Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02951/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02951-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re Second Amended Complaint – Case No. C 07-02951-SI

1

[COUNSEL LISTED ON NEXT PAGE]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Ann Ross, Dennis Ramos, Maurita Prasad,

and Kelly Smith, individually and on behalf

of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

dba US Bank,

Defendant.

Case No. C 07-02951 SI

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE FOR

PLAINTIFFS TO FILE SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Date: May 2, 2008

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Ctrm: 10

Hon. Susan Illston

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 1 of 5 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 1 of 46
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re Second Amended Complaint – Case No. C 07-02951-SI

2

JOSE R. MATA, (Cal. Bar No. 83724, Oregon Bar No. 80305)

E-Mail: JMata@wagelawyer.com

BAILEY PINNEY, PC

1498 SE Tech Center Place, Suite 290

Vancouver, WA 98683

Telephone: (360) 567-2551

Fax: (360) 567-3331

BONNIE MAC FARLANE, (Cal. Bar No. 161526)

E-Mail: BMacfarlane@wagelawyer.com

BAILEY PINNEY, PC

720 Howe Street, Suite 113

Sacramento, CA 95825

Telephone: (916) 923-5537

Fax: (916) 923-5587

SUSAN SIMMONS SEEMILLER (Cal. Bar No. 150546)

E-Mail: SSeemiller@wagelawyer.com

BAILEY PINNEY, PC

840 County Square Drive

Ventura, CA 93003

Telephone: (805) 339-9090

Fax: (805) 339-0090

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Ross, Ramos, Prasad, and Smith

JUDITH DROZ KEYES (CA State Bar No. 66408)

STUART R. MILLER (CA State Bar No. 127766)

KATHLEEN D. POOLE (CA State Bar No. 228815)

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800

San Francisco, California 94111-6533

Telephone: (415) 276-6500

Facsimile: (415) 276-6599

jkeyes@dwt.com

stuartmiller@dwt.com

Attorneys for Defendant U.S. Bank National Association

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 2 of 5 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 2 of 46
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re Second Amended Complaint – Case No. C 07-02951-SI

3

Plaintiffs Ross, Prasad, Smith, and Ramos (“Plaintiffs”) assert as follows:

1. After the previous case management conference in this matter on March 7, 2008, Plaintiffs

were instructed to file a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint no later than

March 28, 2008.

2. Plaintiff has previously provided to Defendant U.S. Bank National Association (“Defendant”)

a copy of the Proposed Second Amended Complaint that is attached as Exhibit A hereto. In

summary, this Proposed Second Amended Complaint would do the following:

a) Add new plaintiffs Nannette Housken and Tamara Burkhart, who worked at US Bank

in-store branches in California.

b) Plead California Rule 23 subclasses for present and former employees of US Bank

in-store branches in California. The in-store branch classes are for alleged rest period

violations, alleged meal period violations (including alleged off-the-clock work during a meal

period), and alleged off-the-clock work during opening and closing a branch and after the

expiration of a scheduled shift.

c) Separately plead the California waiting time penalty class.

d) Separately plead 1) an FLSA only Rounding claim collective for Oregon, Washington

and California and 2) an FLSA only sales and service manager misclassification claim

collective for Oregon and Washington. The FLSA rounding claim collective is limited to only

those employees who used an electronic time sheet similar to the ones used by Plaintiff Ramos. 

The only named plaintiffs for these proposed FLSA collectives are Oregon plaintiffs Smith and

Ramos. Plaintiffs are intending to file a separate motion to clarify whether the Colorado River

stay applies to the FLSA claims of Smith and Ramos.

e) Reinstate the California lost time deduction claim because both Plaintiff Ross and

Burkhart allege that they have that claim.

f) Delete the dismissed Washington state claims and classes, the dismissed conversion

claim, and the dismissed Oregon meal period claims and classes.

g) Separately plead, without substantial modification, the stayed Oregon state law classes,

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 3 of 5 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 3 of 46
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re Second Amended Complaint – Case No. C 07-02951-SI

4

including the Oregon rest period and late pay classes.

h) Plead federal court jurisdiction and correct minor defects.

Plaintiffs and Defendant stipulate as follows:

1. Defendant consents and stipulates to the filing of the attached Proposed Second Amended

Complaint.

2. Should the Court sign the Proposed Order allowing the filing of the Proposed Second

Amended Complaint, the Defendant’s response to the Complaint shall be due on April 28,

2008.

3. Oral argument regarding a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, scheduled for

May 2, 2008, should be vacated.

4. By entering into this stipulation, Defendant does not admit any of the allegations of or waive

any defenses to the Proposed Second Amended Complaint.

Respectfully Submitted,

Dated: March 28, 2008 BAILEY PINNEY PC

By /s/

 Jose R. Mata

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ross, Prasad, Smith

and Ramos

Dated: March 28, 2008 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

By /s/

 Kathleen D. Poole

Attorneys for Defendant

 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 4 of 5 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 4 of 46
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re Second Amended Complaint – Case No. C 07-02951-SI

5

ORDER

On the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefor,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that Plaintiffs are granted leave to file the attached Proposed

Second Amended Complaint. Defendant’s response to the Second Amended Complaint shall be filed

on or before April 28, 2008. Oral argument regarding the Second Amended Complaint, now

scheduled for May 2, 2008, is vacated.

Dated ______________, 2008 _______________________________

Susan Illston

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 5 of 5 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 5 of 46
Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 1 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 6 of 46
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

New matter is bolded and underlined. Deleted matter is struck through or bracketed.

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

1 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

Bailey, Pinney PC1

Shelby Clark, Cal. Bar No. 203606

Lisa Sloman, Cal. Bar No. 244225

1498 SE Tech Center Place, Suite 290

Vancouver, Washington 98683

Telephone: (360) 567-2551, 

Fax: (360) 567-3331

SClark@wagelawyer.com

JOSE R. MATA, Cal Bar No. 83724, OSB 80305

E-Mail: Jmata@wagelawyer.com

DAVID A. SCHUCK, Pro Hac Vice, OSB No. 99356, WSB No. 37285

E-Mail: Dschuck@wagelawyer.com

BAILEY PINNEY, PC

1498 SE Tech Center Place, Suite 290

Vancouver, WA 98683

Telephone: 360-567-2551

Fax: 360-567-3331

SUSAN SIMMONS SEEMILLER Cal Bar No. 150546

E-Mail: SSeemiller@wagelawyer.com

BAILEY PINNEY, PC

840 County Square Drive

Ventura, CA 93003

Telephone: (805) 339-9090

Fax: (805) 339-0090

BONNIE MACFARLANE, Cal Bar No. 161526

E-Mail: bmacfarlane@wagelawyer.com

BAILEY PINNEY, PC

720 Howe Avenue, Suite 113

Sacramento, CA 95825

Telephone: (800) 230-5528

Fax: (800) 230-5866

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ann Ross, Dennis Ramos, Maurita Prasad, 

Tamara Burkhart, Nanette Housken, and Kelly Smith

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 2 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 7 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

2 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

Ann Ross, Dennis Ramos, Maurita Prasad,

Tamara Burkhart, Nanette Renee

Housken, and Kelly Smith, individually and

on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

US Bank National Association, dba US

Bank, and DOES One through TWENTYFIVE inclusive,

Defendant.

Case No. [RG07319452] C07-02951 SI

PROPOSED SECOND AMENDED

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1. Failure to Pay Wages;

2. Failure to Pay Minimum Wages;

3. Failure to Pay Overtime Wages 

 (Hourly);

4. Failure to Pay Overtime Wages 

 (Misclassification as Exempt);

5. Improper Wage Deduction;

6. Failure to Provide Rest Periods;

7. Failure to Provide Meal Periods;

8. Failure to Timely Pay Wages (Late Pay);

9. Breach of Contract;

10. Conversion;

11. Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized

Wage Statements;

12. Unfair Competition Law: Cal. Bus. &

Prof. Code § 17200.

[Pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act

of 1938, 29 U.S.C.§§ 201-219, and the 

laws of the states of California, and

Oregon and Washington]

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, bring this complaint stating

a class action and a collective action against Defendant, US Bank National Association and allege the

following upon information and belief. Those allegations concerning Plaintiffs are alleged upon

personal knowledge.

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, file this

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 3 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 8 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

3 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

action to recover wages, minimum wages, overtime wages, statutory wages, penalty wages, and

liquidated damages, for present and former employees of Defendant for its actions in failing to pay all

wages due and owing, including minimum wages, overtime wages, and contract wages; making

improper wage deductions; failing to provide appropriate duty-free rest periods; failing to provide

appropriate uninterrupted meal periods; failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and

failing to timely pay wages when due at the termination of employment. Throughout this Complaint,

“similarly situated individuals” refers to current and former hourly employees of Defendant in the

states of California and Oregon, and Washington, including without limitation Sales and Service

Managers (“SSMs”) in the states of Oregon and Washington who were mis-classified as “exempt”

employees.

2. Defendant, US Bank National Association, d.b.a. US Bank (hereinafter “US Bank”) is a

national association bank. US Bank is the sixth largest commercial bank in the United States. 

3. US Bank operates 2,472 banking offices in 24 states, including in California and

Oregon, and Washington. US Bank conducts financial business in all 50 states. 

a. US Bank also operates about 500 “in-store” bank branch offices nationwide.

b. US Bank’s in-store bank branch offices are branches located within the building

of a retail store that US Bank refers to as a “retail partner.”

4. US Bank is a subsidiary of U.S. Bancorp, a diversified financial holding company which

had total assets of $219 billion at year-end 2006 and serves more than 14.2 million customers. 

5. Plaintiff Ann Ross was an hourly employee of Defendant and worked for Defendant in

an in-store bank branch office in Redondo Beach/Gardenia, California from approximately

September 2005 to May 2006. Ms. Ross also occasionally worked at two other in-store bank

branches. Ms. Ross regularly was deprived of approximately six uninterrupted duty-free rest periods

per week to which she was entitled. Ms. Ross was also regularly deprived of 30 minute

uninterrupted meal periods. Defendant did not pay Ms. Ross an additional hour of pay for

missed rest periods or for missed or interrupted meal periods as required by California Labor

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 4 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 9 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

4 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

Code Section 226.7. Defendant improperly and without written authorization made deductions

from Ms. Ross’s wages under the heading “Lost Time” or “LST” (hereafter jointly referred to as

“Lost Time”). Ms. Ross was not paid for all wages earned. Defendant regularly suffered or

permitted Ms. Ross to work off-the-clock when performing duties associated with opening and

closing the office. Ms. Ross provided at least 72 hours notice of her intention to quit, yet did not

receive her final pay on her last day of employment. Defendant did not timely pay and still has not

paid Ms. Ross her last paycheck pursuant to California law. Ms. Ross’s unpaid final wages includes

unpaid vacation pay.

6. Plaintiff Maurita Prasad was an hourly employee of Defendant from December 8, 2003,

to January 17, 2005. Ms. Prasad worked for Defendant at an in-store branch office in Pleasant Hill,

California. Ms. Prasad regularly did not receive duty-free rest periods and regularly did not receive

uninterrupted 30 minute meal periods. Defendant did not pay Ms. Ross an additional hour of pay

for missed rest periods or for missed or interrupted meal periods as required by California

Labor Code Section 226.7. Defendant at times deducted purported meal periods from Ms.

Prasad’s hours worked, even when she was working during the purported meal periods, when

she was not permitted to leave the US Bank’s premises during the purported meal periods, or

when she was on call for at least a portion of the purported meal periods. US Bank therefore

suffered or permitted Ms. Prasad to work off-the-clock during at least a portion of the above

purported meal periods. Ms. Prasad was not paid all her wages for time worked. Defendant

regularly suffered or permitted Ms. Prasad to work off-the-clock when performing duties

associated with opening and closing the office. In addition, Defendant regularly required Ms.

Prasad to clock out after eight hours of work in a day – thereby attempting to avoid payment of

overtime for work in excess of 8 hours in a day under California law – and then suffered or

permitted Ms Prasad to work overtime off-the-clock. Defendant also suffered or permitted Ms.

Prasad to work off-the-clock at other times. A substantial portion of Ms. Prasad’s off-the-clock

work was overtime. US Bank has never paid Ms. Prasad for the off-the-clock work, and

therefore has not paid for such work at an overtime rate. Defendant terminated Ms. Prasad’s

employment, yet failed to timely pay her final wages on her last day of employment, as required by

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 5 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 10 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

5 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

California law.

7. Plaintiff Tamara Burkhart worked for Defendant in Cameron Park, California, in

an in-store bank branch office. Ms. Burkhart was hired as an hourly employee in or about June,

2004 and worked for Defendant until about January 2005. Defendant regularly failed to pay Ms.

Burkhart either for all hours worked or for overtime that she worked. Defendant failed to pay

Ms. Burkhart 1 1⁄2 times her regular hourly rate for the hours she worked in excess of 40 hours

for a single workweek. Defendant regularly failed to provide Ms. Burkhart duty-free rest

periods during her employment. Defendant regularly failed to provide Ms. Burkhart with 30

minute uninterrupted meal periods. Defendant regularly deducted purported meal periods from

Ms. Burkhart’s hours worked when Ms. Burkhart was not allowed to leave Defendant’s premises

during the purported meal period, when Ms. Burkhart had to be on call during the purported

meal period, or when Ms. Burkhart had to interrupt her meal period to serve customers. Ms.

Burkhart regularly worked off-the-clock during the above purported meal periods. Defendant

did not pay Ms. Burkhart an additional hour of pay for missed rest periods or for missed or

interrupted meal periods as required by California Labor Code Section 226.7. Defendant

regularly suffered or permitted Ms. Burkhart to work off-the-clock when performing duties

associated with opening and closing the office and when she worked outside of the office. US

Bank has never paid Ms. Burkhart for the above off-the-clock time, and certainly has not paid

for any of the off-the-clock time at an overtime rate. Defendant regularly made unauthorized

“Lost Time” deductions from Ms. Burkhart’s wages. When Ms. Burkhart’s employment

terminated, Defendant did not pay Ms. Burkhart all wages due within 72 hours of her last day of

employment with Defendant.

8. Plaintiff Nanette Renee Housken worked for Defendant in Stockton, California in

an in-store bank branch office. Ms. Housken was hired as an hourly employee in or about June

2004 and worked for Defendant until about July 2005. Defendant regularly failed to pay Ms.

Housken either for all hours worked or for overtime that she worked. Defendant failed to pay

Ms. Housken 1 1⁄2 times her regular hourly rate for the hours that she worked in excess of 40

hours for a single work week. Defendant regularly failed to provide Ms. Housken uninterrupted

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 6 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 11 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

6 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

rest periods during her employment. Defendant regularly failed to provide Ms. Housken an

uninterrupted meal period during her employment. Defendant regularly deducted purported

meal periods from Ms. Housken’s pay when she was not allowed to leave Defendant’s premises or

when the meal periods were interrupted by work during at least a portion of the purported meal

period. Ms. Housken regularly worked off-the-clock during the above purported meal periods. 

Defendant did not pay Ms. Housken an additional hour of pay for missed rest periods or for

missed or interrupted meal periods as required by California Labor Code Section 226.7.

Defendant regularly suffered or permitted Ms. Housken to work off-the-clock when performing

duties associated with opening and closing the office, when assisting customers after the

scheduled end of her shift, and when balancing the till. US Bank has never paid Ms. Housken for

the above off-the-clock work, and certainly has not paid for any of the off-the-clock work at an

overtime rate. Although Ms. Housken provided more than 72 hours’ notice that she was quitting

her employment with Defendant, Defendant failed to pay Ms. Housken all wages due on her last

day of employment with Defendant.

7.9. Plaintiff Dennis Ramos was an hourly employee of Defendant and worked for

Defendant in Portland, Oregon. Mr. Ramos was hired in 2000 and was terminated by Defendant in

December 2005. Defendant failed to pay for all hours Mr. Ramos worked. Mr. Ramos regularly

received no rest periods. Defendant failed to pay Mr. Ramos the statutory minimum wage for all hours

worked. Defendant failed to pay Mr. Ramos 1 1⁄2 times his regular hourly rate for the hours he worked

in excess of 40 hours for a single workweek. Defendant improperly and without written authorization

made deductions from Mr. Ramos’s wages under the heading “Lost Time” or “LST” (hereafter jointly

referred to as “Lost Time”). Defendant failed to pay Mr. Ramos all wages when due upon termination,

as required by Oregon law.

8.10. Plaintiff Kelly Smith worked for Defendant in Seaside, Oregon. Ms. Smith was hired as

an hourly employee in 1997 and continued to work for Defendant through 2006. Ms. Smith regularly

did not receive uninterrupted rest periods from August 2004 to August 2005. Ms. Smith rarely received

a duty-free uninterrupted meal period During the relevant statutory period, representative Plaintiff

Kelly Smith (“Plaintiff Smith”) was employed in the position of Sales and Service Manager (“SSM”)

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 7 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 12 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

7 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

by Defendant in Oregon. Defendant mis-classified Plaintiff Smith as an exempt employee while she

held the SSM position. During this same time period when Plaintiff Smith worked as an SSM, she was

paid on a salary basis and regularly worked more than 40 hours in a single workweek. Defendant failed

to pay Ms. Smith 1 1⁄2 times her regular hourly rate for the hours she worked in excess of 40 hours for a

single workweek when she was employed in the SSM position. Defendant improperly and without

written authorization made “Lost Time” deductions from Ms. Smith’s wages. Defendant failed to

provide Ms. Smith with the required duty-free rest periods. Defendant regularly failed to provide Ms.

Smith with uninterrupted meal periods. Defendant failed to pay Ms. Smith for all her hours worked

and further failed to pay all her wages when due upon termination, as required by Oregon law.

[9] 11. Plaintiffs seek to represent other similarly situated individuals through this multi-state

class action and collective action in the State of California for class members who worked for

Defendant in California, Oregon and Washington. The claims seek wages, damages, penalty wages,

statutory wages, liquidated damages, costs and attorney fees for Defendant’s failure to pay all wages,

overtime wages, minimum wages, and wages when due upon termination, and for failing to provide

duty-free rest periods, and for failing to provide uninterrupted meal periods to California employees,

all as required by the laws of the states of California and Oregon (no Oregon meal period violation

alleged due to dismissal of the claim), and Washington and pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act

of 1938, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 (“FLSA”).

JURISDICTION & VENUE

[10] 12. The jurisdiction of this Court arises under Code of Civil Procedures § 410.10 because

Defendant conducts business in the State of California. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over

this Class and the representative action pursuant to California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et

seq., California Code of Civil Procedure § 382, and other provisions of the California Codes, as well as

29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Defendant removed this case to federal court under 28 USC §§ 1441(a)-(c). 

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of the FLSA claims under federal question

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and under 28 USC § 216(b). This Court has

supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367. Plaintiffs

allege on information and belief that this Court has independent subject matter jurisdiction over

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 8 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 13 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

8 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

all claims under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2), because this action is

pled as a class action, because the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 exclusive of interest

and costs and because the alleged classes exceed 100 members. Further, as further alleged in

Paragraphs 14 - 17, the named plaintiffs are each diverse from US Bank.

[11] 13. Venue is proper in Alameda County pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 395 and

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Codes §§ 17202 and 17203 because US Bank is an out-of-state association and

conducts substantial business within this county. Venue lies in the U.S. District Court for the

Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, under 28 USC. § 1391(b), 28 USC §

1441(a) and civil L.R. 3.2(d) because the removed state court action was filed in this District in

the County of Alameda and because this matter arose in this District.

PARTIES

[12] 14. At all material times, Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals were and

are current and former employees of Defendant in California, Oregon and/or Washington. Defendant is

subject to the wage and hour provisions of the FLSA and the wage and hour laws of California, Oregon

and Washington and Oregon.

[13] 15. Defendant is a national banking association organized and existing under the National

Bank Act with its Articles of Association designating Cincinnati, Ohio as the place of Defendant's main

office. Defendant also maintains corporate headquarters in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Defendant, at all

material times herein, was and is doing business as “US Bank” in the states of California, Oregon and

Washington.

[14] 16. At the time of filing this complaint, Plaintiffs Burkhart, Housken, Prasad and Ross

are individuals who reside in and are citizens of the State of California.

[15] 17. At the time of filing this complaint, Plaintiffs Ramos and Smith are individuals who

reside in and are citizens of the State of Oregon.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS

[16] 18. Representative Plaintiffs, Ann Ross, Dennis Ramos, Maurita Prasad, and Kelly

Smith, Tamara Burkhart, and Nanette Housken were employed by Defendant. Ross, Prasad,

Burkhart, and Housken worked in California, and Ramos and Smith worked in Oregon. Plaintiffs

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 9 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 14 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

9 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

and other similarly situated individuals performed the services required of them by Defendant during

their employment. 

[17] 19. During Plaintiffs' employment, Defendant did not provide appropriate duty-free rest

periods, nor did Defendant provide uninterrupted meal periods, nor did Defendant pay all wages for all

work performed, nor did Defendant pay applicable minimum wages, nor did Defendant provided

accurate itemized wage statements, nor did Defendant pay overtime and/or “premium” wages when

required by law, nor did Defendant pay all wages when due. During Plaintiffs’ employment, Defendant

made unauthorized Lost Time deductions from Plaintiffs’ wages.

[18] 20. US Bank exercises centralized control over all of its employees who work in

California, Oregon and Washington from its headquarters located in Minneapolis, Minnesota..

[19] 21. Defendant has a centralized payroll department that oversees all payroll for US Bank

for all of its locations throughout the United States including California, Oregon and Washington.

[20] 22. US Bank centrally controls staffing in California, Oregon and Washington. US Bank

regularly causes, suffers and permits its employees to work without the benefit of rest periods, or to

take their rest periods untimely. US Bank regularly causes, suffers and permits its employees to be

interrupted during their lunch periods, or to work without the benefit of lunch periods.

[21] 23. US Bank records the hours and minutes worked by its employees each day then

converts the daily time worked to tenths of an hour. Defendant has an express policy and/or practice of

truncating down the actual time worked by each hourly employee to the next lowest tenth of an hour. 

This policy consistently under-recorded the actual “Daily Total” time worked by hourly employees,

and resulted in the nonpayment of wages, except when an hourly employee's actual time worked was

precisely divisible by one tenth of an hour. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a copy of a US Bank

“Sample Weekly Time Report,” with a “conversion chart” showing and explaining that time worked is

to be rounded back to the earlier tenth of an hour. 

[22] 24. On July 18, 2006, in sworn deposition testimony, Tom Christon, who was then

responsible for US Bank’s nationwide payroll and “human resources information system” testified that

US Bank had since at least 2002 used a time sheet such as the one shown in Exhibit A, with such a

conversion chart. He further testified that “the new time sheet would have been placed on the company

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 10 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 15 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

10 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

intranet for use by managers and distribution to the employees in their areas.” Mr. Christon further

testified that at the time of his testimony US Bank was using, and had used since 2004, an automated

electronic form that has the same effect as the “conversion chart” shown in Exhibit A (hereinafter,

“automated converting time sheet”). That electronic form “would have application to all states” with

the possible exception of California, but specifically including Oregon. Mr. Christon said, “after the

math has been done using minutes and seconds, then the rounding takes place for the total. . . . Q: The

totals that are represented on the total hours worked are where the Excel spreadsheet does the rounding;

isn’t that correct? A: I believe so.” Later in his testimony Mr. Christon was asked, “if the employee

works from 8:00 in the morning till 12:11 that same morning [sic], that’s 4 hours and 11 minutes. Do

you agree? A: That is 4 hours and 11 minutes. . . . Q: You would only pay them till 12.1, is that

correct, under you interpretation of the application of the time sheet? A: Yes. Q: Which is . . . 4 hours

and 6 minutes? A: Yes.” US Bank required Plaintiff Ramos to use the above automated

converting time sheet.

[23] 25. Defendant made Lost Time deductions from Plaintiffs’ wages for its own benefit,

without written authorization, and Defendant retained all Lost Time monies, in violation of the FLSA

and of the laws of California and Oregon.

[24] 26. Defendant failed to pay all wages for appropriate duty-free rest periods that

Defendant was required to provide Plaintiffs and class members under the states' laws, and further

failed to include the rest periods as wages when calculating wages due under the FLSA and the laws of

California, Oregon and Washington and Oregon.

[25] 27. Defendant failed to pay all wages for appropriate uninterrupted meal periods that

Defendant was required to provide Plaintiffs and class members under the states' laws, and further

failed to include the meal periods as wages when calculating wages due under the FLSA and the laws

of California, Oregon and Washington.

[26] 28. Defendant failed to pay all wages for all hours worked, including regular wages,

overtime wages, and minimum wages as required by the FLSA and the state laws, regulations, and

rules of California, Oregon and Washington and Oregon.

[27] 29. Defendant required, suffered, and permitted Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 11 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 16 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

11 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

individuals to work hours for which Defendant did not compensate them at the minimum rate of pay for

all hours worked. In so doing, Defendant violated the requirements of the FLSA and the laws and

regulations of California, Oregon and Washington and Oregon. Consequently, Defendant owes

Plaintiffs and all Defendant's employees who are similarly situated, regular wages, overtime wages, and

minimum wages, plus liquidated damages under the FLSA; plus, under Oregon law, penalty wages to

Oregon Plaintiffs and all similarly situated Oregon employees; plus, under California law, liquidated

damages and statutory wages to California Plaintiffs and similarly situated California employees; plus,

under Washington law, liquidated damages to similarly situated Washington employees.

[28] 30. Defendant required, suffered and permitted Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated

employees to work hours in excess of 40 hours per week and, in California, in excess of 8 hours per

day, for which Defendant did not compensate those employees at the overtime premium rate (1-1⁄2 times

their regular hourly rate) for those overtime hours worked. In so doing, Defendant violated the

requirements of the FLSA and of California, Oregon and Washington and Oregon laws, rules, and

regulations. Consequently, Defendant owes Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees

overtime wages, liquidated damages, statutory penalties and penalty wages all as provided by the FLSA

and the laws and regulations of the states of California, Oregon and Washington and Oregon.

[29] 31. Pursuant to California law, Defendant is required to provide accurate itemized wage

statements for each pay period to Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated California employees. Cal.

Lab. Code § 226. Defendant failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements to California

Plaintiffs Ross and Prasad and all other similarly situated individuals. Because Defendant failed to

provide accurate itemized wage statements, Defendant owes statutory damages to California Plaintiffs

Ross and Prasad and all other similarly situated California employees, as well as costs, interest, and

attorney fees.

[30] 32. Defendant’s conduct in failing to provide appropriate rest periods and/or meal

periods; failing to pay all wages, including minimum wages and overtime wages; making unauthorized

Lost Time deductions; failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and failing to pay all

wages due and earned upon termination of employment; pursuant to the laws of California, Oregon and

Washington and Oregon (no Oregon meal period violation alleged due to prior dismissal), was

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 12 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 17 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

12 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

willful.

[31] 33. Defendant’s conduct in failing to pay all minimum wages and overtime wages as

required under the FLSA, and in making Lost Time deductions as forbidden by the FLSA, was willful.

[32] 34. Defendant entered into a contract with Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated

individuals whereby Plaintiffs agreed to work for Defendant and Defendant agreed to pay all wages to

Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals and further agreed to comply with the FLSA and the wage

and hour laws of the states of California, Oregon and Washington and Oregon. Defendant breached

this contract when Defendant failed to pay all wages for time worked, made Lost Time deductions

without written authorization, failed to provide and/or pay for appropriate duty-free rest periods, failed

to provide and/or pay for appropriate uninterrupted meal periods (no Oregon meal period violation

alleged due to dismissal), failed to pay all wages, including minimum wages and overtime wages, and

failed to timely pay wages at the termination of employment. In so doing, Defendant caused harm to

Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals. As a result, Plaintiffs and all other similarly

situated individuals are owed wages and damages.

[33] 35. Defendant failed to make timely payment of all wages due when required by the laws

of California, Oregon and Washington and Oregon, when employment with Defendant ended for

Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals.

[34] 36. Because Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals

for all regular wages, minimum wages, and overtime wages, and made unauthorized Lost Time

deductions, and failed to pay all wages when initially due and when due at termination, Defendant was

unjustly enriched. Defendant requested by words and/or conduct that Plaintiffs and all other similarly

situated individuals provide services for Defendant. Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated

individuals benefitted Defendant by providing services to Defendant. Plaintiffs and all other similarly

situated individuals performed services as Defendant requested. Defendant did not pay for the services

that Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals performed. As a result, Plaintiffs and all other

similarly situated individuals are entitled to unpaid wages, truncated wages, minimum wages, overtime

wages, statutory wages, penalty wages, interest from the time of the conversion; punitive damages; and

fair compensation for the time and money properly expended in pursuit of the property.

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 13 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 18 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

13 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

[35] 37. Defendant's actions and conduct, detailed herein, were part of a multi-state and/or

nationwide corporate conduct, practice, process, procedure, and plan, which affected employees who

worked for Defendant in the states of California, Oregon and Washington. As a direct and proximate

result of Defendant's unlawful companywide conduct, Plaintiffs (1) were suffered, permitted and/or

required to work through mandatory rest periods which were required to be provided by the laws of the

states of California, Oregon and Washington and Oregon, and were not paid the wages due for the

unprovided rest periods, (2) were suffered, permitted and/or required to work through mandatory meal

periods which were required to be provided by the laws of the states of California, Oregon and

Washington, and were not paid the wages due for the unprovided meal periods, (3) were not paid all

wages for time worked, including but not limited to minimum wage and overtime, (4) were deprived of

wages through unauthorized Lost Time deductions, (5) were not provided accurate itemized wage

statements, (6) were not paid wages when due, and (7) were victimized by Defendant's policies and

practices set forth herein. Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals are entitled to recover

monies for the unprovided rest periods and interrupted meal periods including, but not limited to,

wages, statutory wages, minimum wages,”overtime” and/or “premium” wages, and penalty wages, as

provided by the FLSA and the laws, rules, and regulations of the states of California, Oregon and

Washington and Oregon (no Oregon meal period violation alleged due to prior dismissal).

Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals are additionally entitled to recover reasonable

attorney fees, costs, and interest.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

[36] 38. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated

individuals, both in a representative capacity and as a class action pursuant to California Code of Civil

Procedure section 382 Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and as a collection collective

action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). Plaintiffs seek to

represent the following classes:

a. All California, Oregon and Washington (Washington plead only for FLSA Collective)

US Bank employees and former employees who were not fully and timely compensated

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 14 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 19 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

14 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

for all hours worked; and

b. All California, Oregon and Washington (Washington plead only for FLSA Collective)

 US Bank employees and former employees whom Defendant owes statutory remedies

for labor code violations.

[37] 39. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action

pursuant to the provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382 Rule 23 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

[38] 40. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a collective action

pursuant to the provisions of the FLSA.

[39] 41. NUMEROSITY OF THE CLASS – Code of Civ. Proc. § 382 (FRCP Rule

23(a)(1): Members of the Class are so numerous that their individual joinder is impracticable. The

precise number of members of the Class and their addresses is unknown to the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs

estimate the Class exceeds 10,000 persons. The precise number of persons in the Class and their

identities and addresses can be ascertained from Defendant’s records. Members of the Class may be

notified of the pendency of this action by mail. This number may increase depending upon the

turnover rate of employees during the applicable statutory period prior to the filing of this complaint.

[40] 42. EXISTENCE AND PREDOMINANCE OF COMMON QUESTIONS OF FACT

AND LAW – Code of Civ. Proc. § 382 COMMONALITY (FRCP Rule 23(a)(2): Common questions

of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class. These questions predominate over the questions

affecting only individual members of the Class. These common legal and factual questions include: 

A. Whether Defendant paid all wages earned when due;

B. Whether Defendant provided Plaintiffs and class members with duty-free rest

periods as required; 

C. Whether Defendant provided Plaintiffs and class members with uninterrupted

meal periods as required (California only);

D. Whether Plaintiffs and class members were paid all minimum wages for time

worked;

E. Whether US Bank unlawfully withheld money for “Lost Time” from Plaintiffs’

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 15 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 20 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

15 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

and class members’ wages;

F. Whether US Bank obtained authorization from its employees for the “Lost

Time” withholdings;

G. Whether US Bank could lawfully withhold funds from its employees’ wages;

H. Whether Plaintiffs and class members were paid overtime/premium wages for

time worked over 40 hours per week or (in California) over 8 hours per day;

I. Whether Defendant paid Plaintiffs and class members all wages when due after

their employment ended;

J. Whether Defendant entered into a contract with Plaintiffs and class members;

K. Whether Defendant was unjustly enriched by services provided to Defendant by

Plaintiffs and class members; 

L. Whether Defendant converted property belonging to Plaintiffs and class

members; and

M L Whether Defendant provided California Plaintiffs and class members with

accurate itemized wage statements as required by California law.

[41] 43. TYPICALITY – Code Civ. Proc. § 382 (FRCP Rule 23(a)(3): Plaintiffs’ claims are

typical of the claims of the members of the Class because Plaintiffs worked for US Bank and are owed

wages and/or damages for Defendant’s failure to pay all earned wages, Defendant’s failure to provide

appropriate duty-free rest periods, (in California) Defendant’s failure to provide appropriate

uninterrupted meal periods, Defendant’s failure to pay overtime and/or “premium” wages for hours

worked in excess of 40 hours per week or (in California) in excess of 8 hours per day, Defendant’s

failure to pay minimum wages pursuant to state and federal law, Defendant’s failure to timely pay

wages upon termination of employment, and (in California) Defendant’s failure to provide accurate

itemized wage statements. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the members

of the class in that:

A. At least one named plaintiff is a member of each class and/or subclass;

B. Plaintiffs’ claims stem from the same practices or courses of conduct that form

the basis of each class;

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 16 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 21 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

16 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

C. Plaintiffs’ claims are based upon the same legal and remedial theories as those of

the class and involve similar factual circumstances;

D. There is no antagonism between the interests of the named Plaintiffs and absent

class members; and

E. The injuries which Plaintiffs suffered are similar to the injuries which class

members have suffered.

[42] 44. ADEQUACY OF PLAINTIFFS’ REPRESENTATION – Code Civ. Proc. § 382

(FRCP Rule 23(a)(4): The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the class because:

A. There is no conflict between Plaintiffs’ claims and those of other class and

subclass members;

B. Plaintiffs have retained counsel who are skilled and experienced in wage and

hour cases and in class actions and who will vigorously prosecute this litigation; 

C. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of class members; and

D. The interests of the members of the Class will be fairly and adequately protected

by Plaintiffs and their counsel.

[43] 45. SUPERIORITY – Code Civ. Proc. § 382 (FRCP Rule 23(b)(3): a class action is

superior to other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of the claims of Plaintiffs and

members of the Class. The damages suffered by each individual class member may be relatively

small, especially given the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the complex and extensive

litigation necessitated by Defendant’s conduct. Moreover, even if class members themselves could

afford such individual litigation, the court system could not. Individualized litigation presents a

potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments. Individualized litigation increases the delay and

expense to all parties. The class action device presents far fewer management difficulties, and

provides the benefits of a single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a

single court.

[44] 46. CERTIFICATION – of Plaintiffs’ claims is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because:

A. Common questions of law or fact predominate over questions affecting only

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 17 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 22 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

17 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

individual members;

B. The forum is convenient to the parties, class members, and potential witnesses,

the class is specifically identifiable to facilitate provision of adequate notice,

and there will be no significant problems managing this case as a class action; 

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

adjudication of this controversy because individual class members have a

minimal interest in controlling the prosecution of separate actions;

[45] 47. DEFINITION OF SUB-CLASSES – Plaintiffs seek class certification including

but not limited to the following potential sub-classes, pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 382 FRCP Rule

23(b)(3), and collective action class and sub-classes under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

A. FLSA OVERTIME/MINIMUM WAGE COLLECTIVE (AUTOMATED

CONVERTING TIME SHEET): An FLSA overtime/minimum wage collective

exists under the FLSA for the applicable time period prior to the filing of this

complaint through final adjudication and/or compromise consisting of Plaintiff

Ramos and all other similarly situated individuals who were suffered or permitted

to use the automated converting time sheet in the states of California, Washington,

and Oregon.

B. FLSA MIS-CLASSIFIED SALES AND SERVICE MANAGER

COLLECTIVE (OVERTIME) – An FLSA collective class exists for the applicable

time period prior to the filing of this complaint through final adjudication or

compromise that includes Plaintiff Smith and all other similarly situated

individuals who worked as SSMs for Defendant for more than 40 hours per week

in Oregon or Washington and were classified as “exempt” from overtime pay

under the FLSA, were not in fact exempt, and thereby were deprived of overtime

an “premium” pay to which they were entitled.

C. CALIFORNIA WAITING TIME PENALTY CLASS – A class exists for

the applicable time period prior to the filing of this complaint through final

adjudication and/or compromise consisting of Plaintiffs and all other similarly

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 18 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 23 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

18 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

situated individuals whose employment with Defendant ended and who were not

paid all wages when required by California Labor Code Sections 201-203.

Remedies sought for these potential class members includes:

1) Payment of unpaid wages, including any overtime;

2) Waiting time penalties under California Labor Section 203;

3) Applicable PAGA remedies;

4) Restitution for unfair business practices under the California

Business and Professions Code.

D. CALIFORNIA IN-STORE BRANCH OFFICES – OFF-THE CLOCK – A

class exists for the applicable time period prior to the filing of the original

complaint through final adjudication or compromise that includes California instore branch office employees of Defendant who Defendant suffered or permitted

to work off-the-clock: 1) when performing duties associated with opening and

closing of the office; 2) when their scheduled shift was over. Remedies sought for

these California in-store branch office employees includes:

1) Payment of wages owed for the off-the-clock work;

2) Payment of minimum wages owed for the off-the-clock work;

3) Payment of overtime premium wages owed for the off-the-clock

work that constituted overtime work under California law;

4) Waiting time penalties under California Labor Code Section 203 for

Defendant’s failure to pay wages owed for the off-the-clock work at the

termination of employment;

5) Penalties under California Labor Code Section 226 for Defendant’s

failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements due to the off-theclock work;

6) Applicable PAGA penalties; and

7) Restitution under for unfair business practices under the California

Business and Professions Code.

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 19 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 24 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

19 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

E. CALIFORNIA IN-STORE BRANCH OFFICES – REST PERIOD CLASS

– A class exists for the applicable time period prior to the filing of the original

complaint through final adjudication that includes California in-store branch

office employees of Defendant to whom Defendant did not provide were rest

periods as required under California law. Relief sought for this class includes:

1) Payment of the additonal hour of pay required by California Labor

Code Section 226.7;

2) Payment of waiting time penalties for failure to pay the additional

hour of pay timely upon termination of employment under California

 Labor Code Section 203;

3) Applicable PAGA penalties; and

4) Restitution under for unfair business practices under the California

Business and Professions Code.

F. CALIFORNIA IN-STORE BRANCH OFFICES – MEAL PERIOD

CLASS – A class exists for the applicable time period prior to the filing of the

original complaint through final adjudication that includes California in-store

branch office employees of Defendant who were either not provided uninterrupted

meal periods and/or who were suffered or permitted to work off-the-clock during

purported meal periods. As alleged above, the off-the-clock work occurred

because Defendant deducted purported meal periods from these employees’ hours

worked even though these employees worked at least a portion of the purported

meal period, were on call during the purported meal period, or were not allowed

to leave Defendant’s premises during the purported meal perid. Relief sought for

these California in-store branch employees includes the following:

1) Payment of the additional hour of pay required by California Labor

Code Section 226.7;

2) Payment of wages owed, including overtime wages, for the off-theclock work;

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 20 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 25 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

20 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

3) Waiting time penalties under California Labor Code Section 203

due to the failure to timely pay at the time of the employee’s termination

the additional hour of pay under Labor Code Section 226.7 and the wages,

including overtime wages, due based on the off-the-clock work during the

purported meal periods;

4) Penalties under California Labor Code 226 for inaccurate itemized

wage statements;

5) Applicable PAGA penalties; and

6) Restitution under for unfair business practices under the California

Business and Professions Code.

G. CALIFORNIA LOST TIME DEDUCTION CLASS – A class exists for the

applicable time period prior to the filing of this complaint through final

adjudication or compromise consisting of Plaintiffs and all other similarly

situated individuals who worked for Defendant in California from whom

Defendant withheld Lost Time deductions from their wages without their

written authorization.

AH. UNPAID WAGES CLASS – A class exists for the applicable time period

prior to the filing of this complaint through final adjudication and/or

compromise consisting of Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals

who worked hours for Defendant and were not paid at their regular hourly rate

for all hours worked as required by the laws, rules, or regulations of California,

Oregon and Washington Oregon. (Stayed as of filing date of Second

Amended Complaint).

BI. MINIMUM WAGE CLASS – A class exists for the applicable time period

prior to the filing of this complaint through final adjudication and/or

compromise consisting of Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals

who worked for Defendant and were not paid wages at the minimum wage rate

for all hours worked as required by the FLSA and the laws, rules, or regulations

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 21 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 26 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

21 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

of California, Oregon and Washington Oregon. (Stayed as of filing date of

Second Amended Complaint).

C J. OVERTIME CLASS (HOURLY) – A class exists for the applicable time

period prior to the filing of this complaint through final adjudication and/or

compromise consisting of Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals

who worked for Defendant for more than 8 hours in a day in California, or more

than 40 hours in a week in California, Oregon and Washington Oregon and

were not paid at the applicable premium rate for all hours worked in excess of

the statutory maximum hours per day/week as required by the FLSA or the

laws, rules, or regulations of California, Oregon and Washington Oregon.

(Stayed as of filing date of Second Amended Complaint).

D. MIS-CLASSIFIED SSM CLASS (OVERTIME) – A class exists for the

applicable time period prior to the filing of this complaint through final

adjudication and/or compromise consisting of Plaintiffs and all other similarly

situated individuals who worked as SSMs for Defendant for more than 40 hours

per week in Oregon and/or Washington, were classified and/or treated by

Defendant as employees “exempt” from overtime pay under the FLSA, were not

in fact exempt, and thereby were deprived of overtime and/or “premium” pay to

which they were entitled.

E K. LOST TIME DEDUCTION CLASS – A class exists for the applicable time

period prior to the filing of this complaint through final adjudication and/or

compromise consisting of Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals

who worked for Defendant in California, Oregon and Washington Oregon and

from whom Defendant withheld Lost Time deductions from their wages without

their written authorization. (Stayed as of filing date of Second Amended

Complaint).

F. BREACH OF CONTRACT CLASS – A class exists for the applicable time

period prior to the filing of this complaint through final adjudication and/or

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 22 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 27 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

22 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

compromise consisting of Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals

who worked for Defendant and were promised, as a condition of employment,

that Defendant would comply with both federal and state wage and hour laws

including providing and/or paying for appropriate duty-free rest periods,

providing and/or paying for uninterrupted meal periods, paying minimum

wages, paying overtime wages, and paying all final wages when due at the

termination of employment. Defendant breached the employment contracts by

failing to pay all wages, duty-free rest periods and/or rest period wages,

uninterrupted meal periods and/or meal period wages, minimum wages,

overtime wages and failing to pay all wages when due upon the ending of the

employment relationship. In addition, Defendant by repeatedly failing to meet

its obligations under the contracts of employment also breached the duty of

good faith and fair dealing that is implicit in every contract.

G. CONVERSION CLASS – A class exists for the applicable time period prior to

the filing of this complaint through final adjudication and/or compromise

consisting of Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals who worked

for Defendant and whose monies were converted by Defendant’s actions in

failing to provide appropriate rest periods and/or meal periods, failing to pay

wages, including minimum wages and overtime wages, and failing to timely pay

all wages as required by contract and by the laws, rules, or regulations of

California, Oregon and Washington.

H L. LATE PAYMENT/WAITING TIME CLASS – A class exists for the 

applicable time period prior to the filing of this complaint through final

adjudication and/or compromise consisting of Plaintiffs and all other similarly

situated individuals whose employment with Defendant ended and who were

not paid all wages when due as required by the laws, rules, or regulations of

California, Oregon and Washington Oregon. (Stayed as of filing date of

Second Amended Complaint).

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 23 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 28 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

23 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

I M. UNPAID REST PERIOD STATUTORY CLASS – A class exists for the

applicable time period prior to the filing of this complaint through final

adjudication and/or compromise consisting of Plaintiffs and all other similarly

situated individuals who worked for Defendant and who Defendant failed to pay

all wages, statutory wages, and penalty wages for Defendant’s failure to provide

appropriate duty-free rest periods as required by the laws, rules, or regulations

of California, Oregon and Washington Oregon. (Stayed as of filing date of

Second Amended Complaint).

J. UNPAID MEAL PERIOD STATUTORY CLASS – A class exists for the

applicable time period prior to the filing of this complaint through final

adjudication and/or compromise consisting of Plaintiffs and all other similarly

situated individuals who worked for Defendant and who Defendant did not pay

for all wages, statutory wages, and penalties for interrupted meal periods as

required by the laws, rules, or regulations of California, Oregon and

Washington.

K. ITEMIZED WAGE STATEMENT CLASS (California only) A class exists

for the applicable time period prior to the filing of this complaint through final

adjudication and/or compromise consisting of Plaintiffs and all other similarly

situated individuals who worked for Defendant and whose wage statements

provided by Defendant were inaccurate or not provided as required by

California law.

L. BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CLASS (California only) A class exists for

the applicable time period prior to the filing of this complaint through final

adjudication and/or compromise consisting of Plaintiffs and all other similarly

situated individuals who worked in the State of California and who worked

during mandatory rest periods and/or meal periods, or were not paid wages,

including minimum wages, or overtime wages, and/or who did not receive all

wages when due as required by California law.

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 24 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 29 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

24 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Failure to Pay Wages)

[46] 48. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs as though

fully set forth herein.

[47] 49. At all times material herein, Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals

were employed by Defendant.

[48] 50. During the class period, Defendant failed to pay wages as required by the laws of

California, Oregon and Washington laws and Oregon.

[49] 51. During the course of Plaintiffs’ and class members’ employment, Defendant

allowed, suffered, and permitted Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals to perform work

for the benefit of Defendant and did not pay wages for the work performed, including time that

Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals worked off-the-clock. As alleged above, for

California in-store branch office employees, this off-the-clock work included work associated

with the opening and closing of the office and work after the completion of the scheduled shift.

[50] 52. US Bank recorded the hours and minutes worked by its employees then converted

that time worked to tenths of an hour. Defendant has an express policy, practice, and procedure of

truncating down the actual time worked by each hourly employee to the next lower tenth of an hour. 

This policy consistently reduced the actual time worked by hourly employees, and resulted in the

non-payment of wages, except when an hourly employee’s actual time worked was precisely divisible

by 1/10th of an hour.

[51] 53. As a result, Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals are entitled to wages

pursuant to the laws of California, Oregon and Washington laws and Oregon.

[52] 54. Defendant’s policy, practice, and procedure of rounding time worked to the next

lower tenth of an hour was set and implemented by Defendant’s centralized payroll department for all

employees in California, Oregon and Washington. 

[53] 55. Defendant’s conduct in failing to pay Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated

individuals for all work performed was willful, and there remains due and unpaid wages in amounts to

be determined.

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 25 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 30 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

25 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

[54] 56. Plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated

individuals, seek as damages, wages in an amount to be determined, statutory and penalty wages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorney fees, and costs, pursuant to the laws, rules, or

regulations of California, Oregon and Washington and Oregon. Pursuant to the Private Attorneys

General Act of 2004, California Labor Code § 2698 et seq., Plaintiffs have received notice from the

California Labor and Workforce Development Agency of Target’s US Bank’s violations of California

law including, but not limited to, Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 516, and

1194. Plaintiffs are entitled to receive civil penalties and attorney’s fees pursuant to the Private

Attorney General Act of 2004, Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq., including but not limited to Cal. Lab.

Code §§ 227.3 and 2699.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Failure to Pay Minimum Wage)

[55] 57. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs as though

fully set forth herein.

[56] 58. At all times material herein, Plaintiff and all other similarly situated individuals were

employed by Defendant.

[57] 59. During the class period, Defendant failed to pay minimum wages for all hours

worked to Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals as required by the FLSA or by the

laws, rules, or regulations of California, Oregon and Washington and Oregon..

[58] 60. During the course of Plaintiffs’ and all other similarly situated individuals’

employment, Defendant allowed, suffered, and permitted Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated

individuals to perform work for the benefit of Defendant, including work performed off-the-clock.

As alleged above, for California in-store branch office employees, this off-the-clock work

included work associated with the opening and closing of the office and work after the

completion of the scheduled shift.

[59] 61. Defendant wrongfully deducted and/or withheld Lost Time wages from Plaintiffs

Ramos, Ross, Burkhart and Smith and all other similarly situated individuals, causing Plaintiffs

Ramos and Smith and all other similarly situated individuals to be paid at less than the then prevailing

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 26 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 31 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

26 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

minimum wage rates when those wages were due.

[60] 62. Defendant failed and refused to compensate Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated

individuals for all hours of work performed, including work performed off-the-clock, by Plaintiffs

and all other similarly situated individuals.

[61] 63. Defendant failed and refused to compensate Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated

individuals at the then-prevailing hourly rate of pay for each and all hours worked. 

[62] 64. As a result, Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals are entitled to

minimum wages pursuant to the FLSA and the laws, rules, or regulations of California, Oregon and

Washington and Oregon.

[63] 65. Defendant’s conduct in failing to pay Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated

individuals for each and all hours worked at the then prevailing minimum wage rates was willful, and

there remains due and unpaid minimum wages in amounts to be determined.

[64] 66. Plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated

individuals, seek damages for failure to pay minimum wages for each and all hours worked; liquidated

damages under the FLSA; liquidated damages pursuant to California and Washington law; and 30

days of penalty wages pursuant to Oregon law, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all

damage amounts, plus costs and attorney fees. Pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004,

California Labor Code § 2698 et seq., Plaintiffs have received notice from the California Labor and

Workforce Development Agency of Target’s US Bank’s violations of California law including, but

not limited to, Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 516, and 1194. Plaintiffs are

entitled to receive civil penalties and attorney’s fees pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act of

2004, Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq., including but not limited to Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1197.1 and 2699.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Failure To Pay Overtime, Hourly Employees)

[65] 67. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs as though

fully set forth herein.

[66] 68. Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals were employed by Defendant

and paid on an hourly basis at some material time during their employment by Defendant. 

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 27 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 32 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

27 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

[67] 69. Defendant failed and refused to compensate Plaintiffs and all similarly situated

individuals for all hours worked over 40 hours per week, or in California all hours worked over 8

hours per day, at the rate of 1-1⁄2 times their regular hourly rate of pay. These hours worked included

hours that Defendant suffered or permitted to be worked off-the-clock. As alleged above, for

California in-store branch office employees, this off-the-clock work included work associated

with the opening and closing of the office and work after the completion of the scheduled shift.

 [68] 70. During the class period, Defendant failed to pay overtime wages and premium wages

to Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals as required by the FLSA and the laws, rules, or

regulations of California, Oregon and Washington and Oregon.

[69] 71. As a result of Defendant’s conduct of allowing, suffering, and permitting Plaintiffs

and all other similarly situated individuals to perform work over 40 hours per week, or in California

over 8 hours per day, for the benefit of Defendant for which Defendant did not pay at the overtime

rate, Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals are entitled to unpaid overtime wages

pursuant to the FLSA and the laws, rules, or regulations of California, Oregon and Washington and

Oregon.

[70] 72. Defendant’s conduct in failing to pay overtime premium wages as alleged herein was

willful, and there remain due and unpaid overtime wages in amounts to be determined.

[71] 73. Plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated

individuals, seek damages in the form of wages and premium wages for Defendant’s failure to pay

overtime wages in amounts to be determined. In addition, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated seek

liquidated damages under the FLSA; liquidated damages and statutory wages pursuant to California

law; treble damages pursuant to Washington law; and 30 days of penalty wages pursuant to Oregon

law; plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all damages amounts; plus costs and attorney

fees under the FLSA, and under the laws, rules, or regulations of California, Oregon and Washington

and Oregon. Pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code § 2698 et

seq., Plaintiffs have received notice from the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency of

Target’s US Bank’s violations of California law including, but not limited to, Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201,

202, 203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 516, and 1194. Plaintiffs are entitled to receive civil penalties and

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 28 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 33 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

28 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

attorney’s fees pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act of 2004, Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq.,

including but not limited to Cal. Lab. Code §§ 558 and 2699.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Failure To Pay Overtime, Sales and Service Managers)

[72] 74. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs as though

fully set forth herein.

[73] 75. At some material time during their employment with Defendant, Plaintiff Smith and

all other similarly situated individuals in Oregon and Washington were employed by Defendant in the

position of Sales and Service Manager ("SSM"), and were paid on a salary basis.

[74] 76. The SSM position required Plaintiff Smith and other similarly situated individuals to

perform routine jobs such as providing teller services, customer service, and pulling and printing

reports designated by US Bank. 

[75] 77. The primary nature of Plaintiff Smith’s, and others similarly situated individuals’,

work as a SSM did not involve the exercise of discretion or independent judgment.

[76] 78. Defendant mis-classified the SSM position as exempt in Oregon and Washington.

[77] 79. Plaintiff Smith and all other similarly situated individuals in Oregon and Washington

worked for Defendant as SSMs and worked more than 40 hours per week while so employed.

[78] 80. Defendant allowed, suffered, and permitted Plaintiff Smith and its SSM employees

in Oregon and Washington to work hours in excess of 40 hours per week, for which it did not

compensate its employees at the rate of 11⁄2 times their regular rate of pay. In so doing, Defendant

violated the requirements of the FLSA, and Oregon wage and hour laws that require employees to be

paid 11⁄2 times their regular hourly rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

[79] 81. As a result of Defendant's conduct of allowing, suffering, and permitting Plaintiff

Smith and all other similarly situated individuals to perform work for the benefit of Defendant for

which Defendant did not pay at the overtime rate, Plaintiff Smith and all other similarly situated

individuals in Oregon and Washington who worked for Defendant as SSMs are entitled to unpaid

overtime wages and liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA and Washington law.

[80] 82. As a result of Defendant's conduct of allowing, suffering, and permitting Plaintiff

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 29 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 34 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

29 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

Smith and all other similarly situated in Oregon who worked for Defendant in Oregon as SSMs to

perform work for the benefit of Defendant, for which Defendant did not pay at the overtime rate,

Plaintiff Smith and all other similarly situated who worked for Defendant in Oregon as SSMs are

entitled to wages and penalty wages under Oregon law.

[81] 83. Defendant's conduct in respect to overtime pay as alleged herein was willful, and

there remain due and unpaid overtime wages in amounts to be determined.

[82] 84. Plaintiff Smith, on her own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated

individuals in Oregon and Washington, seek damages in the form of wages and overtime premium

wages for Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages in amounts to be determined. In addition,

Plaintiff Smith and all similarly situated individuals in Oregon and Washington seek liquidated

damages under the FLSA and for those SSMs who worked in Oregon, seek an additional 30 days of

penalty wages pursuant to Oregon law, along with interest on all damages amounts, plus costs and

attorney fees. Pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code § 2698 et

seq., Plaintiffs have received notice from the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency of

Target’s violations of California law including, but not limited to, Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201, 202, 203,

226, 226.7, 510, 512, 516, and 1194. Plaintiffs are entitled to receive civil penalties and attorney’s

fees pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act of 2004, Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq., including

but not limited to Cal. Lab. Code §§ 558 and 2699.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Unauthorized Lost Time Deductions)

[83] 85. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs as though

fully set forth herein.

[84] 86. At all times material herein, Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals

were employed by Defendant.

[85] 87. During the course of Plaintiffs’ and all other similarly situated individuals’

employment, Defendant regularly withheld and deducted wages from Plaintiffs Ross, Burkhart,

Ramos and Smith and other similarly situated class members under the earning description “Lost

Time” and/or “LST”.

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 30 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 35 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

30 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

[86] 88. The deduction of Lost Time was for Defendant’s benefit.

[87] 89. Neither the named Plaintiffs nor any other similarly situated individuals gave written

authorization for Defendant’s Lost Time deductions. 

[88] 90. Defendant’s deduction of wages under the title Lost Time does not meet any

exception set out in ORS 652.610 or in Cal. Lab. Code § 224.

[89] 91. As a result of Defendant’s wrongful deduction/withholding, Defendant failed to pay

Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals all their wages due on payday as required by ORS

652.120 and ORS 653.010(10) and by Cal. Lab. Code §§ 204 and 221.

[90] 92. Where Defendant’s wrongful deduction/withholding resulted in Defendant failing to

pay all minimum wages on payday as required by ORS 652.120 and 653.025, by Cal. Lab. Code §§

204 and 1194, and by the FLSA, the affected Plaintiffs or other similarly situated individuals are

entitled to all unpaid minimum wages, plus penalty wages.

[91] 93. Where Defendant’s wrongful deduction/withholding resulted in Defendant failing to

pay all wages due upon termination as required by ORS 652.140, and by Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201 and

202, the affected Plaintiffs or other similarly situated individuals are entitled to all unpaid wages, plus

penalty wages.

[92] 94. Plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated

individuals, seek damages; statutory penalties under ORS 652.615; penalty wages under ORS 653.055

and ORS 652.150 and under Cal. Lab. Code § 203; costs, disbursements and attorney fees under ORS

652.200 and ORS 653.055 and Cal. Lab. Code § 218.5; liquidated damages under the FLSA; and prejudgment and post-judgment interest on all damage amounts.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Failure to Provide Rest Periods)

[93] 95. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs as though

fully set forth herein.

[94] 96. At all times material herein, Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals

were employed by Defendant.

[95] 97. California and Oregon laws provide for minimum employment conditions to be

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 31 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 36 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

31 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

followed by all employers in each state. California laws require that employees receive a duty-free

paid rest period of not less than 10 minutes for each period of four hours worked or major fraction

thereof. Oregon laws parallel California law.

[96] 98. During the class period, Defendant failed to pay statutory wages pursuant to Cal.

Lab. Code § 226.7. Defendant also failed to pay Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals

for 10 minutes of duty-free rest time as required by Oregon law. 

[97] 99. Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals seek unpaid wages, statutory

wages, and penalty wages. In addition, Plaintiffs and similarly situated seek costs, pre-judgment and

post-judgment interest, disbursements, and attorney fees pursuant to the laws, rules, or regulations of

California or Oregon. Pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code §

2698 et seq., Plaintiffs have received notice from the California Labor and Workforce Development

Agency of Target’s US Bank’s violations of California law including, but not limited to, Cal. Lab.

Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 516, and 1194. Plaintiffs are entitled to receive civil

penalties and attorney’s fees pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act of 2004, Cal. Lab. Code §

2698 et seq., including but not limited to Cal. Lab. Code §§ 558 and 2699.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Failure to Provide Meal Periods – California Only)

[98] 100. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs as though

fully set forth herein.

[99] 101. At all times material herein, Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals

were employed by Defendant.

[100] 102. California law requires, in part, that employees receive an uninterrupted, unpaid

meal period of not less than 30 minutes for each shift over five hours. Oregon law also require that

employees receive an uninterrupted, unpaid meal period of not less than 30 minutes. As a result of

Defendant’s failure to pay and/or provide uninterrupted meal periods of not less than 30 minutes as

required by the laws, rules, or regulations of California or Oregon, Plaintiffs and all other similarly

situated employees are entitled to recover their wages for those meal periods, plus statutory wages

(California Plaintiffs & Class members) and penalty wages (Oregon Class members) as required by

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 32 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 37 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

32 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

the FLSA, and by California and Oregon law. US Bank also deducted purported meal periods

from the hours worked of Plaintiffs Ross, Burkhart, Housken, and Prasad and those similarly

situated even when a) the employee was working at least part of of the deducted time; b) the

employee was on duty during the deducted time; or c) the employee was not free to leave US

Bank’s premises during the deducted time.

[101]103. During the class period, Defendant failed to pay statutory wages pursuant to

Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7. 

[102] 104. Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals seek unpaid wages,

statutory wages, and penalty wages. In addition, Plaintiffs and those individuals similarly situated

seek costs, interest, disbursements, and attorney fees pursuant to the laws, rules, or regulations of

California or Oregon.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Late Payment of Wages at End of Employment; Waiting Time)

[103] 105. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs as

though fully set forth herein.

[104] 106. At all times material herein, Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated

individuals in California, Oregon and Washington and Oregon were employed by Defendant.

[105] 107. During the class period, Defendant willfully failed to pay all wages to Plaintiffs

and all other similarly situated individuals in California, Oregon and Washington and Oregon when

due upon termination of their employment. As to those class members who performed work in

California, Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals are entitled to recover up to 30 days of

statutory wages for each pay period when wages were not paid when required by California law. As

to those class members who performed work in the State of Oregon, Plaintiffs and all other similarly

situated are entitled to recover up to 30 days of continuing penalty wages pursuant to Oregon law. 

Those who worked in Washington are due treble damages under Washington law.

[106] 108. Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals seek up to 30 days of

penalty wages for Oregon violations, up to 30 days of statutory wages for California violations, and

treble damages for Washington violations for Defendant’s failure to pay all final wages when due, plus

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 33 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 38 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

33 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, disbursements, and attorney fees, pursuant to the laws,

rules, or regulations of California, Oregon and Washington and Oregon. Pursuant to the Private

Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code § 2698 et seq., Plaintiffs have received notice

from the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency of Target’s US Bank’s violations of

California law including, but not limited to, Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512,

516, and 1194. Plaintiffs are entitled to receive civil penalties and attorney’s fees pursuant to the

Private Attorney General Act of 2004, Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq., including but not limited to Cal.

Lab. Code § 2699.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Contract)

[107] 109. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs as

though fully set forth herein.

[108] 110. At all times material herein, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals in

California, Oregon and Washington and Oregon were employed by Defendant.

[109] 111. Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs agreed to work

for Defendant. Defendant agreed to pay them wages and comply with the respective states’ laws as

basic terms of the employment contract. Plaintiffs performed their obligations under such contracts

which entitled them to seek enforcement of the contract. As alleged herein and within the applicable

statutes of limitations in respect to the enforcement of contracts, Defendant breached this agreement

by failing to provide appropriate duty-free rest periods, failing to provide uninterrupted meal periods,

failing to pay wages, including the promised rate of pay, minimum wages, and overtime wages, and/or

failing to pay wages when due, pursuant to the FLSA and the laws, rules, or regulations of California,

Oregon and Washington and Oregon.

[110] 112. Within the applicable time period prior to the filing of this complaint up through

and including the present date through adjudication, Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein has injured

Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals by depriving them of the benefit of their bargain: i.e.,

all wages due as a result of their employment. Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals are

entitled to damages in the form of unpaid wages for Defendant’s breach of contract as provided by

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 34 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 39 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

34 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

applicable laws of California, Oregon and Washington and Oregon.

[111] 113. Defendant also breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing by making

policies and using practices and procedures which resulted in its failure to pay its employees all wages

when due under the contract.

[112] 114. Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals seek payment of wages,

including the promised rate of wages, minimum wage, and overtime, for the work performed by

Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals, all as set forth above. Plaintiffs also seek the

payment of costs, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, pursuant to the laws, rules or

regulations of California, Oregon and Washington and Oregon.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Conversion of Wages)

113. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs above as

though fully set forth herein.

114]. At all times material herein, Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated in California,

Oregon and Washington were employed by Defendant.

115. During the class period, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs and all other similarly

situated individuals for those appropriate rest periods and/or meal periods that Defendant was required

to provide, failed to pay all wages, including the truncated wages, minimum wages, and overtime

wages, as required by Defendant’s representations, the FLSA, and the laws of California, Oregon and

Washington. Defendant failed to pay wages for all hours worked. Defendant also failed to pay all

those wages when due at the termination of employment. Defendant owes monies to Plaintiffs and all

other similarly situated individuals for failing to pay wages, and failure to pay wages when due, all as

set forth above.

116. At the time Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated provided labor to Defendant,

wages became due and payable to Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated for that labor. At the

termination of the employments of Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals, their wages

were due and owing and they were to be paid within the time allowed by the laws of California,

Oregon and Washington.

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 35 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 40 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

35 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

117. The unpaid wages, statutory wages, and penalty wages were and are the property of

Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals and Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated

individuals have the present right to possess their property. By failing to pay earned wages, statutory

wages, and penalty wages when due, Defendant intentionally and wrongfully obtained and held the

wages earned by Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated.

118. Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals did not consent to Defendant’s

conversion of their property and Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals were injured by

Defendant’s conversion of the same. Defendant’s conversion of the property of Plaintiffs and all other

similarly situated individuals was a substantial factor in causing the injury to Plaintiffs.

119. The wages, minimum wages, overtime wages, truncated wages, statutory wages, and

penalty wages all remain due and unpaid and are the property of Plaintiffs and all other similarly

situated individuals. The wages set forth above remain in the hands of the Defendant. Plaintiffs and

all other similarly situated individuals seek the value of the property (unpaid wages, truncated wages,

minimum wages, overtime wages, statutory wages, and penalty wages) at the time of the conversion,

pre-judgment interest from that time, and fair compensation for the time and money properly

expended in pursuit of the property pursuant to the laws of California, Oregon and Washington, plus

punitive damages for Defendant’s intentional act of converting the property of Plaintiffs and other

similarly situated individuals. See e.g. Cal. Civ. Code § 3294. 

ELEVENTH TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Cal. Lab. Code § 226)

[120] 115. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs as

though fully set forth herein.

[121] 116. At all times material herein, Plaintiffs Ross, Burkhart, Housken, and Prasad

and all other similarly situated individuals were employed by Defendant in the State of California.

[122] 117. Defendant is required to comply with California wage and hour laws for its

California employees. Defendant is required to provide accurate itemized wage statements for each

pay period to Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals pursuant to California laws

including, but not limited to, Cal. Lab. Code §226.

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 36 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 41 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

36 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

[123] 118. Defendant failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements to Plaintiffs

Ross, Burkhart, Housken, and Prasad and all other similarly situated individuals who performed

work in the State of California, whereby Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals were

harmed.

[124] 119. Plaintiffs Ross, Burkhart, Housken, and Prasad seek payment of statutory

damages pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code § 226(e) for each employee who did not receive accurate itemized

wage statements during their employment with Defendant. Plaintiffs also seek the payment of costs,

interest, and attorney fees, pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code §§ 218.5 and 218.6. Pursuant to the Private

Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code § 2698 et seq., Plaintiffs have received notice

from the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency of Target’s US Bank’s violations of

California law including, but not limited to, Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512,

516, and 1194. Plaintiffs are entitled to receive civil penalties and attorney’s fees pursuant to the

Private Attorney General Act of 2004, Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq., including but not limited to Cal.

Lab. Code §§ 226.3 and 2699.5.

TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Unfair Competition: Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.)

[125] 120. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs as

though fully set forth herein.

[126] 121. At all times material herein, Plaintiffs Ross, Burkhart, Housken, and Prasad

and all other similarly situated individuals were employed by Defendant in the State of California.

[127] 122. Within the applicable time period prior to the filing of this complaint through

and including the present date through adjudication, Defendant failed to comply with the wage and

hour provisions of the State of California and the FLSA, as set forth herein.

[128] 123. Plaintiffs Ross, Burkhart, Housken, and Prasad, individually and on behalf of

the general public, allege that at all relevant times Defendant’s actions including, but not limited to, its

violations of California law, California Labor Codes, and the FLSA, as set forth above, constitute a

continuing and ongoing unfair and unlawful activity prohibited by Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et

seq., and justify restitution and/or injunctive relief. The unlawful business practices of Defendant are

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 37 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 42 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

37 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

likely to continue, mislead the public (that employees are being provided appropriate duty-free rest

periods, are being provided uninterrupted meal periods, are being paid all wages, including the

promised rate of wages, minimum wage, and overtime, and are being timely paid), and shall present a

continuing threat to the public. Defendant’s actions of avoiding compliance with conditions of labor

and wage obligations and expenses are an unfair business practice. These violations constitute a threat

and unfair business policy. Plaintiffs Ross, Burkhart, Housken, and Prasad have suffered injury in

fact and have lost money or property as a result of such unfair competition. The Court is authorized to

order restitution and/or an injunction as a remedy for any violations of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200

et seq. Plaintiffs Ross, Burkhart, Housken, and Prasad allege that Defendant violated California

Labor Code statutes.

[129] 124. Defendant has engaged in unfair business practices in California by utilizing the

illegal employment practices outlined above including, but not limited to, failing to provide Plaintiffs

Ross, Burkhart, Housken, and Prasad and all similarly situated individuals with appropriate dutyfree rest periods, failing to provide uninterrupted meal periods, failing to pay wages, minimum wages,

and overtime wages, and failing to compensate for sums due for labor, fees, and penalties. 

Defendant’s use of such practices constitutes an unfair business practice and unfair competition, and

provides an unfair advantage over Defendant’s competitors. Plaintiffs Ross, Burkhart, Houken. and

Prasad seek full restitution of said monies from Defendant, as necessary and according to proof, to

restore any and all monies withheld, acquired, or converted by Defendant by means of the unfair

practices complained of herein.

[130] 125. Plaintiffs Ross, Burkhart, Housken, and Prasad allege that, at all relevant

times, Defendant engaged in unlawful, deceptive, and unfair business practices prohibited by Cal. Bus.

& Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. including those set forth in the paragraphs above, thereby depriving

Plaintiffs and the public of the minimum working conditions and standards due them under California

Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders.

[131] 126. Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA Damages): Pursuant to the

Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq., Plaintiff Prasad has given

notice, and Plaintiff Ross intends to give notice, to Defendant and to the California Labor and

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 38 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 43 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

38 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

Workforce Development Agency of Defendant’s violations of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201, 202, 203,

226(a), 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, and 1197. After the notice period provided in Cal. Lab. Code § 2699.3,

Plaintiffs intend to amend this complaint to include civil penalties provided for in California law

including, but not limited to, Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.3, 558, 1197.1, and 2699.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant as follows:

1. For all unpaid wages, including but not limited to regular wages, overtime wages

and/or premium pay wages, and minimum wages, pursuant to the FLSA,California, Oregon, and/or 

and Washington and Oregon laws in amounts to be determined at the time of trial;

2. For all wages, liquidated damages, statutory wages, waiting time wages, penalty wages,

treble damages, and any other economic damages as provided by the FLSA, California,, Oregon,

and/or and Washington and Oregon laws for failure to pay all wages when due;

3. For wages, minimum wages, overtime wages and liquidated damages under the FLSA.

29 U.S.C. §§ 206, 207, and 216(b) for the period of three years prior to the filing of this action based

upon Defendant’s intentional and willful failure to pay wages, minimum wages and overtime wages. 

29 U.S.C. §§ 206, 207, 216(b), and 255;

4. For statutory wages and damages pursuant to California law including, but not limited

to, Cal. Lab. Code §§ 203, 226, 226.7, and 510, for Defendant’s failure to pay all wages, failure to pay

failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay final wages when

required by law, failure to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to

provide rest periods and meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof;

5. For wages and penalty wages pursuant to Oregon law including but not limited to: Or.

Rev. Stat. §§ 652.140, 652.150, 652.615, 653.010, 653.025, 653.055, and 653.261, for Defendant’s

deduction/withholding of Lost Time wages, failure to pay all wages, failure to pay minimum wages,

failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay final wages when required by law, and failure to provide

rest periods and meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof;

6. For wages and liquidated damages for Defendant’s failure to pay all wages, minimum

wages, and overtime wages pursuant to Washington law, including but not limited to Wash. Rev. Code

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 39 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 44 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

39 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

§§ 49.46.020, 49.46.130, and Chapter 49.12; WAC 296-136-092, and for wages and treble damages

for Defendant’s failure to timely pay all wages when due upon the ending of the employment

relationship pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code § 49.48.010; 

7. Pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203, that Defendant be preliminarily and

permanently enjoined from: a) failing to provide employees mandatory duty-free rest periods, b)

failing to provide employees mandatory uninterrupted meal periods; c) permitting and unlawfully

allowing employees to work hours instead of providing appropriate rest periods and meal periods, and

not paying civil statutory wages; d) permitting and unlawfully allowing employees to work hours

instead of receiving appropriate rest periods and meal periods without compensating the employees; e)

failing to pay employees all wages, including minimum wage and overtime; f) failing to provide

employees with accurate itemized wage statements; and g) failing to pay employees all wages due

upon termination of employment within the time proscribed by law;

8. Pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17203 and the equitable powers of this Court, that

Defendant be ordered to restore to Plaintiffs all funds acquired by means of any act or practice

declared by this Court to be unlawful or fraudulent or to constitute unfair competition under Bus. &

Prof. Code §17200 et seq.;

9. As restitution, disgorgement of wages and related sums, statutory wages, attorney fees,

and all other remedies available pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.;

10. For costs and disbursements, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the respective

rates set by the states and for costs of litigation and attorney fees pursuant to the FLSA, California and

Oregon laws; 

11. For payment of wages converted under California, Oregon and Washington laws,

together with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest thereon, plus costs, plus attorney fees;

12. For punitive damages under California, Oregon and Washington laws for Defendant

conversion of wages; and

13. For such further or alternative relief in favor of Plaintiffs and all class members as the

Court deems appropriate.

Dated: May ____, 2008 Bailey Pinney, PC

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 40 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 45 of 46
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

[Proposed] Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

40 – Case No. C07-002951-SI

By __________________________

Jose Mata

Attorney for Plaintiffs Ann Ross, Dennis Ramos, Maurita Prasad,

Tamara Burkhart, Nanette Housken and Kelly Smith

Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial on all issues trialble by jury.

Dated: May ____, 2008 Bailey Pinney, PC

By __________________________

Jose Mata

Attorney for Plaintiffs Ann Ross, Dennis Ramos, Maurita Prasad,

Tamara Burkhart, Nanette Housken and Kelly Smith

Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 83-2 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 41 of 41 Case 3:07-cv-02951-SI Document 87 Filed 04/02/08 Page 46 of 46