Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03653/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03653-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
AT&T Inc.
Defendant
AT&T Services, Inc.
Defendant
Marilyn Dito
Plaintiff
Michael Mantonya
Plaintiff
Anthony Ureta
Plaintiff
Wendell Walton
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 & [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

CASE No. 15-cv-3653-VC

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

jsagafi@outtengolden.com

Relic Sun (Cal. Bar No. 306701)

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP

One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor

San Francisco, California 94111

Telephone: (415) 638-8800 

Facsimile: (415) 638-8810

Michael N. Litrownik (admitted pro hac 

vice)

mlitrownik@outtengolden.com

3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor

New York, New York 10016

Telephone: (212) 245-1000

Facsimile: (646) 509-2060

Jason C. Marsili (SBN 233980)

jmarsili@posner-rosen.com

Brianna M. Primozic (SBN 274397)

bprimozic@posner-rosen.com

POSNER & ROSEN LLP

3600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800

Los Angeles, California 90010

Telephone: (213) 389-6050

Facsimile: (213) 389-0663

Thomas R. Kaufman (Cal. Bar. No. 177936)

tkaufman@sheppardmullin.com

Paul Berkowitz (Cal Bar. No. 251077)

pberkowitz@sheppardmullin.com

Michael T. Campbell (Cal. Bar No. 293376)

mcampbell@sheppardmullin.com

SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & 

HAMPTON LLP

1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600

Los Angeles, California 90067-6055

Telephone: (310) 228-3700

Facsimile: (310) 228-3701

Attorneys for Defendant AT&T Services, Inc.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and proposed 

Collective and Class Members

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

MARILYN DITO and WENDELL 

WALTON, individually and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AT&T SERVICES, INC., 

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-03653-VC

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER 

FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 3:15-cv-03653-VC Document 68 Filed 06/09/16 Page 1 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

CASE No. 15-cv-3653-VC

Plaintiffs Marilyn Dito and Wendell Walton (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant AT&T Services, 

Inc. (“AT&T” or “Defendant”) hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

WHEREAS, Plaintiff Marilyn Dito shall be removed as a named plaintiff from this action, 

but shall remain an opt-in; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs shall file the Fourth Amended Complaint attached hereto as 

Exhibit A, replacing Marilyn Dito with Michael Mantonya as a named plaintiff and proposed 

class representative;

WHEREAS, AT&T agrees that, pursuant to the parties’ original venue agreement, it will 

not move to transfer this action to a different venue based on the replacement of Ms. Dito with 

Mr. Mantonya as named Plaintiff;

WHEREAS, the parties agree that Plaintiffs are deemed to have exhausted their PAGA 

claim requirements to the full extent that Plaintiffs Walton, Ureta, and Dito have done so;

NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs are given leave to file the 

Fourth Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs are deemed to have exhausted their PAGA claim 

requirements to the full extent that Plaintiffs Walton, Ureta, and Dito have done so. 

Dated: June 8, 2016 By: /s/ Jahan C. Sagafi 

 Jahan C. Sagafi

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP

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

Relic Sun (Cal Bar No. 306701)

One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: (415) 638-8800

Facsimile: (347) 390-2187

Case 3:15-cv-03653-VC Document 68 Filed 06/09/16 Page 2 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

CASE No. 15-cv-3653-VC

Michael N. Litrownik (admitted pro hac vice)

3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor

New York, NY 10016

Telephone: (212) 245-1000

Facsimile: (646) 509-2060

Jason C. Marsili (Cal. Bar No. 233980)

Brianna M. Primozic (Cal. Bar No. 274397)

POSNER & ROSEN LLP

3600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800

Los Angeles, CA 90010

Telephone: (213) 389-6050

Facsimile: (213) 389-0663

Attorneys for Plaintiff and proposed Collective and 

Class Members

Dated: June 8, 2016 By: /s/ Thomas R. Kaufman 

Thomas R. Kaufman

SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON 

LLP

Thomas R. Kaufman (Cal. Bar. No. 177936)

Paul Berkowitz (Cal Bar. No. 251077)

Michael T. Campbell (Cal. Bar No. 293376)

1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600

Los Angeles, California 90067-6055

Telephone: (310) 228-3700

Facsimile: (310) 228-3701

Attorneys for Defendant AT&T Services, Inc.

Case 3:15-cv-03653-VC Document 68 Filed 06/09/16 Page 3 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

CASE No. 15-cv-3653-VC

ORDER

It is so ORDERED.

Dated: June __, 2016 By: 

The Honorable Vince Chhabria

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ATTESTATION

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the filer of this document attests that concurrence 

in the filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatory above.

Dated: June 8, 2016

By: /s/ Jahan C. Sagafi

Jahan C. Sagafi

9

Case 3:15-cv-03653-VC Document 68 Filed 06/09/16 Page 4 of 23
Exhibit A

Case 3:15-cv-03653-VC Document 68 Filed 06/09/16 Page 5 of 23
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

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS 

OF FLSA AND CALIFORNIA WAGE AND HOUR LAWS

CASE NO. 15-CV-03653-VC

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

jsagafi@outtengolden.com

Relic Sun (Cal. Bar No. 306701)

rsun@outtengolden.com

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP

One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: (415) 638-8800 

Facsimile: (415) 638-8810

Michael N. Litrownik (admitted pro hac vice)

mlitrownik@outtengolden.com

Deirdre Aaron (admitted pro hac vice)

daaron@outtengolden.com

3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor

New York, NY 10016

Telephone: (212) 245-1000

Facsimile: (646) 509-2060

Jason C. Marsili (Cal. Bar No. 233980)

jmarsili@posner-rosen.com

Brianna M. Primozic (Cal. Bar No. 274397)

bprimozic@posner-rosen.com

POSNER & ROSEN LLP

3600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800

Los Angeles, CA 90010

Telephone: (213) 389-6050

Facsimile: (213) 389-0663

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and proposed 

Collective and Class Members

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

WENDELL WALTON and MICHAEL 

MANTONYA, individually and on behalf 

of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AT&T SERVICES, INC., 

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-03653-VC

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

VIOLATIONS OF FLSA AND 

CALIFORNIA

WAGE AND HOUR LAWS

COLLECTIVE ACTION

CLASS ACTION

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Case 3:15-cv-03653-VC Document 68 Filed 06/09/16 Page 6 of 23
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 - FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF 

FLSA AND CALIFORNIA WAGE AND HOUR LAWS. 

CASE NO. 15-CV-03653-VC

Plaintiffs Wendell Walton and Michael Mantonya (“Plaintiffs”), individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, by their attorneys at Outten & Golden LLP and Posner & 

Rosen LLP, allege, upon personal knowledge as to themselves and upon information and belief as 

to other matters, as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Plaintiffs are training professionals employed by Defendant AT&T Services, Inc.

(“AT&T”), classified as exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act 

(“FLSA”) and state law. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other 

similarly situated training professionals, defined as Senior Training Managers working in

Training Delivery (“Deliverers”) and Training Design (“Designers”), who work or worked for 

AT&T at any time during the applicable liability period, and who are not subject to AT&T’s 

Management Arbitration Agreement (“non-arbitration” individuals) (collectively, “Training 

Specialists”).

2. The primary duty of Plaintiffs and Training Specialists is to convey training 

information provided by others, including subject matter experts (“SMEs”) and vendors, to client 

students within AT&T according to established AT&T policies, procedures, guidelines, and 

systems, using their skill and experience. 

3. AT&T has unlawfully classified Plaintiffs and Training Specialists as exempt from 

overtime payments under federal and state laws, despite the fact that they should have been 

classified as nonexempt. Plaintiffs and Training Specialists worked overtime hours, as defined 

by the applicable federal and state laws, and are and have been entitled to premium 

compensation at the appropriate rate (“overtime compensation”) for all overtime hours worked. 

4. AT&T has willfully refused to pay Plaintiffs and other Training Specialists the 

required overtime compensation for overtime hours worked, and has failed to keep time records 

as required by law.

5. AT&T is a multinational telecommunications corporation, headquartered in 

Dallas, Texas. AT&T is the 23rd largest company in the world. 

6. AT&T has employed Training Specialists at its locations nationwide.

Case 3:15-cv-03653-VC Document 68 Filed 06/09/16 Page 7 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF 

FLSA AND CALIFORNIA WAGE AND HOUR LAWS. 

CASE NO. 15-CV-03653-VC

7. Pursuant to AT&T’s corporate policies, AT&T has classified Training Specialists 

as exempt from the overtime pay requirements of the FLSA and state law.

8. By the conduct described herein, AT&T has willfully violated the FLSA and state 

law by failing to pay Training Specialists, including Plaintiffs, proper overtime wages as 

required by law.

9. The FLSA Collective: Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid wages that AT&T owes

to them and similarly situated current and former Training Specialists. Plaintiffs bring this 

action under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., on behalf of themselves and all similarly 

situated current and former Training Specialists who elect to opt into this action pursuant to the 

collective action provision of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

10. The California Class: Plaintiffs also bring this action on behalf of themselves

and all similarly situated current and former Training Specialists who worked for AT&T in 

California pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 to remedy violations of the California 

Labor Code §§ 226, 510, 1174, 1174.5, and 1194; California Wage Order 4-2001; and California 

Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq., and related regulations.

11. The PAGA Group: Plaintiff Walton also brings this action on behalf of himself 

and all similarly situated current and former Training Specialists who worked for AT&T in 

California to recover penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), 

Cal. Labor Code §§ 2698 et seq., for violations of the California Labor Code §§ 226, 510, 1174, 

1174.5, and 1194 and California Wage Order No. 4-2001. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

12. This Court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1331.

13. In addition, the Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims under the FLSA 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

14. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 

1367 because the state law claim and the federal claim are so closely related that they form part 

of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.

Case 3:15-cv-03653-VC Document 68 Filed 06/09/16 Page 8 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF 

FLSA AND CALIFORNIA WAGE AND HOUR LAWS. 

CASE NO. 15-CV-03653-VC

15. This Court also has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 

1332(d). There are more than 40 members of the proposed class. At least some of the members 

of the proposed class are citizens of a different state than AT&T. The claims of the proposed 

class members exceed $5,000,000 in the aggregate, exclusive of interest and costs.

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

2201 and 2202.

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

1391(b) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims 

occurred and AT&T is subject to the Court’s personal jurisdiction in this District.

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

intradistrict assignment to the San Francisco and Oakland Divisions is proper because a 

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

THE PARTIES

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Wendell Walton

19. Plaintiff Wendell Walton (“Walton”) is a resident of Monrovia, California.

20. Walton has been employed by AT&T from approximately July 2000 through the 

present. From approximately January 2001 through the present, Walton has been employed by 

AT&T as a Senior Training Manager Design, which is a type of Training Specialist as defined 

herein.

21. Walton worked for AT&T at one of their office locations in Montrose, California.

22. Walton regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, but was not paid for 

any hours he worked over 40.

23. During the week of March 23 to March 29, 2015, Walton worked in excess of 

forty (40) hours. 

Case 3:15-cv-03653-VC Document 68 Filed 06/09/16 Page 9 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 - FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF 

FLSA AND CALIFORNIA WAGE AND HOUR LAWS. 

CASE NO. 15-CV-03653-VC

24. Defendants failed to keep accurate records of the hours that Walton worked as a 

Training Professional. 

Plaintiff Michael Mantonya

25. Plaintiff Michael Mantonya (“Mantonya”) is a resident of Chino, California. 

26. Mantonya worked for AT&T from approximately March 1999 to approximately 

November 10, 2013.

1

 From approximately March 2007 through approximately November 10, 

2013, Mantonya worked for AT&T in Anaheim, Cerritos, Pleasanton, Santa Clarita, Bakersfield, 

Camarillo, Fresno, Mammoth Lakes, and San Diego, California, among other locations as a 

Deliverer, which is a type of Training Specialist as defined herein.

27. Mantonya regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, but was not paid 

for any hours he worked over 40. Specifically, during the week of October 28, 2013 through 

November 3, 2013, Mantonya worked more than 40 hours.

28. AT&T failed to keep accurate records of the hours that Mantonya worked as a 

Training Specialist.

Defendant AT&T Services, Inc.

29. AT&T Services, Inc. is a Delaware corporation doing business within Alameda

County in the State of California and maintains corporate headquarters in Dallas, Texas at One 

AT&T Plaza, 208 South Akard Street. AT&T Services, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of 

AT&T Inc.

COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

30. Plaintiffs bring the First Cause of Action, pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 

216(b), on behalf of themselves and all non-arbitration Training Specialists who have worked for 

AT&T anywhere nationwide on or after August 11, 2012 (the “FLSA Collective”).

 

1

 From approximately 2004 to 2006, Mantonya was an employee of Cingular Wireless 

during the time that it acquired ownership of AT&T Wireless.

Case 3:15-cv-03653-VC Document 68 Filed 06/09/16 Page 10 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 - FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF 

FLSA AND CALIFORNIA WAGE AND HOUR LAWS. 

CASE NO. 15-CV-03653-VC

31. Plaintiffs are similarly situated to other Training Specialists.

32. Plaintiffs and other Training Specialists are similarly situated in that they have 

substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and are subject to AT&T’s common 

practice, policy, or plan of unlawfully characterizing Training Specialists as exempt employees 

and refusing to pay them overtime in violation of the FLSA.

33. AT&T is liable under the FLSA for, inter alia, failing to properly compensate 

Plaintiffs and other Training Specialists. There are many similarly situated current and former 

Training Specialists who have not been paid for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek in 

violation of the FLSA who would benefit from the issuance of a court-supervised notice 

regarding the present lawsuit and the opportunity to join it. Those similarly situated employees 

are known to AT&T, are readily identifiable, and can be located through AT&T’s records, such 

that notice should be sent to them pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

34. Plaintiffs bring the Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action under Rule 

23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves and all non-arbitration 

Training Specialists who have worked for AT&T anywhere in California between May 18, 2011 

and the date of final judgment in this matter (the “California Class”).

35. Excluded from the California Class are AT&T’s legal representatives, officers, 

directors, assigns, and successors, or any individual who has, or who at any time during the class 

period has had, a controlling interest in AT&T; the Judge(s) to whom this case is assigned and 

any member of the Judges’ immediate family; and all persons who will submit timely and 

otherwise proper requests for exclusion from the California Class.

36. The persons in the California Class identified above are so numerous that joinder 

of all members is impracticable. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, 

that AT&T has employed at least 100 persons who satisfy the definition of the California Class.

37. AT&T acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the California 

Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with 

respect to the California Class as a whole.

Case 3:15-cv-03653-VC Document 68 Filed 06/09/16 Page 11 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 - FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF 

FLSA AND CALIFORNIA WAGE AND HOUR LAWS. 

CASE NO. 15-CV-03653-VC

38. There are questions of law and fact common to the California Class that 

predominate over any questions solely affecting individual members of the California Class, 

including but not limited to:

a. whether AT&T has unlawfully failed to pay the California Class members all 

overtime compensation owed, in violation of the California Labor Code and 

related regulations, Cal. Labor Code §§ 226, 510, 1174, 1174.5, and 1194; Cal. 

Wage Order No. 4-2001; and the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus 

& Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.;

b. Whether the California Class members are nonexempt employees entitled to 

overtime compensation for overtime hours worked under the overtime pay 

requirements of California law;

c. Whether AT&T’s policy and practice of classifying the California Class

members as exempt from overtime entitlement under California law and 

AT&T's policy and practice of failing to pay overtime to the California Class 

members violate applicable provisions of California law, including applicable 

statutory and regulatory authority;

d. whether AT&T has unlawfully failed to keep and furnish the California Class 

members with accurate records of hours worked in violation of California 

Labor Code §§ 226 and 1174; and

e. the nature and extent of the California Class members’ injuries and the 

appropriate measure of their damages.

39. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the California Class members they 

seek to represent. Plaintiffs and the California Class members worked or work for AT&T as 

Deliverers or Designers in California and have been subjected to AT&T’s policy and pattern or 

practice of failing to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek 

and/or 8 hours per workday. AT&T acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to 

the California Class, thereby making declaratory relief with respect to the California Class 

appropriate.

Case 3:15-cv-03653-VC Document 68 Filed 06/09/16 Page 12 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 - FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF 

FLSA AND CALIFORNIA WAGE AND HOUR LAWS. 

CASE NO. 15-CV-03653-VC

40. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the 

California Class. Plaintiffs understand that, as class representatives, they assume a fiduciary 

responsibility to the California Class members to represent their interests fairly and adequately. 

Plaintiffs recognize that as class representatives, they must represent and consider the interests of 

the California Class just as they would represent and consider their own interests. Plaintiffs 

understand that in decisions regarding the conduct of the litigation and its possible settlement, 

they must not favor their own interests over those of the California Class. Plaintiffs recognize 

that any resolution of a class action lawsuit, including any settlement or dismissal thereof, must 

be in the best interests of the California Class. Plaintiffs understand that in order to provide 

adequate representation, they must remain informed of developments in the litigation, cooperate 

with class counsel by providing them with information and any relevant documentary material in 

her possession, and testify, if required, in a deposition and in trial.

41. Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class 

action employment litigation.

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

adjudication of this litigation – particularly in the context of wage litigation like the present 

action, where the individual Plaintiffs may lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute a 

lawsuit in federal court against a corporate defendant. The California Class members have been 

damaged and are entitled to recovery as a result of AT&T’s common and uniform policies, 

practices, and procedures. Although the relative damages suffered by individual members of the 

California Class are not de minimis, such damages are small compared to the expense and 

burden of individual prosecution of this litigation. In addition, class treatment is superior 

because it will obviate the need for unduly duplicative litigation that might result in inconsistent 

judgments about AT&T’s practices.

43. This action is properly maintainable as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 23(b)(3).

44. Plaintiffs define the California Class into two subclasses as follows:

45. The California Deliverer Subclass includes all non-arbitration persons who worked 

Case 3:15-cv-03653-VC Document 68 Filed 06/09/16 Page 13 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 8 - FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF 

FLSA AND CALIFORNIA WAGE AND HOUR LAWS. 

CASE NO. 15-CV-03653-VC

for AT&T as Deliverers in California between May 18, 2011 and the date of final judgment in 

this matter. 

46. The California Designer Subclass includes all non-arbitration persons who worked 

for AT&T in California as Designers between May 18, 2011 and the date of final judgment in 

this matter.

PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

47. Plaintiff Walton brings the Sixth Cause of Action on behalf of himself and all 

Training Specialists, without regard to whether AT&T considers them subject to an arbitration 

agreement, who have worked for AT&T in California between May 18, 2014 and the date of 

final judgment in this matter (the “PAGA Group”).

48. This action is suitable for adjudication as a PAGA claim on a representative basis, 

with or without the additional claims asserted herein.

COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

49. Pursuant to a centralized, company-wide policy, pattern, and/or practice, AT&T 

has unlawfully classified Plaintiffs and other Training Specialists as exempt from overtime 

payments under federal and state laws, despite the fact that they should have been classified as 

nonexempt.

50. As a result, AT&T failed to pay Plaintiffs and other Training Specialists for all of 

their hours worked, including for any of the overtime hours they worked over 40 in a workweek.

51. AT&T failed to keep accurate records of the hours that Plaintiffs and other 

Training Specialists worked.

52. All of the work that Plaintiffs and other Training Specialists have performed has 

been assigned by AT&T, and/or AT&T has been aware or should have been aware of all of the 

work that Plaintiffs and other Training Specialists have performed. 

53. As part of their regular business practice, AT&T has intentionally, willfully, and 

repeatedly engaged in a policy, pattern, and/or practice of violating the FLSA. This policy, 

pattern, and/or practice includes but is not limited to:

a. willfully failing to pay Plaintiffs and other Training Specialists proper 

Case 3:15-cv-03653-VC Document 68 Filed 06/09/16 Page 14 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 9 - FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF 

FLSA AND CALIFORNIA WAGE AND HOUR LAWS. 

CASE NO. 15-CV-03653-VC

overtime wages for hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a 

workweek; and

b. willfully failing to record and properly compensate for all of the time that 

Plaintiffs and other Training Specialists have worked for the benefit of 

AT&T.

54. AT&T is aware or should have been aware that the FLSA requires them to pay 

Plaintiffs and other Training Specialists an overtime premium for hours worked in excess of 40 

hours per workweek. 

55. AT&T’s conduct alleged herein has been widespread, repeated, and consistent, and 

it is contrary to the FLSA.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

FLSA: Unpaid Overtime Wages

Brought by Plaintiffs Individually and on Behalf of the Collective

56. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations in all preceding 

paragraphs.

57. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former 

Training Specialists were engaged in commerce and/or the production of goods for commerce 

within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207(a). 

58. The overtime wage provisions set forth in §§ 201 et seq. of the FLSA apply to 

AT&T.

59. AT&T was and is an employer of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and 

former Training Specialists and are engaged in commerce and/or the production of goods for 

commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207(a).

60. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former 

Training Specialists were and are employees within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(e) and 

207(a).

61. AT&T has failed to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former 

Training Specialists the wages to which they were entitled under the FLSA. 

62. AT&T’s violations of the FLSA, as described herein, have been willful and 

Case 3:15-cv-03653-VC Document 68 Filed 06/09/16 Page 15 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 10 - FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF 

FLSA AND CALIFORNIA WAGE AND HOUR LAWS. 

CASE NO. 15-CV-03653-VC

intentional. 

63. Because AT&T’s violations of the FLSA have been willful, a three-year statute of 

limitations applies, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 255, as it may be tolled or extended by agreement, 

equity or operation of law.

64. As a result of AT&T’s willful violations of the FLSA, Plaintiffs and other 

similarly situated current and former Training Specialists have suffered damages by being 

denied wages in accordance with 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., in amounts to be determined at trial 

or through undisputed record evidence, and are entitled to recovery of such amounts, liquidated 

damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other compensation pursuant to 29 

U.S.C. § 216(b).

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

California Wage Order No. 4-2001; California Labor 

Code §§ 510, 1194: Unpaid Overtime Wages

Brought by Plaintiffs Individually and on Behalf of the California Class

65. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations in all preceding 

paragraphs.

66. California law requires employers, such as AT&T, to pay overtime compensation 

to all non-exempt employees for all hours worked over 40 per workweek and over 8 per day.

67. Plaintiffs and the California Class members are non-exempt employees entitled to 

be paid overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked.

68. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and the California Class members worked in excess 

of 40 hours in a workweek and 8 hours in a workday. 

69. At all relevant times, AT&T failed and refused to pay Plaintiffs and the California

Class members overtime premium pay for all of their overtime hours worked.

70. As a direct and proximate result of AT&T’s unlawful conduct, as set forth herein, 

Plaintiffs and the California Class members have sustained damages, including loss of earnings 

for hours of overtime worked for the benefit of AT&T in an amount to be established at trial, 

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

Case 3:15-cv-03653-VC Document 68 Filed 06/09/16 Page 16 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 11 - FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF 

FLSA AND CALIFORNIA WAGE AND HOUR LAWS. 

CASE NO. 15-CV-03653-VC

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

California Wage Order No. 4-2001; California Labor

Code §§ 226, 1174, & 1174.5: Record-Keeping Violations

Brought by Plaintiffs Individually and on Behalf of the California Class

71. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations in all preceding 

paragraphs.

72. AT&T knowingly and intentionally failed to provide timely, accurate, itemized 

wage statements including, inter alia, all hours worked, to Plaintiffs and the California Class 

members in accordance with California Wage Order No. 4-2001 and California Labor Code § 

226(a). Such failure caused injury to Plaintiffs and the California Class members, by, among 

other things, impeding them from knowing the amount of wages to which they are and were 

entitled. At all times relevant herein, AT&T has failed to maintain accurate records of hours 

worked by Plaintiffs and the California Class members as required under Labor Code § 1174(d). 

73. Plaintiffs and the California Class members are entitled to and seek injunctive 

relief requiring AT&T to comply with California Labor Code §§ 226(a) and 1174(d), and further 

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

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

occurs and one hundred dollars ($100) per employee for each violation in a subsequent pay 

period.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

California Meal Period Provisions, 

Cal. Wage Order No. 4-2001; Cal. Labor Code §§ 218.5, 226.7, & 512, 

Brought by Plaintiffs Individually and on behalf of the California Class

74. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as if they 

were set forth again herein.

75. Plaintiffs and the California Class members regularly work and have worked in 

excess of five-hour shifts without being afforded at least a half-hour meal break in which they 

were relieved of all duty, and more than ten-hour shifts without being afforded a second halfhour meal break in which they were relieved of all duty, as required by Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 

512 and Wage Order No. 4-2000, § 11(a).

Case 3:15-cv-03653-VC Document 68 Filed 06/09/16 Page 17 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 12 - FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF 

FLSA AND CALIFORNIA WAGE AND HOUR LAWS. 

CASE NO. 15-CV-03653-VC

76. In addition, Plaintiffs and the California Class members regularly work and have 

worked without being afforded at least one ten-minute rest break, in which they were relieved of 

all duty, per four hours of work performed or major fraction thereof, as required by Labor Code 

§§ 226.7 and Wage Order No. 4-2000, § 12.

77. As a result of AT&T’s failure to afford proper meal periods, AT&T is liable to 

Plaintiffs and the California Class members for one hour of additional pay at the regular rate of 

compensation for each workday that the proper meal periods were not provided, pursuant to 

Labor Code § 226.7 and Wage Order No. 4-2001, § 11(b).

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.: Unfair Competition

Brought by Plaintiffs Individually and on Behalf of the California Class

78. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations in all preceding 

paragraphs.

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

(“UCL”). The UCL prohibits unfair competition by prohibiting, inter alia, any unlawful or 

unfair business acts or practices.

80. Beginning at a date unknown to Plaintiffs, but at least as long ago as four years 

prior to the filing of the Complaint, AT&T committed, and continue to commit, acts of unfair 

competition, as defined by the UCL, by, among other things, engaging in the acts and practices 

described herein. AT&T’s conduct as alleged herein has injured Plaintiffs and the California

Class members by wrongfully denying them earned wages, and therefore was substantially 

injurious to them.

81. AT&T engaged in unfair competition in violation of the UCL by violating, inter 

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

separate violation of the UCL:

a. FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq.;

b. California Labor Code § 1194;

c. California Labor Code § 226; 

Case 3:15-cv-03653-VC Document 68 Filed 06/09/16 Page 18 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 13 - FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF 

FLSA AND CALIFORNIA WAGE AND HOUR LAWS. 

CASE NO. 15-CV-03653-VC

d. California Labor Code § 1174; and

e. California Labor Code § 510.

82. AT&T’s course of conduct, acts, and practices in violation of the California laws 

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

AT&T’s conduct described herein violates the policy or spirit of such laws or otherwise

significantly threatens or harms competition.

83. The unlawful and unfair business practices and acts of AT&T, described above, 

have injured Plaintiffs and the California Class members in that they were wrongfully denied the 

payment of earned overtime wages.

84. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the California Class, seek recovery of 

attorneys’ fees and costs of this action to be paid by AT&T, as provided by the UCL and 

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

85. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the California Class, seek restitution in the 

amount of the respective unpaid wages earned and due, including for unpaid overtime at a rate 

not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of 40 

hours in a workweek, or 8 hours in a day, and double the regular rate of pay for work performed 

in excess of 12 hours per day.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of California’s Private Attorneys General Act;

Cal. Labor Code §§ 2699 et seq.

Brought by Plaintiff Walton Individually and on Behalf of All Aggrieved Employees and the 

General Public

86. Plaintiff Walton realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all 

preceding paragraphs.

87. California’s Private Attorneys General Act, Cal. Labor Code §§ 2698 et seq. 

(“PAGA”), provides that an aggrieved employee may bring a civil action on behalf of such 

employee and other current and former employees as well as the general public to recover for 

any violation of a provision of the California Labor Code, which provides for a civil penalty to 

be assessed and collected by the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, or any 

of its departments, divisions, commissions, boards, agencies or employees (collectively, the 

Case 3:15-cv-03653-VC Document 68 Filed 06/09/16 Page 19 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 14 - FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF 

FLSA AND CALIFORNIA WAGE AND HOUR LAWS. 

CASE NO. 15-CV-03653-VC

“LWDA”). The group of aggrieved employees on whose behalf this claim is asserted are 

referred to herein as the “PAGA Group.”

88. Whenever the LWDA has discretion to assess a civil penalty, a court in a civil 

action is authorized pursuant to PAGA to exercise the same discretion to assess a civil penalty 

on behalf of aggrieved employees, subject to the same limitations and conditions.

89. Plaintiff Walton and the other members of the PAGA Group are “aggrieved 

employees,” as defined by the California Labor Code, § 2699(c) in that they are all current or 

former employees of AT&T, and one or more of the alleged violations was committed against 

them.

90. Plaintiff Walton, on behalf of the PAGA Group and the general public, in his

capacity as a private attorney general, seeks penalties under the California Labor Code and 

PAGA for the violations alleged against AT&T in this complaint under California state law.

91. Specifically, in such capacity, Plaintiff Walton alleges the following violations and 

associated penalties:

a. Failure to Pay Overtime Wages: AT&T failed to pay all overtime wages 

due to Plaintiff Walton and the PAGA Group, in violation of the California 

Wage Order No. 4 and Cal. Labor Code §§ 510, 1194, as detailed herein. 

b. Failure to Provide Complete and Accurate Wage Statements: AT&T

failed to provide complete and accurate wage statements containing all 

wages due to Plaintiff Walton and the PAGA Group, in violation of the 

California Labor Code § 226(a) and the IWC Wage Orders, as detailed 

herein.

c. Failure to Keep Accurate Payroll Records: AT&T failed to provide 

complete and accurate wage statements regarding all wages due to Plaintiff

Walton and the PAGA Group, in violation of the California Labor Code § 

1174 et seq. and the IWC Wage Orders, as detailed herein.

92. These failures by AT&T were willful and constitute a violation of PAGA, thereby 

entitling Plaintiff Walton to recover statutory penalties under the California Labor Code §§ 558 

Case 3:15-cv-03653-VC Document 68 Filed 06/09/16 Page 20 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 15 - FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF 

FLSA AND CALIFORNIA WAGE AND HOUR LAWS. 

CASE NO. 15-CV-03653-VC

and 2599, et seq.

93. Pursuant to the California Labor Code § 2699(a), (f) and (g) and related 

provisions, Plaintiff Walton, as a private attorney general on behalf of the PAGA Group and the 

general public, requests and is entitled to recover penalties against AT&T, jointly and severally, 

for each member of the PAGA Group per pay period for the initial violation and for each 

member of the PAGA Group per pay period for each subsequent violation, subject to any 

applicable cap.

94. On May 18, 2015, Plaintiff Walton provided written notice by certified mail to the 

LWDA of the legal claims and theories of this case.

95. On August 11, 2015, Plaintiff Anthony Ureta2provided written notice by certified 

mail to the LWDA of the legal claims and theories of this case contemporaneous with the filing 

of the Class and Collective Action Complaint in this action.

96. On December 10, 2015, Plaintiff Marilyn Dito3also provided written notice by 

certified mail to the LWDA of the legal claims and theories of this case.

97. Pursuant to the California Labor Code § 2699(i), civil penalties recovered by the 

PAGA Group shall be distributed as follows: seventy-five percent to the LWDA and twenty-five 

percent to the aggrieved employees.

98. Furthermore, Plaintiff Walton, as a private attorney general on behalf of all other 

aggrieved employees, requests and is entitled to recover from AT&T, jointly and severally, 

interest, attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 210, 218.5, 1194(a), and 

2699.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated 

 

2

Plaintiff Anthony Ureta (“Ureta”) commenced this instant action by filing a Complaint 

against AT&T on August 11, 2015. On October 14, 2015, Ureta filed a First Amended 

Complaint that added Marilyn Dito as an additional named plaintiff and limited his own claims to 

only those under the PAGA. Pursuant to the parties’ January 25, 2016 Stipulation of Dismissal 

and this Court’s January 27, 2016 Order, Ureta’s PAGA claims against AT&T were dismissed 

without prejudice.

3 The Parties’ Stipulated on June 8, 2016 to replace Plaintiff Marilyn Dito (“Dito”) with 

Michael Mantonya as a named plaintiff in this action. 

Case 3:15-cv-03653-VC Document 68 Filed 06/09/16 Page 21 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 16 - FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF 

FLSA AND CALIFORNIA WAGE AND HOUR LAWS. 

CASE NO. 15-CV-03653-VC

persons, pray for the following relief:

A. Designation of this action as a collective action on behalf of the Collective and 

prompt issuance of notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b);

B. Certification of the California Class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure;

i. Certification of the California Deliverer Subclass pursuant to Rule 23 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 

ii. Certification of the California Designer Subclass pursuant to Rule 23 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

C. Designation of Plaintiffs as Class Representatives of the California Class;

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

the FLSA, California Labor Code, and UCL;

E. An award of damages, according to proof, including liquidated damages, to be 

paid by AT&T;

F. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by law;

G. Attorneys’ fees and costs of action incurred herein, including expert fees; and

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

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

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

by jury on all questions of fact raised by the Fourth Amended Class and Collective Action 

Complaint.

Dated: June 8, 2016 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Jahan C. Sagafi 

Jahan C. Sagafi

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP

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

Relic Sun (Cal. Bar No. 306701)

One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: (415) 638-8800

Facsimile: (415) 638-8810

Case 3:15-cv-03653-VC Document 68 Filed 06/09/16 Page 22 of 23
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 17 - FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF 

FLSA AND CALIFORNIA WAGE AND HOUR LAWS. 

CASE NO. 15-CV-03653-VC

Michael N. Litrownik (admitted pro hac vice)

3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor

New York, NY 10016

Telephone: (212) 245-1000

Facsimile: (646) 509-2060

POSNER & ROSEN LLP

Jason C. Marsili (Cal. Bar No. 233980)

Brianna M. Primozic (Cal. Bar No. 274397)

3600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800

Los Angeles, CA 90010

Telephone: (213) 389-6050

Facsimile: (213) 389-0663

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and proposed Collective 

and Class Members 

Case 3:15-cv-03653-VC Document 68 Filed 06/09/16 Page 23 of 23