LLC, and Morgan Stanley (“Defendants”) (collectively, the “parties”) 

hereby stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, on December 19, 2014, Plaintiff Jason Zajonc, on behalf of himself and 

others similarly situated, filed a Complaint against Morgan Stanley (Docket No. 1); 

WHEREAS, at the initial case management conference on June 4, 2015, the Court set the 

deadline to amend the pleadings as August 6, 2015;

WHEREAS, Dennis Fowler would like to serve as an additional Class Representative

asserting similar claims against Morgan Stanley, and Plaintiff wishes to alter the wording of 

certain allegations;

WHEREAS, attached hereto as Exhibit A is Plaintiff’s proposed First Amended 

Complaint; 

WHEREAS, the parties agree that Plaintiff will file the proposed First Amended 

Complaint immediately after the Court grants this stipulation, if possible on or before August 6, 

2015; 

THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated that Morgan Stanley will not oppose Plaintiff’s 

filing of the proposed First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court 

grant Plaintiff leave to file the proposed First Amended Complaint.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Case 3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document 85 Filed 08/07/15 Page 3 of 27 Case3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document84 Filed08/05/15 Page3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

- 2 -

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

RE: FILING OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 14-CV-05563-EMC

Dated: August 5, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Jahan C. Sagafi

Jahan C. Sagafi

Jahan C. Sagafi (Cal. Bar No. 224887)

Julia Rabinovich (Cal. Bar No. 290730)

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP

One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 638-8800

Facsimile: (415) 638-8810

E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com

E-mail: jrabinovich@outtengolden.com

Justin M. Swartz (admitted pro hac vice)

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP

3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor

New York, New York 10016

Telephone: (212) 245-1000

Facsimile: (646) 509-2060

E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com

Gregg I. Shavitz (admitted pro hac vice)

Susan H. Stern (admitted pro hac vice)

Paolo C. Meireles (admitted pro hac vice)

Michael John Palitz (admitted pro hac vice)

SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.

1515 S. Federal Hwy., Suite 404

Boca Raton, Florida 33432

Telephone: (561) 447-8888

Facsimile: (561) 447-8831

E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com

E-mail: sstern@shavitzlaw.com

E-mail: pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com

Seth R. Lesser (admitted pro hac vice)

Fran L. Rudich (admitted pro hac vice)

KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP 

Two International Drive, Suite 350

Rye Brook, NY 10573

Telephone: (914) 934-9200 x303

Facsimile: (914) 934-9220

E-mail: seth@klafterolsen.com 

E-mail: fran@klafterolsen.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff and proposed Class 

Members

Case 3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document 85 Filed 08/07/15 Page 4 of 27 Case3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document84 Filed08/05/15 Page4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

- 3 -

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

RE: FILING OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 14-CV-05563-EMC

By: /s/ Melinda Riechert

Melinda Riechert 

Roberta H. Vespremi

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

One Market, Spear Street Tower 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Tel: (415) 442-1000 

Fax: (415) 442-1001 

mriechert@morganlewis.com 

Attorneys for Defendants Morgan Stanley & Co.

LLC, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney and Morgan 

Stanley 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ________________, 2015 

_______________________

The Honorable Edward M. Chen

United States District Judge

Case3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document84 Filed08/05/15 Page5 of 6

August 7

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Edward M. Chen

Case 3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document 85 Filed 08/07/15 Page 5 of 27
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 -

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

RE: FILING OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 14-CV-05563-EMC

ATTESTATION

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that Melinda Riechert concurs in 

this filing.

Case 3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document 85 Filed 08/07/15 Page 6 of 27 Case3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document84 Filed08/05/15 Page6 of 6
Exhibit A

Case 3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document 85 Filed 08/07/15 Page 7 of 27 Case3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document84-1 Filed08/05/15 Page1 of 21
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 

VIOLATIONS OF STATE WAGE AND HOUR LAWS

CASE NO. 14-CV-05563-EMC

Jahan C. Sagafi (Cal. Bar No. 224887)

Julia Rabinovich (Cal. Bar No. 290730)

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP

One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 638-8800

Facsimile: (415) 638-8810

E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com

E-mail: jrabinovich@outtengolden.com

Justin M. Swartz (admitted pro hac vice)

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP

3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor

New York, New York 10016

Telephone: (212) 245-1000

Facsimile: (646) 509-2060

E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and proposed Class Members

Additional counsel listed on following page

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO / OAKLAND DIVISION

JASON ZAJONC and DENNIS FOWLER, 

individually and on behalf all others 

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, 

f/k/a Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated,

MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY 

LLC, and MORGAN STANLEY,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05563-EMC

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

VIOLATIONS OF STATE WAGE AND

HOUR LAWS

CLASS ACTION

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Case 3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document 85 Filed 08/07/15 Page 8 of 27 Case3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document84-1 Filed08/05/15 Page2 of 21
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

- ii -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

VIOLATIONS OF STATE WAGE AND HOUR LAWS

CASE NO. 14-CV-05563-EMC

Gregg I. Shavitz (admitted pro hac vice)

Susan H. Stern (admitted pro hac vice)

Paolo C. Meireles (admitted pro hac vice)

Michael John Palitz (admitted pro hac vice)

SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.

1515 S. Federal Hwy., Suite 404

Boca Raton, Florida 33432

Telephone: (561) 447-8888

Facsimile: (561) 447-8831

E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com

E-mail: sstern@shavitzlaw.com

E-mail: pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com

Seth R. Lesser (admitted pro hac vice)

Fran L. Rudich (admitted pro hac vice)

KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP 

Two International Drive, Suite 350

Rye Brook, NY 10573

Telephone: (914) 934-9200 x303

Facsimile: (914) 934-9220

E-mail: seth@klafterolsen.com 

E-mail: fran@klafterolsen.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and proposed Class Members

Case 3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document 85 Filed 08/07/15 Page 9 of 27 Case3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document84-1 Filed08/05/15 Page3 of 21
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 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

VIOLATIONS OF STATE WAGE AND HOUR LAWS

CASE NO. 14-CV-05563-EMC

Plaintiffs Jason Zajonc (“Mr. Zajonc”) and Dennis Fowler (“Mr. Fowler”) 

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege, on behalf of themselves and a California class of those similarly 

situated, as follows:

 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

1. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action under the Class Action 

Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), because this is a class action in which: (1) there are 100 or 

more members in the proposed class; (2) at least some members of the proposed class have a 

different citizenship from Defendant; and (3) the claims of the proposed class members exceed 

$5,000,000 in the aggregate. 

2. This Court is empowered to issue a declaratory judgment pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.

3. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California has 

personal jurisdiction over Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC and 

Morgan Stanley (collectively, “Morgan Stanley” or “Defendants”), because Defendants maintain 

an office in this District, do business in California and in this District, and because many of the 

acts complained of and giving rise to the claims alleged occurred in and emanated from this 

District.

4. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a 

substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this District.

5. Intradistrict assignment: Pursuant to N.D. Cal. Local Rule 3-2(c) and (d), 

intradistrict assignment to the San Francisco or Oakland Division is proper because a substantial 

part of the events that give rise to the claims asserted occurred in Marin County. 

 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS

6. Morgan Stanley is a financial services company that provides brokerage 

and related products and services to millions of investors nationwide.

7. Morgan Stanley employs Financial Advisor Associates (“FAAs”) at branch 

locations nationwide.

Case 3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document 85 Filed 08/07/15 Page 10 of 27 Case3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document84-1 Filed08/05/15 Page4 of 21
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 

VIOLATIONS OF STATE WAGE AND HOUR LAWS

CASE NO. 14-CV-05563-EMC

8. Morgan Stanley classifies its FAAs as non-exempt during an 

approximately five-to six-month training, or “pre-production,” period.

9. During the pre-production training period, while they are classified as nonexempt, FAAs’ duties include the completion of the required FAA Training Program course 

work, studying for and passing the Series 7 exam, studying for and passing the Series 66 exam, 

studying for and passing the FAA Pre-Production Assessment exams, learning Defendants’ 

product and service offerings, research tools, policies, and procedures, including Defendants’ 

marketing protocols, client call and meeting guidelines, and networking tips, developing a 

tailored business plan and schedule, attending meetings, completing all FAA Training Program 

curriculum requirements, and attending national performance sessions. 

10. During the pre-production training period, FAAs regularly worked 

overtime both from the office and remotely for which they were not compensated. 

11. To the best of their recollection, Plaintiffs worked uncompensated overtime 

during the vast majority or all of their work weeks. Specifically, (1) Mr. Zajonc worked 

uncompensated overtime the week before taking his Series 7 exam, among others, and (2) Mr. 

Fowler worked uncompensated overtime the week before taking his Series 7 exam, among others.

12. Pursuant to a company-wide policy and practice, Morgan Stanley 

uniformly failed to accurately track or record actual hours worked by FAAs during the preproduction training period. Morgan Stanley furthered this wrongful policy by: (i) instructing its 

FAAs not to track all hours they worked but instead, to record only their scheduled eight (8) 

hours every day; (ii) instructing its FAAs not to record overtime hours worked; (iii) failing to 

provide its FAAs with a method to accurately record the hours they actually worked; and (iv) 

requiring FAAs to understate the number of hours they actually worked. 

13. In willful disregard of state wage and hour law, Morgan Stanley has 

refused to timely pay Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated FAAs for all hours worked and has

failed to provide overtime premium pay. Moreover, Morgan Stanley has willfully failed to 

provide mandatory meal and rest periods and furnish itemized wage statements.

Case 3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document 85 Filed 08/07/15 Page 11 of 27 Case3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document84-1 Filed08/05/15 Page5 of 21
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 

VIOLATIONS OF STATE WAGE AND HOUR LAWS

CASE NO. 14-CV-05563-EMC

14. Plaintiffs bring this action, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23

(“Rule 23”), on behalf of all persons who are and were employed by Morgan Stanley in 

California, as FAAs and similarly situated current and former employees holding comparable 

positions but different titles (“Class Members”) at any time since December 19, 2010, through the 

date of the final disposition of this action (“Class Period”) who (i) were not timely paid for all 

hours worked by them as well as unpaid overtime wages for hours worked above forty (40) in a 

workweek; (ii) were not provided with an off-duty meal period of at least thirty (30) minutes for 

every five hours worked; (iii) were not provided with two off-duty rest periods of at least ten (10) 

minutes for every four hours or major fraction thereof worked; (iv) were subject to Defendants’ 

failure to maintain accurate and sufficient time records for FAAs; and (v) were subject to 

Defendants’ failure to provide accurate and itemized wage statements showing gross wages 

earned, total hours worked, net wages earned, and all applicable hourly rates in effect during each 

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

15. Morgan Stanley’s practices violate California Labor Code §§ 201-203, 218, 

218.5, 226, 226.3, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1174, 1174.5, 1194, and 2698-2699.5, et seq. and Wage 

Order No. 4-2001 (collectively, “California Wage and Hour Law”) and California Business & 

Professions Code § 17200 et seq. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief; overtime compensation for all 

overtime work required, suffered, permitted, or engaged by Morgan Stanley; liquidated and/or 

other damages and penalties as permitted by applicable law; benefits recoverable under applicable 

law and interest; and attorneys’ fees and costs. 

 THE PARTIES

Plaintiff Jason Zajonc

16. Plaintiff Jason Zajonc was employed by Morgan Stanley as an FAA during 

mid-2012. According to Morgan Stanley’s records produced in this litigation, Mr. Zajonc worked 

for Morgan Stanley as an FAA from July 23, 2012 to October 16, 2012 at Morgan Stanley’s 

branch location in San Rafael, California.

17. Mr. Zajonc regularly worked more than forty (40) hours in a workweek for 

Morgan Stanley’s benefit during the pre-production training period. Pursuant to Morgan 

Case 3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document 85 Filed 08/07/15 Page 12 of 27 Case3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document84-1 Filed08/05/15 Page6 of 21
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 

VIOLATIONS OF STATE WAGE AND HOUR LAWS

CASE NO. 14-CV-05563-EMC

Stanley’s policy, pattern or practice, Mr. Zajonc was not paid proper compensation for all hours 

worked including overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40.

18. Throughout Mr. Zajonc’s time as an FAA, Morgan Stanley did not provide 

him with mandatory meal and rest periods and did not furnish itemized wage statements.

Plaintiff Dennis Fowler

19. Plaintiff Dennis Fowler was employed by Morgan Stanley as an FAA 

during the latter half of 2014. According to Morgan Stanley’s records produced in this litigation, 

Mr. Fowler worked for Morgan Stanley as an FAA from approximately September 5, 2014 to 

December 1, 2014 at Morgan Stanley’s branch location in La Jolla, California.

20. Mr. Fowler regularly worked more than forty (40) hours in a workweek for 

Morgan Stanley’s benefit during the pre-production training period. Pursuant to Morgan 

Stanley’s policy, pattern or practice, Mr. Fowler was not paid proper compensation for all hours 

worked including overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40.

21. Throughout Mr. Fowler’s time as an FAA, Morgan Stanley did not provide 

him with mandatory meal and rest periods and did not furnish itemized wage statements.

Defendants

22. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, f/k/a Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, is a 

Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in New York, New York. 

It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Morgan Stanley.

23. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC is a Delaware limited liability 

company with its principal place of business in New York, New York. It is a partially owned 

subsidiary of Defendant Morgan Stanley.

24. Morgan Stanley is a Delaware bank holding company, registered with the 

New York Stock Exchange, among other regulatory agencies and authorities. Morgan Stanley 

has its principal place of business in New York, New York. 

25. Morgan Stanley is a parent company of Defendants Morgan Stanley & Co. 

LLC and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC.

Case 3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document 85 Filed 08/07/15 Page 13 of 27 Case3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document84-1 Filed08/05/15 Page7 of 21
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 

VIOLATIONS OF STATE WAGE AND HOUR LAWS

CASE NO. 14-CV-05563-EMC

26. Each Defendant does business under the trade name or mark of “Morgan 

Stanley.”

27. Each Defendant is a financial services company that provides brokerage 

and related products and services to millions of investors nationwide.

28. Each Defendant employed Plaintiffs and other Class Members, directly or 

indirectly, jointly or severally, including, without limitation, directly or indirectly controlling and 

directing the terms of employment and/or compensation of Plaintiffs and other Class Members. 

29. Each Defendant exercised control over the wages, hours or working 

conditions of Plaintiffs and other Class Members, or suffered or permitted to work, or engaged, 

thereby creating a common law employment relationship, Plaintiffs and other Class Members.

30. Defendants jointly employed Plaintiffs and other Class Members.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

31. Pursuant to Rule 23, Mr. Zajonc and Mr. Fowler (collectively, “the Class 

Representatives”), bring claims for relief for violation of California’s wage and hour, unfair 

competition, and private attorney general laws as a class action, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3), 

on behalf of all Class Members, defined in paragraph 14.

32. The persons in the class identified above are so numerous that joinder of all 

Class Members is impracticable. Although the Class Representatives does not know the precise 

number of such persons, the facts on which the calculation of that number can be based are 

presently within the sole control of the Defendants and ascertainable. Upon information and 

belief, there are at least 100 members of the class.

33. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to 

the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief 

with respect to the class as a whole.

34. There are questions of law and fact common to the class that predominate 

over any questions solely affecting individual members of the class, including but not limited to:

a. whether Defendants have failed and/or refused to pay the Class 

Representatives and Class Members overtime pay for the hours worked in excess of forty (40)

Case 3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document 85 Filed 08/07/15 Page 14 of 27 Case3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document84-1 Filed08/05/15 Page8 of 21
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 

VIOLATIONS OF STATE WAGE AND HOUR LAWS

CASE NO. 14-CV-05563-EMC

hours per workweek and hours worked in excess of eight (8) per day within the meaning of the 

California Wage and Hour Law;

b. whether Defendants failed to provide off-duty meal periods to the 

Class Representatives and Class Members in violation of California Wage and Hour Law;

c. whether Defendants failed to provide off-duty rest periods to the 

Class Representatives and Class Members in violation of California Wage and Hour Law;

d. whether Defendants failed to provide accurate itemized wage 

statements to the Class Representatives and Class Members in violation of California Wage and 

Hour Law;

e. whether Defendants’ conduct was “unlawful,” “unfair,” or 

“fraudulent” under California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.;

f. whether Defendants failed to comply with the record keeping 

requirements of the California Wage and Hour Law;

g. the nature and extent of the class-wide injury and the appropriate 

measure of damages for Class Members;

h. whether Defendants had a uniform policy and practice of failing to 

accurately track or record actual hours worked by Class Members;

i. whether Defendants furthered their uniform policy and practice of 

failing to accurately track or record actual hours worked by Class Members by: (i) instructing 

Class Members not to track all hours they worked but instead to record only their scheduled eight 

(8) hours per day; (ii) instructing Class Members not to record overtime hours worked; (iii) 

failing to provide Class Members with a method to accurately record the hours they actually 

worked; and (iv) requiring Class Members to under-state the number of hours they actually 

worked;

j. whether Defendants’ policy and practice of failing to accurately 

track or record hours worked by Class Members was willful; and 

k. whether Defendants can prove that their unlawful policies were 

implemented in good faith.

Case 3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document 85 Filed 08/07/15 Page 15 of 27 Case3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document84-1 Filed08/05/15 Page9 of 21
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 

VIOLATIONS OF STATE WAGE AND HOUR LAWS

CASE NO. 14-CV-05563-EMC

35. The claims of the Class Representatives are typical of the claims of the 

class sought to be represented. The Class Representatives and Class Members work or have 

worked for Defendants and have been subjected to their policy, pattern or practice of failing to 

pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week. Defendants acted 

and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making declaratory relief 

with respect to the class appropriate.

36. The Class Representatives will fairly and adequately represent and protect 

the interests of the class. 

37. The Class Representatives have retained counsel competent and 

experienced in complex class action and wage and hour litigation. 

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

efficient adjudication of the California Wage and Hour Law claims, where individual plaintiffs 

may lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute a lawsuit in court against corporate 

defendants.

39. Class Members have been damaged and are entitled to recovery because of 

Defendants’ common and uniform policies, practices and procedures. Although the relative 

damages suffered by individual Class Members are not de minimis, such damages are small 

compared to the expense and burden of bringing individual cases.

40. Class treatment of the claims is superior because it will obviate the need for 

duplicative litigation that may result in inconsistent judgments about Defendants’ practices.

 

 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

 California Wage and Hour Law: Unpaid Wages

 On Behalf of the Class Representatives and the Class

 Against All Defendants

41. The Class Representatives reallege and incorporate by reference the 

preceding paragraphs as if they were set forth again herein. 

42. Defendants have engaged in a widespread policy, pattern or practice of 

violating the California Wage and Hour Law, as detailed in this Class Action Complaint.

Case 3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document 85 Filed 08/07/15 Page 16 of 27 Case3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document84-1 Filed08/05/15 Page10 of 21
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 

VIOLATIONS OF STATE WAGE AND HOUR LAWS

CASE NO. 14-CV-05563-EMC

43. At all times relevant, the Class Representatives and other Class Members 

have been employees and Defendants have been employers within the meaning of the California 

Wage and Hour Law. The Class Representatives and Class Members are covered by the 

California Wage and Hour Law.

44. Class Members all perform or performed the same primary duties, 

responsibilities and activities, and are all subject to Defendants’ common policy and practice, 

implemented throughout the State of California, of failing to credit and pay them proper overtime 

compensation, in violation of the California Wage and Hour Law.

45. Each Defendant employed the Class Representatives and Class Members as 

an employer or a joint employer, as further alleged herein.

46. Defendants failed to pay the Class Representatives and other Class 

Members wages to which they are entitled under the California Wage and Hour Law, including 

California Labor Code §§ 510, 558, and 1194, et seq. and Wage Order No. 4-2001 (codified at 

Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, § 11040). Defendants failed to pay the Class Representatives and Class 

Members for overtime at a wage rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay in weeks 

they worked more than forty (40) hours and for days they worked more than eight (8) hours. 

47. California Labor Code § 510 and the applicable Wage Order require that an 

employer compensate all work performed by an employee in excess of eight (8) hours per 

workday and forty (40) hours per workweek, at one and one-half times the employee’s regular 

rate of pay.

48. California Labor Code § 1194 states that any employee receiving less than 

the legal overtime compensation applicable is entitled to recover in a civil action the unpaid 

balance of the full amount of his overtime compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable 

attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit.

49. California Labor Code § 558 states that an employer who violates § 510 or 

the related Wage Order is subject to a civil penalty of fifty dollars ($50) for each underpaid 

employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid plus an amount sufficient to 

recover underpaid wages and, for each subsequent violation, one hundred dollars ($100) for each 

Case 3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document 85 Filed 08/07/15 Page 17 of 27 Case3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document84-1 Filed08/05/15 Page11 of 21
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 

VIOLATIONS OF STATE WAGE AND HOUR LAWS

CASE NO. 14-CV-05563-EMC

underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid plus an amount 

sufficient to recover underpaid wages.

50. Defendants’ violations of the California Wage and Hour Law, as described 

in this Complaint, have been willful and intentional.

51. Due to Defendants’ violations of the California Wage and Hour Law, the 

Class Representatives and Class Members are entitled to recover from Defendants, jointly or 

severally, the relief requested herein. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful 

conduct, as set forth herein, the Class Representatives and Class Members have sustained 

damages, including loss of earnings for hours of overtime worked on behalf of Defendants in an 

amount to be established at trial, prejudgment interest, and costs and attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 

statute and other applicable law.

52. The Class Representatives, on behalf of themselves and Class Members, 

also requests further relief as described below.

 

 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

 California Wage and Hour Law: Failure to Provide 

 Mandated Meal Periods On Behalf of the Class Representatives and 

 the Class Against All Defendants

53. The Class Representatives reallege and incorporate by reference the 

preceding paragraphs as if they were set forth again herein. 

54. California Labor Code § 512(a) states in a pertinent part: “[A]n employer 

may not employ an employee for a work period of more than five hours per day without 

providing the employee with a meal period of not less than 30 minutes. An employer may not 

employ an employee for a work period of more than 10 hours per day without providing the 

employee with a second meal period of not less than 30 minutes.”

55. Wage Order No. 4-2001 states in pertinent part, “No employer shall 

employ any person for a work period of more than five (5) hours without a meal period of not less 

than 30 minutes . . . . If an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period in accordance 

with the applicable provision of this order, the employer shall pay the employee one (1) hour of 

pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal period is not 

Case 3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document 85 Filed 08/07/15 Page 18 of 27 Case3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document84-1 Filed08/05/15 Page12 of 21
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 

VIOLATIONS OF STATE WAGE AND HOUR LAWS

CASE NO. 14-CV-05563-EMC

provided.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, § 11040, subd. 11(A) & (B). California Labor Code § 226.7(b) 

explains that no employer shall “require an employee to work during a meal or rest . . . period 

mandated by an applicable . . . order of the Industrial Welfare Commission.” 

56. Since at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing 

until the present, Defendants failed to provide the Class Representatives and Class Members meal 

periods as required by California Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 and Wage Order No. 4-2001.

57. As a result of Defendants’ willful and unlawful failure to provide the Class 

Representatives and Class Members with mandated meal periods, the Class Representatives and 

Class Members are entitled to recover one (1) hour of pay at their regular rate of compensation 

for each workday that a meal period was not provided, pursuant to California Labor Code § 227.7 

and Wage Order No. 4-2001, § 11(B). The Class Representatives and Class Members are also 

entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, under California Code of Civil Procedure 

§ 1021.5.

58. The Class Representatives, on behalf of themselves and Class Members, 

also request further relief as described below. 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

California Wage and Hour Law: Failure to Provide 

Mandated Rest Periods on Behalf of the Class Representatives and 

the Class Against All Defendants

59. The Class Representatives reallege and incorporate by reference the 

preceding paragraphs as if they were set forth again herein. 

60. Wage Order No. 4-2001 states in pertinent part, “Every employer shall 

authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods, which insofar as practicable shall be in 

the middle of each work period. The authorized rest period time shall be based on the total hours 

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

thereof. . . . If any employer fails to provide an employee a rest period in accordance with the 

applicable provisions of this order, the employer shall pay the employee one (1) hour of pay at the 

employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday that the rest period is not provided.” 

Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, § 11040, subd. 12(A) & (B). California Labor Code § 226.7(b) explains 

Case 3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document 85 Filed 08/07/15 Page 19 of 27 Case3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document84-1 Filed08/05/15 Page13 of 21
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 

VIOLATIONS OF STATE WAGE AND HOUR LAWS

CASE NO. 14-CV-05563-EMC

that no employer shall “require an employee to work during a meal or rest . . . period mandated 

by an applicable . . . order of the Industrial Welfare Commission.” 

61. Since at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action until the 

present, Defendants failed to provide the Class Representatives and Class Members rest periods 

as required by California Labor Code §§ 226.7 and Wage Order No. 4-2001.

62. As a result of Defendants’ willful and unlawful failure to provide the Class 

Representatives and Class Members with mandated rest periods, the Class Representatives and 

Class Members are entitled to recover one (1) hour of pay at their regular rate of compensation 

for each workday that a rest was not provided, pursuant to California Labor Code § 226.7 and 

Wage Order No. 4-2001, § 12(B). The Class Representatives and Class Members are also 

entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, under California Code of Civil Procedure 

§ 1021.5.

63. The Class Representatives, on behalf of themselves and Class Members, 

also request further relief as described below.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

California Wage and Hour Law: Failure to Furnish Accurate 

Itemized Wage Statements on Behalf of the Class Representatives

and the Class Against All Defendants

64. The Class Representatives reallege and incorporate by reference the 

preceding paragraphs as if they were set forth again herein. 

65. California Labor Code § 226(a) and Wage Order No. 4-2001, § 7 provides, 

in relevant part, that every employer must furnish each employee with an itemized wage 

statement that shows the total number of hours worked each pay period, gross wages, net wages, 

all deductions, all applicable hourly rates of pay, the name and address of the legal entity that is 

the employer, and other information. California Labor Code § 1174(d) likewise requires 

employers to maintain records of hours worked daily and wages paid to employees. 

66. During the period four (4) years prior to the filing of the this Complaint 

until the present, Defendants knowingly and intentionally failed to furnish the Class 

Representatives and Class Members, upon each payment of compensation, itemized wage 

Case 3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document 85 Filed 08/07/15 Page 20 of 27 Case3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document84-1 Filed08/05/15 Page14 of 21
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 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

VIOLATIONS OF STATE WAGE AND HOUR LAWS

CASE NO. 14-CV-05563-EMC

statements accurately showing, at minimum: gross wages earned, total hours worked, net wages 

earned, and all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding 

numbers of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee. Defendants also willfully failed to 

maintain records of hours worked by the Class Representatives and Class Members as required 

under California Labor Code § 1174(d).

67. During all relevant times, the Class Representatives and Class Members 

were injured by these failures because, among other things, they were not provided with 

compliant wage statements, and they were confused about whether they were paid properly 

and/or they were misinformed about how many total hours they worked in each pay period. 

68. The Class Representatives and Class Members are entitled to injunctive 

relief to ensure Defendants’ compliance with California Labor Code §§ 226(a) and 1174(d).

69. The Class Representatives and Class Members are also entitled to the 

amount provided under California Labor Code §§ 226(e) and 1174.5, including the greater of all 

actual damages suffered or fifty ($50) dollars for the initial pay period in which a violation 

occurred and one-hundred ($100) dollars for each subsequent pay period. 

70. The Class Representatives and Class Members are also entitled to an award 

of costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees under California Labor Code § 226(h). 

71. The Class Representatives, on behalf of themselves and Class Members, 

also request further relief as described below.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

California Wage Payment Provisions: Failure to Timely 

Pay Wages On Behalf of the Class Representatives and 

the Class Against All Defendants

72. The Class Representatives reallege and incorporate by reference the 

preceding paragraphs as if they were set forth again herein.

73. California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202 requires employers to pay their 

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, as a penalty, 

Case 3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document 85 Filed 08/07/15 Page 21 of 27 Case3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document84-1 Filed08/05/15 Page15 of 21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 13 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

VIOLATIONS OF STATE WAGE AND HOUR LAWS

CASE NO. 14-CV-05563-EMC

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 (30) days of wages.

74. The Class Representatives and all Class Members who ceased employment 

with Defendants are entitled to unpaid compensation, but to date have not received such 

compensation. 

75. More than thirty (30) days have passed since the Class Representatives and 

certain Class Members left Defendants’ employ. 

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

compensation for all hours worked, the Class Representatives and Class Members whose 

employment ended during the class period are entitled to thirty (30) days’ wages under California 

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

77. The Class Representatives, on behalf of themselves, Class Members, and 

the general public, also request further relief as described below.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

California Labor Code §§ 2698-2699.5: PAGA Claims on

Behalf of Class Representative Dennis Fowler, the Class, and the

General Public Against All Defendants

78. Mr. Fowler realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding 

paragraphs as if they were set forth again herein. 

79. Under the California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) of 2006, 

California Labor Code §§ 2698-2699.5, an aggrieved employee, on behalf of himself or herself 

and other current or former employees as well as the general public, may bring a representative 

action as a private attorney general to recover penalties for an employer’s violations of the 

California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders. These civil penalties are in addition to any other 

relief available under the California Labor Code, and must be allocated 75% to California’s Labor 

and Workforce Development Agency and 25% to the aggrieved employees, pursuant to California 

Labor Code § 2699.

80. Pursuant to California Labor Code § 1198, Defendants’ failure to pay 

proper compensation to Mr. Fowler and Class Members, failure to provide them with meal and 

Case 3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document 85 Filed 08/07/15 Page 22 of 27 Case3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document84-1 Filed08/05/15 Page16 of 21
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

- 14 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

VIOLATIONS OF STATE WAGE AND HOUR LAWS

CASE NO. 14-CV-05563-EMC

rest breaks, failure to keep and furnish them with records of hours worked, and failure to pay 

them all wages due immediately upon discharge and within the time required by law after their 

employment ended are unlawful and constitute violations of the California Labor Code, each 

actionable under PAGA.

81. Mr. Fowler alleges, on behalf of himself and the class members, as well as 

the general public, that Defendants have violated the following provisions of the California Labor 

Code and the following provisions of California Wage Orders that are actionable through the 

California Labor Code and PAGA, as previously alleged herein: Cal. Wage Order No. 4; Cal. 

Labor Code §§ 510, 558, & 1194, Cal. Labor Code. §§ 226.7 & 512, Cal. Labor Code §§ 226, 

1174, & 1174.5, and Cal. Labor Code §§ 201, 202, & 203. Each of these violations entitles Mr. 

Fowler, as a private attorney general, to recover the applicable statutory civil penalties on his own 

behalf, on behalf of all aggrieved employees, and on behalf of the general public.

82. California Labor Code § 2699(a), which is part of PAGA, provides in 

pertinent part:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any provision of this code that 

provides for a civil penalty to be assessed and collected by the Labor and 

Workforce Development Agency or any of its departments, divisions, 

commissions, boards, agencies, or employees, for a violation of this code, may, as 

an alternative, be recovered through a civil action brought by an aggrieved 

employee on behalf of himself or herself and other current or former employees 

pursuant to the procedures specified in § 2699.3.

83. California Labor Code § 2699(f), which is part of PAGA, provides in 

pertinent part:

For all provisions of this code except those for which a civil penalty is specifically 

provided, there is established a civil penalty for a violation of these provisions, as 

follows: . . . (2) If, at the time of the alleged violation, the person employs one or 

more employees, the civil penalty is one hundred dollars ($100) for each aggrieved

employee per pay period for the initial violation and two hundred dollars ($200) 

for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each subsequent violation.

84. Mr. Fowler is entitled to civil penalties, to be paid by Defendants and 

allocated as PAGA requires, pursuant to California Labor Code § 2699(a) for Defendants’ 

Case 3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document 85 Filed 08/07/15 Page 23 of 27 Case3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document84-1 Filed08/05/15 Page17 of 21
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

- 15 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

VIOLATIONS OF STATE WAGE AND HOUR LAWS

CASE NO. 14-CV-05563-EMC

violations of the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders for which a civil penalty is 

already specifically provided by law. Further, Mr. Fowler is entitled to civil penalties, to be paid 

by Defendants and allocated as PAGA requires, pursuant to California Labor Code § 2699(f) for 

Defendants’ violations of the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders for which a civil 

penalty is not already specifically provided.

85. On July 31, 2015, Mr. Fowler provided written notice by certified mail to 

the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) and to Defendants of the 

legal claims and theories of this case.

86. Under PAGA, Mr. Fowler, on behalf of all aggrieved employees and the 

State of California, is entitled to recover the maximum civil penalties permitted by law for the 

violations of the California Labor Code and Wage Order No. 4 that are alleged in this Complaint.

87. Mr. Fowler, on behalf of himself and Class Members, also requests further 

relief as described below.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

California Business and Professions Code: Unfair Competition Law 

Violations On Behalf of the Class Representatives and the Class

Against All Defendants

88. The Class Representatives reallege and incorporate by reference the 

preceding paragraphs as if they were set forth again herein. 

89. The foregoing conduct, as alleged, violates the California Unfair 

Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., which prohibits, inter alia, 

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

The Class Representatives bring this cause of action individually and as a representative of all 

others subject to Defendants’ unlawful acts and practices. 

90. During the four (4) years prior to the filing of this Complaint until the 

present, Defendants committed unlawful, unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent acts as defined by 

the UCL. Defendants’ unlawful, unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent business practices include, 

without limitation, failing to pay for all hours worked, failing to pay overtime wages, failing to 

provide mandated meal and rest periods, failing to timely pay all wages earned, failing to furnish 

Case 3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document 85 Filed 08/07/15 Page 24 of 27 Case3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document84-1 Filed08/05/15 Page18 of 21
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

- 16 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

VIOLATIONS OF STATE WAGE AND HOUR LAWS

CASE NO. 14-CV-05563-EMC

accurate itemized wage statements, and failing to keep required payroll records, in violation of 

California law and/or the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.

91. As a result of this unlawful and/or fraudulent business practice, Defendants 

reaped unfair benefits and illegal profits at the expense of the Class Representatives and Class 

Members. Defendants must disgorge these ill-gotten gains and restore to the Class 

Representatives and Class Members all wrongfully withheld wages, including, but not limited to,

overtime compensation. 

92. The Class Representatives, on behalf of themselves and Class Members, 

seek recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs of this action to be paid by Defendants, as provided by 

the UCL and California Labor Code §§ 218, 218.5, and 1194.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all Class Members, pray 

for relief as follows:

A. Certification of the claims in this action as a class action;

B. Designation of Jason Zajonc and Dennis Fowler as the Class Representatives;

C. A declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are unlawful under 

the California Wage and Hour Law and the California Business and Professions Code;

D. Appropriate equitable and injunctive relief to remedy Defendants’ violations of the 

California Wage and Hour Law and the California Business and Professions Code including, but 

not necessarily limited to, an order enjoining Defendants from continuing their unlawful 

practices;

E. An award of damages including, but not limited to, unpaid wages and unpaid 

overtime wages (as applicable), liquidated damages, appropriate statutory penalties, the 

employer’s share of FICA, FUTA, state unemployment insurance and any other required 

employment taxes and restitution to be paid by Defendants according to proof;

Case 3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document 85 Filed 08/07/15 Page 25 of 27 Case3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document84-1 Filed08/05/15 Page19 of 21
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

- 17 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

VIOLATIONS OF STATE WAGE AND HOUR LAWS

CASE NO. 14-CV-05563-EMC

F. Pre-Judgment interest;

G. A service award to the Class Representatives as compensation for the time, effort, 

expense, risk, and opportunity costs incurred in pursuit of these representative claims on behalf of 

others, and as an incentive to others to ensure robust enforcement of rights protecting workers;

H. Attorneys’ fees and costs of this action, including expert fees; and 

I. Such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial on all causes of action and claims with respect 

to which they have a right to jury trial.

Case 3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document 85 Filed 08/07/15 Page 26 of 27 Case3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document84-1 Filed08/05/15 Page20 of 21
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

- 18 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

VIOLATIONS OF STATE WAGE AND HOUR LAWS

CASE NO. 14-CV-05563-EMC

Dated: August 5, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Jahan C. Sagafi

Jahan C. Sagafi

Jahan C. Sagafi (Cal. Bar No. 224887)

Julia Rabinovich (Cal. Bar No. 290730)

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP

One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 638-8800

Facsimile: (415) 638-8810

E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com

E-mail: jrabinovich@outtengolden.com

Justin M. Swartz (admitted pro hac vice)

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP

3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor

New York, New York 10016

Telephone: (212) 245-1000

Facsimile: (646) 509-2060

E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com

Gregg I. Shavitz (admitted pro hac vice)

Susan H. Stern (admitted pro hac vice)

Paolo C. Meireles (admitted pro hac vice)

Michael John Palitz (admitted pro hac vice)

SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.

1515 S. Federal Hwy., Suite 404

Boca Raton, Florida 33432

Telephone: (561) 447-8888

Facsimile: (561) 447-8831

E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com

E-mail: sstern@shavitzlaw.com

E-mail: pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com

Seth R. Lesser (admitted pro hac vice)

Fran L. Rudich (admitted pro hac vice)

KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP 

Two International Drive, Suite 350

Rye Brook, NY 10573

Telephone: (914) 934-9200 x303

Facsimile: (914) 934-9220

E-mail: seth@klafterolsen.com 

E-mail: fran@klafterolsen.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and proposed Class 

Members

Case 3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document 85 Filed 08/07/15 Page 27 of 27 Case3:14-cv-05563-EMC Document84-1 Filed08/05/15 Page21 of 21