Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04105/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04105-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 3:14-CV-04105 EMC

JOHN T. MULLAN (SBN 221149)

CHAYA M. MANDELBAUM (SBN 239084)

MICHELLE G. LEE (SBN 266167)

ERIN M. PULASKI (SBN 270998)

RUDY, EXELROD, ZIEFF & LOWE, L.L.P.

351 California Street, Suite 700

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: (415) 434-9800

Facsimile: (415) 434-0513

Email: jtm@rezlaw.com

Email: cmm@rezlaw.com

Email: emp@rezlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs JOSEPH VIERRA

and KEVIN WOODRUFF,

and all others similarly situated

LINDBERGH PORTER, Bar No. 100091

ROBERT L. ZALETEL, Bar No. 96262

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

333 Bush Street, 34th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: (415) 433-1940

Facsimile: (415) 399-8490

Email: lporter@littler.com

rzaletel@littler.com

Attorneys for Defendant

TIMEC COMPANY, INC. DBA TRANSFIELD SERVICES, LTD.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

JOSEPH VIERRA and KEVIN WOODRUFF, 

on behalf of themselves and classes of those 

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

TIMEC COMPANY, INC. dba TRANSFIELD 

SERVICES, a corporation,

Defendant. /

Case No. 3:14-cv-04105 EMC

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 3:14-cv-04105-EMC Document 45 Filed 05/03/16 Page 1 of 19
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 FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 3:14-CV-04105 EMC

Plaintiffs Joseph Vierra and Kevin Woodruff (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Timec 

Company, Inc. dba Transfield Services (“Defendant”), by and through their attorneys of record, 

hereby stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, this putative wage hour class action was initiated on September 10, 2014,

when Plaintiffs filed their Class Action Complaint;

WHEREAS, the case was reassigned to the Honorable Edward M. Chen on November 18, 

2014;

WHEREAS, in December 2014, the parties agreed to pursue early mediation of the case 

and to conduct limited discovery in advance of the mediation;

WHEREAS, following the exchange of initial discovery and meet and confer efforts 

between the parties, a Belaire notice was mailed out to putative class members in May 2015, and 

a class list was provided to counsel for Plaintiffs in June 2015;

WHEREAS, the parties have conducted discovery including requests for documents, 

interrogatories and depositions; 

WHEREAS, two private mediations took place with mediator Jeff Ross on September 22, 

2015 and March 2, 2016. The parties made progress but did not resolve the case;

WHEREAS, the hearing on Motions for Class Certification is set for September 22, 2016,

at 1:30 p.m. There is also a case management conference scheduled for that date;

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ counsel has lost contact with current named Plaintiff, Joseph 

Vierra, and Mr. Vierra is not responsive to efforts to reach him, such that it is Plaintiffs’ position 

that it is no longer feasible for him to continue in the role of named Plaintiff;

WHEREAS, Defendant will retain any and all rights it has to later argue that Mr. Vierra’s 

claims should be dismissed with prejudice, and Plaintiffs will retain any and all rights they have 

to oppose Mr. Vierra’s dismissal with prejudice;

WHEREAS, in late 2015, TIMEC COMPANY, INC. changed its name to 

BROADSPECTRUM DOWNSTREAM SERVICES, INC.;

Case 3:14-cv-04105-EMC Document 45 Filed 05/03/16 Page 2 of 19
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 FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 3:14-CV-04105 EMC

WHEREAS, the parties hereby stipulate and agree that Plaintiffs should have leave to file 

a Second Amended Complaint in this lawsuit for purposes of removing Joseph Vierra as a named 

Plaintiff, and for purposes of substituting BROADSPECTRUM DOWNSTREAM SERVICES, 

INC., formerly TIMEC COMPANY, INC., as the Defendant in this matter. Defendant will retain 

any and all rights it has to later argue that Mr. Vierra’s claims should be dismissed with 

prejudice, and Plaintiffs will retain any and all rights they have to oppose Mr. Vierra’s dismissal 

with prejudice. Defendant shall have 21 days after service of the Second Amended Complaint to 

answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint, and this stipulation is without prejudice 

to Defendant’s defenses to the amended complaint. A copy of the Proposed Second Amended 

Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

DATED: May 3, 2016 RUDY, EXELROD, ZIEFF & LOWE, LLP

By: /s/ John T. Mullan

JOHN T. MULLAN

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

JOSEPH VIERRA and KEVIN WOODRUFF, 

and all others similarly situated

DATED: May 3, 2016 LITTLER MENDELSON

By: /s/ Robert Zaletel

Robert Zaletel

Attorneys for Defendant

TIMEC COMPANY, INC. DBA

TRANSFIELD SERVICES, LTD.

Case 3:14-cv-04105-EMC Document 45 Filed 05/03/16 Page 3 of 19
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 FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 3:14-CV-04105 EMC

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Plaintiffs are hereby granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint in this lawsuit for 

purposes of removing Joseph Vierra as a named Plaintiff, and for purposes of substituting 

BROADSPECTRUM DOWNSTREAM SERVICES, INC., formerly TIMEC COMPANY, INC., 

as the Defendant in this matter. Defendant shall have 21 days after service of the Second 

Amended Complaint to answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: __________________, 2016 _______________________________

HON. EDWARD M. CHEN

5/3

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Edward M. Chen

Case 3:14-cv-04105-EMC Document 45 Filed 05/03/16 Page 4 of 19
Woodruff v. Broadspectrum Downstream SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

 Case No. 3:14-cv-04105 EMC

Exhibit A

Case 3:14-cv-04105-EMC Document 45 Filed 05/03/16 Page 5 of 19
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

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 3:14-CV-04105 EMC

JOHN T. MULLAN (SBN 221149)

CHAYA M. MANDELBAUM (SBN 239084)

MICHELLE G. LEE (SBN 266167)

ERIN M. PULASKI (SBN 270998)

RUDY, EXELROD, ZIEFF & LOWE, L.L.P.

351 California Street, Suite 700

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: (415) 434-9800

Facsimile: (415) 434-0513

Email: jtm@rezlaw.com

Email: cmm@rezlaw.com

Email: mgl@rezlaw.com

Email: emp@rezlaw.com

JAY T. JAMBECK (SBN 226018)

MANDY G. LEIGH (SBN 225748)

LEIGH LAW GROUP

870 Market Street, Suite 1157

San Francisco, CA 94102

Telephone: (415) 399-9155

Facsimile: (415) 795-3733

Email: jjambeck@leighlawgroup.com

Email: mleigh@leighlawgroup.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff KEVIN WOODRUFF,

and all others similarly situated

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

KEVIN WOODRUFF, on behalf of himself 

and classes of those similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

BROADSPECTRUM DOWNSTREAM 

SERVICES, INC., formerly TIMEC 

COMPANY, INC., a corporation,

Defendant.

/

Case No. 3:14-cv-04105 EMC

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION 

COMPLAINT FOR:

1. Unpaid Minimum Wages (Cal. Lab. 

Code § 1194;

2. Unpaid Overtime Wages (Cal. Lab. 

Code § 510);

3. Itemized Wage Statement Violations 

(Cal. Lab. Code § 226);

4. Waiting Time Penalties (Cal. Lab. 

Code §§ 201, 202, 203);

5. Private Attorneys General Act 

Penalties (Cal. Lab. Code § 2699); and

6. Violation of California Unfair 

Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. 

Code §§ 17200 et seq.;

JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

Case 3:14-cv-04105-EMC Document 45 Filed 05/03/16 Page 6 of 19
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

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 3:14-CV-04105 EMC

Plaintiff KEVIN WOODRUFF (“Named Plaintiff”), by and through his attorneys, on 

behalf of himself and classes of those similarly situated, and the general public, hereby complains

against Defendant BROADSPECTRUM DOWNSTREAM SERVICES, INC., formerly TIMEC 

COMPANY, INC. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant” or “Timec”), a corporation doing 

business in California, as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has original jurisdiction over the first through sixth claims for relief 

under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), because those claims involve class 

actions in which: (1) there are 100 or more members in each of the proposed classes; (2) at least 

some members in each of the proposed classes have a different citizenship from Defendant; and 

(3) the claims of the proposed class members in each of the proposed classes exceed $5,000,000 

in the aggregate. This Court also has diversity jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332(a).

2. This Court is empowered to issue a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 2201 and 2202.

3. The Northern District of California has personal jurisdiction over this matter 

because Defendant is doing business here, in this District, and because many of the acts 

complained of herein occurred in this District and gave rise to the claims alleged.

4. Venue is proper in the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1391(b) and (c) because Defendant may be found in this District and because a substantial part 

of the events giving rise to the claims presented in this Complaint occurred in this District.

5. Pursuant to N.D. Cal. Local Rule 3-2(c) and (d), intra-district assignment to the 

San Francisco Division is proper.

SUMMARY OF CLAIMS

6. Named Plaintiff is a Timec employee who worked in unskilled maintenance 

positions for Timec at various oil and gas refineries in California.

7. Plaintiff Woodruff brings a class and representative action under California’s 

Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq., based on 

Case 3:14-cv-04105-EMC Document 45 Filed 05/03/16 Page 7 of 19
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

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 3:14-CV-04105 EMC

Defendant’s violations of California’s wage and hour laws, on behalf of himself and all persons 

who were, are, or will be employed by Defendant in California as Safety Attendants, Laborers or 

General Helpers (hereinafter “Timec Field Employees”) at any time within the four years prior to 

the date of the filing of the initial Complaint through the date of the final disposition of this 

action (hereinafter the “California Class”).

8. Plaintiff Woodruff alleges that at all relevant times Defendant had a policy and 

practice of willfully failing to pay him and all California Class members regular, premium and/or 

double-time pay for all regular and overtime hours worked, in violation of California law.

9. In addition, Plaintiff Woodruff alleges that at all relevant times, pursuant to its 

policies and practices, Defendant willfully failed to keep and provide adequate work and/or 

payroll records as required by law, willfully failed to provide all wages due upon termination of 

employment, and willfully failed to provide accurate wage statements.

10. Plaintiff Woodruff alleges that Defendant’s practices are in direct violation of 

California’s wage and hour laws, as described in greater detail below. On behalf of himself and 

all California Class members, Plaintiff Woodruff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief; 

damages, including unpaid wages due for all regular and overtime work required, suffered or 

permitted by Defendant; penalties as provided for by the relevant provisions of the California 

Labor Code; restitution, including unpaid wages due for all regular and overtime work required, 

suffered or permitted by Defendant; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and reasonable 

attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses of this action.

PARTIES

11. Plaintiff Woodruff is a natural person who is a resident of California. Plaintiff 

Woodruff has been employed by Defendant as a Timec Field Employee at various times since 

January 2014. As a Timec Field Employee, Plaintiff Woodruff worked on general maintenance 

projects at the Chevron Richmond and Valero Benicia refineries.

12. Defendant Timec is an international operations, maintenance and construction 

services business, operating, among other areas, in the resources, energy, and industrial sectors, 

incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Texas, doing business in the State of California, 

Case 3:14-cv-04105-EMC Document 45 Filed 05/03/16 Page 8 of 19
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

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 3:14-CV-04105 EMC

including in this judicial district. The company provides general maintenance services to oil and 

gas refineries nationwide. According to the website of Transfield Services, at the time of 

Timec’s purchase by Transfield Services in 2007, “TIMEC service[d] 39 of the 150 refineries in 

the U.S. and its strong and longstanding customer base include[d] some of the largest oil and gas 

companies in the world – including ConocoPhillips, Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell.” Further, 

“TIMEC’s revenue in the 2006 calendar year was US$245 million, and strong double digit 

growth rates [was] expected from this strategic acquisition.” According to the company’s 

website, as of August 21, 2014, it “employ[s] more than 19,000 people across 18 industries and 

10 countries.” In this pleading, “Defendant” means “Timec Company, Inc.” and all domestic 

affiliates and subsidiaries. Timec Company, Inc. changed its name to Broadspectrum

Downstream Services, Inc. in or about late-2015.

GENERAL FACTS AND ALLEGATIONS

13. In California, Timec operates and manages the Chevron refineries in Richmond 

and El Segundo, the Valero refinery in Benicia, and the Shell refinery in Martinez, among others.

14. Woodruff has been employed by Timec at various times from on or about January, 

2014 through the present time. Woodruff has been employed at the Chevron refinery in 

Richmond and the Valero refinery in Benicia as a Field Employee. He provides general labor 

assistance to skilled workers involved in refinery maintenance. At each of the facilities Woodruff 

worked for Timec, Field Employees, including Woodruff, were required by Timec to arrive at 

their assigned refinery early in the morning prior to their shift start time, to “badge in,” to wait for 

and then take a bus or other transportation to the specific location of the refinery site where they 

would be working that day, to get dressed into their safety uniforms, including coveralls, hardhats and safety gauges, and then to sign in to start getting paid for the day.

15. During the time period that Woodruff worked for Timec, Field Employees, 

including Woodruff, were not paid for the time they were required to be present between badging 

in and signing in for the day, which on average amounted to between 30 minutes to one hour per 

day.

Case 3:14-cv-04105-EMC Document 45 Filed 05/03/16 Page 9 of 19
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

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 3:14-CV-04105 EMC

16. On information and belief, Timec’s employment practice of failing to pay Timec 

Field Employees for the time between badging in and signing in applies uniformly at all of 

Timec’s operations in California and nationwide.

CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

17. Plaintiff Woodruff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein all allegations 

previously made in Paragraphs 1 through 16, above.

18. The Plaintiff brings the First, Second, Third, Fifth, and Sixth causes of action 

under the California Labor Code and the UCL for Defendant’s violations of California’s wage 

and hour laws on behalf of the following proposed class, the members of which have all been 

damaged by Defendant’s above-described conduct, and who are referred to herein as the 

“California Class:”

All persons who worked for Defendant at a refinery in California in 

the four years prior to the filing of the initial Complaint, up through 

the certification of this action, as Safety Attendants, Laborers or 

General Helpers (the “California Class”).

19. Plaintiff brings the Fourth Cause of Action under California’s wage and hour laws 

on behalf of the following proposed sub-class, the members of which have all been damaged by 

Defendant’s above-described conduct, and who are referred to herein as the “California 

Subclass:”:

All members of the California Class who have separated from 

employment with Timec within the statute of limitations period 

applicable to claims under Section 203 of the California Labor 

Code. (California Subclass).

20. The proposed California Class and Subclass are brought, and may properly be 

maintained, as class actions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) and/or as a 

representative action pursuant to California Business & Professions Code Section 17200, which 

must comply with the same class action certification requirements as Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2), 

and (b)(3). Pursuant to those requirements, the California Class and the California Subclass are 

Case 3:14-cv-04105-EMC Document 45 Filed 05/03/16 Page 10 of 19
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

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 3:14-CV-04105 EMC

so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Common questions of law and fact 

exist as to all members of the California Class and Subclass that predominate over any questions 

affecting individual members, including:

a. Whether Defendant violated California Labor Code §§ 510 & 1194 and the 

California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 by failing to pay 

regular wages and/or premium compensation to the California Class 

members who worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week, and/or eight 

(8) hours a day and/or twelve (12) hours per day;

b. Whether Defendant violated California Labor Code § 226 and the 

California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 by failing to keep 

accurate records of employees’ hours worked, and by failing to provide 

accurate semi-monthly itemized statements to California Class members of 

total hours worked by each and all applicable hourly rates in effect during 

the relevant pay period(s);

c. Whether Defendant violated California Labor Code §§ 201-203 by failing 

to provide all wages earned and due at the time of termination to California 

Subclass members; and

d. The proper measure of damages sustained by members of the California 

Class and the California Subclass, and the restitution owed to them.

21. Plaintiff Woodruff’s claims are typical of those of the California Class. Plaintiff, 

like other members of the California Class, was subjected to Defendant’s policy and practice of 

failing to pay regular and overtime compensation, and failing to maintain and provide accurate 

itemized wage statements, all in violation of California law. Plaintiff’s job duties and 

compensation were also typical of other members of the California Class.

22. Plaintiff Woodruff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of 

the putative members of the California Class and Subclass because he has no disabling conflict(s) 

of interest that would be antagonistic to those of the other class members. Plaintiff has retained 

counsel who are competent and experienced in class action wage and hour litigation.

Case 3:14-cv-04105-EMC Document 45 Filed 05/03/16 Page 11 of 19
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

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 3:14-CV-04105 EMC

23. Timec has acted on grounds that apply generally to the California Class and 

California Subclass in that it has common policies and practices of (a) refusing to pay regular and 

overtime compensation, (b) failing to maintain and provide accurate itemized wage statements to 

all members of the California Class, and (c) failing to pay all wages due and payable at the time 

of termination to members of the California Subclass. Accordingly, injunctive and declaratory 

relief is appropriate for the California Class as a whole.

24. Class treatment is superior to alternative methods to adjudicate this dispute 

because Plaintiff Woodruff and the similarly situated employees suffered similar treatment and 

harm as a result of systematic policies and practices, and because absent a class action, 

Defendant’s unlawful conduct will likely continue un-remedied and unabated given that the 

damages suffered by individual class members are small compared to the expense and burden of 

individual litigation. Class certification is also superior because it will obviate the need for 

unduly duplicative litigation which might result in inconsistent judgments about Defendant’s 

practices.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Failure To Pay Minimum Wages, Cal. Labor Code §§ 218.6, 1194, 1194.2, 1197)

25. Plaintiff Woodruff, on behalf of himself and all members of the California Class, 

re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations previously made in Paragraphs 1 through 

24 above as if fully set forth herein.

26. Throughout the Class Period, Section 1197 of the Labor Code has required 

employers such as Defendant to pay minimum wages to their employees, such as Plaintiff

Woodruff and all California Class members, at or above the rate fixed by the Wage Order for all 

hours worked. Between January 1, 2008 and July 1, 2014, the minimum wage in California was 

$8.00 per hour. As of July 1, 2014, the minimum wage in California has been $9.00 per hour.

27. As detailed above, Plaintiff Woodruff and all California Class members have been 

required, suffered, or permitted to work hours, and have worked hours, during the period covered 

by this action for which they have not been paid the required minimum wage.

Case 3:14-cv-04105-EMC Document 45 Filed 05/03/16 Page 12 of 19
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

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 3:14-CV-04105 EMC

28. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of Defendant’s policy and practice of not paying 

for all time actually worked, and the other policies and practices alleged above, Defendant has 

failed to pay Plaintiff Woodruff and all California Class members the applicable minimum wage 

for all their hours worked each week.

29. Defendant’s failure to pay the minimum wage to Plaintiff Woodruff and all 

California Class members as required by law permits a civil action to recover the unpaid balance 

of the minimum that they were required to be paid, as well as interest thereon, reasonable 

attorney’s fees, costs of suit, and liquidated damages, under California Labor Code sections 

218.6, 1194, and 1194.2.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Failure To Pay Overtime Wages, Cal. Labor Code §§ 510, 1194)

30. Plaintiff Woodruff, on behalf of himself and all members of the California Class, 

re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations previously made in Paragraphs 1 through 

29 above as if fully set forth herein.

31. As detailed above, Defendant had a policy and practice of not paying Plaintiff

Woodruff and all California Class members for all overtime hours worked. Further, during all 

time periods relevant to this Complaint, Defendant required Plaintiff Woodruff and all California 

Class members to work in excess of eight (8) hours in a single day, and/or in excess of twelve 

(12) hours in a single day, and/or in excess of forty (40) hours in a single week.

32. Plaintiff Woodruff and all California Class members did in fact routinely work in 

excess of eight (8) hours in a single day, and/or in excess of twelve (12) hours in a single day, 

and/or in excess of forty (40) hours in a single week.

33. It is unlawful for an employer to fail to compensate non-exempt employees at a 

rate of not less than the California statutory minimum wage rate for each hour worked up to forty 

(40) hours in a work week or eight hours in a work day, or to engage, suffer, or permit an 

employee to work in excess of eight (8) hours per workday, twelve (12) hours per workday, or 

forty (40) hours per workweek without paying premium wages as required by California law. 

Cal. Lab. Code §§ 510, 1194. California Labor Code § 1194 entitles an employee to recover in a 

Case 3:14-cv-04105-EMC Document 45 Filed 05/03/16 Page 13 of 19
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

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 3:14-CV-04105 EMC

civil action the unpaid balance of minimum wages and overtime compensation, including 

interest, attorney’s fees, and costs.

34. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, as set forth 

herein, Plaintiff Woodruff and the members of the proposed California Class have sustained 

damages in the form of unpaid overtime wages in an amount to be established at trial, and are 

further entitled to pre-judgment interest, recovery of the costs of suit, and reasonable attorney’s 

fees.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Inaccurate Wage Statements, Cal. Labor Code §§ 226, 1174)

35. Plaintiff Woodruff, on behalf of himself and all members of the California Class, 

re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations previously made in Paragraphs 1 through 

34 above as if fully set forth herein.

36. Defendant knowingly and intentionally failed to provide timely, accurate itemized 

wage statements to Plaintiff Woodruff and the California Class members in accordance with 

California Labor Code Section 226. Such failure caused injury to Plaintiff Woodruff and all 

California Class Members.

37. Defendant also knowingly and intentionally failed to maintain records of hours 

worked by Plaintiff Woodruff and all California Class members in accordance with California 

Labor Code Section 1174(d). Such failure caused injury to Plaintiff Woodruff and all California 

Class members by, among other things, not being paid all wages due, not knowing how many 

hours he or she worked, and being required to file this action to recover their wages and 

determine the amount of hours worked and wages due.

38. Plaintiff Woodruff and all California Class members are entitled to, and do hereby 

seek, injunctive relief requiring Defendant to comply with Labor Code Sections 226(a) and 

1174(d); and the greater of all actual damages or fifty dollars ($50.00) for the initial pay period in 

which a violation occurs and one-hundred dollars ($100.00) per employee for each violation in 

each subsequent pay period, pursuant to Labor Code Section 226(e).

Case 3:14-cv-04105-EMC Document 45 Filed 05/03/16 Page 14 of 19
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

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 3:14-CV-04105 EMC

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Waiting Time Penalties, Cal. Labor Code §§ 201-203, Brought by Plaintiff, on Behalf of 

Himself and a Subclass of the California Class)

39. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and a Subclass of the California Class, re-alleges 

and incorporates by reference all allegations previously made in Paragraphs 1 through 38 above 

as if fully set forth herein.

40. Under California Labor Code § 201, if an employer discharges an employee, all 

wages earned and unpaid at the time of the discharge are due and payable immediately. Under 

California Labor Code § 202, if an employee quits, all wages are due and payable not later than 

72 hours thereafter (or immediately at the time of quitting if the employee has given 72 hours 

previous notice of the intention to quit).

41. Defendant willfully failed to pay, within the time constraints imposed by Labor 

Code §§ 201 and 202, all overtime compensation due to the Plaintiff and California Class 

members whose employment has terminated.

42. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, as set forth 

herein, Plaintiff and the subclass comprised of terminated members of the California Class have 

sustained damages, including loss of earnings, in an amount to be established at trial.

43. As penalties for these violations, Plaintiff and the subclass comprised of 

terminated members of the California Class are entitled to and seek to recover up to thirty (30) 

days of their wages at their regular rates, as provided by California Labor Code § 203.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Private Attorneys General Act, Labor Code § 2699)

44. Plaintiff Woodruff, on behalf of himself and all members of the California Class, 

re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations previously made in Paragraphs 1 through 

43 above as if fully set forth herein.

45. Under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2006, Labor Code §§ 2698-2699.5, an 

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

Case 3:14-cv-04105-EMC Document 45 Filed 05/03/16 Page 15 of 19
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

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 3:14-CV-04105 EMC

recover penalties under any provision of the Labor Code that provides for civil penalties. These 

penalties are in addition to any other relief available under the Labor Code.

46. As set forth above, Defendant has committed numerous violations for which the 

Labor Code provides for penalties, including violations of §§ 201, 202, 203, 226.7, 510, 1174, 

1194 and 1194.2.

47. The Plaintiff has provided written notice by certified mail to the Labor & 

Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) and to Defendant of the legal claims and theories of 

this case contemporaneous with the filing of this complaint. Thirty-three days have passed since 

the postmark date of the written notice to the LWDA and Plaintiffs have not received notification 

from the LWDA that it intends to investigate the alleged violations. Accordingly, Plaintiff has

exhausted administrative remedies as required by Labor Code Section 2699.3.

48. As a direct result of Defendant’s conduct as described, Plaintiff is entitled to 

recover, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, the maximum civil penalties 

permitted by the Private Attorneys General Act from Defendant for all violations of Labor Code 

§§ 201, 202, 203, 226.7, 510, 1174, 1194 and 1194.2, as well as reasonable attorney’s fees and 

costs.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

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

49. Plaintiff Woodruff, on behalf of himself and all members of the California Class, 

re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations previously made in Paragraphs 1 through 

48 above as if fully set forth herein.

50. California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, 

et seq., prohibits acts of unfair competition, which include, but are not limited to, any unlawful 

business practice or act.

51. The policies, acts and practices described herein were and are an unlawful 

business act or practice because Defendant’s failure to pay minimum wage and overtime, failure 

to pay all wages due upon termination of employment, and failure to provide accurate wage 

statements violate the California Labor Code, including, but not limited to, Sections 201, 202, 

Case 3:14-cv-04105-EMC Document 45 Filed 05/03/16 Page 16 of 19
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

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 3:14-CV-04105 EMC

203, 226.7, 510, and 1194, applicable Wage Orders of the IWC, and other provisions of 

California common and/or statutory law. These violations were and are willful. Each of these 

violations constitutes an independent and separate violation of the UCL.

52. The unfair competition prohibited by Section 17200 also prohibits unfair business 

practices or acts.

53. The policies, acts or practices described herein were, and are, unfair business acts 

or practices because any justifications for Defendant’s unlawful and unfair conduct were, and are, 

vastly outweighed by the harm such conduct caused to Plaintiff Woodruff and all California 

Class members.

54. The unlawful and unfair business practices and acts of Timec, described above, 

have injured Plaintiff Woodruff and the California Class members in that they were wrongfully 

denied the payment of earned regular and overtime wages.

55. Plaintiff Woodruff, on behalf of himself and all California Class members, seeks

recovery of attorney’s fees and costs of this action to be paid by Timec, as provided by California 

Labor Code § 1194 and California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5.

56. Plaintiff Woodruff, on behalf of himself and all California Class members, seeks

restitution in the amount of the respective unpaid wages earned and due 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 in a 

workweek, or eight hours in a day, and double the regular rate of pay for work performed in 

excess of twelve hours per day.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Woodruff, on behalf of himself and all members of the 

California Class and Subclass, prays for judgment and the following specific relief against Timec 

as follows:

1. Certification of this action as a class action on behalf of the proposed Class and 

Subclass;

2. Designation of Plaintiff Woodruff as Representative of the Class, and of the 

Subclass;

Case 3:14-cv-04105-EMC Document 45 Filed 05/03/16 Page 17 of 19
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

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 3:14-CV-04105 EMC

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

the California Labor Code and California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 

§§ 17200 et seq., and a declaration that:

a. Defendant is found to have violated Cal. Labor Code § 201;

b. Defendant is found to have violated Cal. Labor Code § 202;

c. Defendant is found to have violated Cal. Labor Code § 203;

d. Defendant is found to have violated Cal. Labor Code § 226.7;

e. Defendant is found to have violated Cal. Labor Code § 510;

f. Defendant is found to have violated Cal. Labor Code § 1174;

g. Defendant is found to have violated Cal. Labor Code § 1194; and,

h. Defendant is found to have violated applicable IWC Wage Orders.

4. An award of damages, according to proof, to be paid by Defendant;

5. Penalties and liquidated damages available under applicable law, including Cal. 

Labor Code 203, 226.7, 1194.2 and 2699;

6. Appropriate equitable and injunctive relief to remedy Defendant’s violation of 

California law, including but not limited to an order enjoining Defendant from continuing its 

unlawful practices;

7. Restitution, according to proof, to be paid by Timec;

8. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by law, including but not 

limited to Cal. Lab. Code § 218.6 and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203;

9. Costs of action incurred herein, including expert fees;

10. Attorney’s fees, including fees pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. P. § 1021.5 and 

California Labor Code §§ 1194 and 2699; and

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:14-cv-04105-EMC Document 45 Filed 05/03/16 Page 18 of 19
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

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 3:14-CV-04105 EMC

11. Such other legal and equitable relief as this Court deems necessary, just, and 

proper.

DATED: May 3, 2016 RUDY, EXELROD, ZIEFF & LOWE, LLP

LEIGH LAW GROUP

By: /s/ John T. Mullan

JOHN T. MULLAN

RUDY, EXELROD, ZIEFF & LOWE, LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

JOSEPH VIERRA and KEVIN WOODRUFF, 

and all others similarly situated

JURY DEMAND

Named Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all causes of action and claims with 

respect to which they have a right to jury trial.

DATED: May 3, 2016 RUDY, EXELROD, ZIEFF & LOWE, LLP

LEIGH LAW GROUP

By: /s/ John T. Mullan

JOHN T. MULLAN

RUDY, EXELROD, ZIEFF & LOWE, LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

JOSEPH VIERRA and KEVIN WOODRUFF, 

and all others similarly situated

Case 3:14-cv-04105-EMC Document 45 Filed 05/03/16 Page 19 of 19