_______________________________________________________________________________ COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Soto and Stricklen v. O.C. Communications, Inc. 

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

Carolyn Hunt Cottrell (SBN 166977) 

Nicole N. Coon (SBN 286283) 

SCHNEIDER WALLACE 

COTTRELL KONECKY 

WOTKYNS LLP 

2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 

Emeryville, California 94608 

Telephone: (415) 421-7100 

Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 

 ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com 

 ncoon@schneiderwallace.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, the Collective and 

Putative Class 

Additional Counsel on the following page

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DESIDERO SOTO and STEVEN 

STRICKLEN, on behalf of themselves and all 

others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

O.C. COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; 

Defendant. 

Case No.: 

COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION 

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF: 

(1) FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT 

(2) CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE; 

(3) CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND 

PROFESSIONS CODE; and 

(4) CALIFORNIA PRIVATE 

ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT 

DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL 
_______________________________________________________________________________ COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Soto and Stricklen v. O.C. Communications, Inc. 

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

 Shanon J. Carson (pro hac vice to be submitted) 

 Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen (pro hac vice to be submitted) 

 Alexandra K. Piazza (pro hac vice to be submitted) 

 Camille Fundora (pro hac vice to be submitted) 

 BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 

 1622 Locust Street 

 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 

 Tel: (215) 875-3000 

 Fax: (215) 875-4604 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, the Collective 

and Putative Class 
_______________________________________________________________________________ 1 

COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Soto and Stricklen v. O.C. Communications, Inc. 

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

Plaintiffs, Desidero (“Desi”) Soto (“Plaintiff Soto”) and Steven Stricklen (“Plaintiff 

Stricklen”), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, by and through their 

attorneys, brings this lawsuit against Defendant O.C. Communications, Inc. ( “OCC”) 

“Defendant”), seeking to recover for Defendant’s violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 

1938, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. (“FLSA”), applicable California Labor Code provisions, applicable 

Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Orders, and the Unfair Business Practices Act, 

California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq. (“UCL”). Plaintiffs, on behalf of 

themselves and all others similarly situated, complain and allege as follows: 

INTRODUCTION 

1. This is a collective and class action complaint against OCC to challenge its policies 

and practices of: denying proper payment of all wages (including overtime, reimbursement, and 

improper deductions), failing to authorize, permit and/or make available rest periods and meal 

periods. 

2. Plaintiffs and members of the Collective and Class are current and former nonexempt employees of OCC, who work as Technicians. Plaintiffs seek to represent other current and 

former non-exempt employees who work as Technicians in this collective and class action and 

allege Defendant has engaged in an unlawful pattern and practices in violation of the FLSA and the 

California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code. 

3. Specifically, Plaintiffs pursue claims pursuant to FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. 

(failure to pay for all hours worked and overtime); California Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 

(failure to provide meal and rest periods); § 204 (failure to compensate for all hours worked); § 

1194 (failure to pay minimum wage); § 510 (failure to pay overtime and double time wages), §§ 

201-203 (waiting time penalties); § 226 (failure to provide timely and compliant itemized wage 

statements); § 2802 (failure to reimburse for necessary business expenditures); California 

Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq. (engaging in unfair business practices); and 

California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) § 2699 (penalties arising from Defendant’s 

violations of the Labor Code). 
_______________________________________________________________________________ 2 

COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Soto and Stricklen v. O.C. Communications, Inc. 

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. OCC requires Plaintiffs and other Technicians to work grueling schedules, well over 

10 hours per day and sometimes 7 days per week, without proper compensation, breaks, and 

reimbursement. In particular, OCC rarely pays Technicians for all hours worked, including 

minimum wage and overtime. Instead, OCC manipulates time records so that Technicians’ hours 

worked are significantly underreported. OCC also does not provide Technicians with proper meal 

and rest breaks, although likewise requiring Technicians to falsely report breaks. For example, the 

grueling installation schedules imposed by OCC preclude Plaintiffs and other Technicians from 

taking timely and compliant meal and rest breaks. In addition, OCC requires Technicians to incur 

numerous work-related expenses, including but not limited to tools, supplies, and gasoline, but 

does not reimburse Technicians for these expenditures. 

5. Plaintiffs and other Technicians experience a number of derivate issues from the 

wage and hour practices, including but not limited receiving incorrect wage statements and not 

receiving all pay owing to them at the end of their employment. Wage statements do not 

accurately reflect the actual hours worked. Compensation for off-the-clock work, overtime, and 

premium pay for missed breaks remains outstanding after termination. 

6. Ultimately, the daily time that OCC requires Technicians to work without 

compensation deprives them of substantial amounts of pay to which they are entitled under 

California and Federal law. 

7. Further, OCC’s policies and practices violate California law by failing to provide 

Technicians with legally-compliant meal and rest breaks. 

8. OCC also fails to compensate and/or reimburse Technicians for work-related 

expenses of equipment in violation of the California Labor Code. 

9. OCC engages in illegal behavior with respect to wage statements as well: failing to 

provide Technicians with accurate, itemized wage statements. 

10. OCC has also failed to pay all wages after Technicians voluntarily or involuntarily 

terminated their employment with Defendant. 

11. As a result of these violations, OCC is liable for additional, various other penalties 

under the Labor Code and for violation of the Unfair Business Practices Act.
_______________________________________________________________________________ 3 

COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Soto and Stricklen v. O.C. Communications, Inc. 

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. Plaintiffs seek full compensation for all denied timely and compliant meal and rest 

periods, unpaid wages, including unpaid minimum wage, straight time, and overtime, waiting time 

penalties, premium pay. Plaintiffs also seek declaratory and injunctive relief, including restitution. 

Finally, Plaintiffs seek reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under the California Labor Code and 

California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

13. The FLSA authorizes private rights of action to recover damages for violation of the 

FLSA’s wage and hour provisions. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). This Court has original federal question 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the California 

state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because they are so related to this action that they form 

part of the same case or controversy. 

14. Venue in this district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). At all material 

times, Defendant has been actively conducting business in the State of California and within the 

geographic area encompassing the Northern District of the State of California. 

PARTIES 

15. The Named Plaintiffs Soto and Stricklen reside in the State of California. 

16. Plaintiff Desi Soto worked for OCC from approximately September 2014 to 

February 2016 in and around the Bay Area. He worked in the non-exempt, hourly position of 

Main Field Technician. 

17. Plaintiff Stricklen worked for OCC from approximately February 2015 to June 2016 

in and around Concord, California. He worked in the non-exempt, hourly position of Main Field 

Technician. 

18. Defendant O.C. Communications, Inc. is incorporated in California. Its headquarters 

are located at 2204 Kausen Drive, Suite 100, Elk Grove, California 95758. OCC does business in 

California, Nevada, and Florida. 

19. At all relevant times, OCC has done business under the laws of California, has 

places of business in the State of California, including in this judicial district, and has employed 

Collective and Putative Class Members in this judicial district. OCC is a “person” as defined in 
_______________________________________________________________________________ 4 

COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Soto and Stricklen v. O.C. Communications, Inc. 

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

California Labor Code § 18 and California Business and Professions Code § 17201. OCC is also 

an “employer” as that term is used in the California Labor Code, the IWC Wage Orders, and the 

FLSA. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

20. OCC is one of the largest cable operators in California, Nevada, and Florida. OCC 

works with cable operators to provide installation services. 

21. OCC employs Technicians to carry out its installation service business. Technicians’ 

duties included but are not limited to: driving to customers, installing cable, telephone, and 

internet service, making repairs, troubleshooting, and educating customers. 

22. Plaintiffs are current and former non-exempt employees of OCC, who worked in the 

position of Technicians – among other similarly situated, exempt employees. 

23. Specifically, Plaintiff Soto was employed by OCC from approximately September 

2014 to February 2016. At all pertinent times, Plaintiff Soto worked for OCC in and around the 

Bay Area, including but not limited to Oakland, Richmond, Discovery Bay, and throughout 

Contra Costa County, California. Plaintiff Soto worked in the position of Main Field Technician, a 

non-exempt position, with OCC. 

24. Plaintiffs were paid hourly and piece rate, and by commission. In particular, OCC 

paid Plaintiffs per job. Plaintiffs also received piece rate compensation based on the tasks they 

completed. For example, it was Soto’s understanding that OCC would compensate him $4.00 for 

each line he ran. In addition, Soto was to be paid $10.00 per hour for the time he spent driving to 

customers. OCC’s compensation system was muddled and confusing, precluding Soto from 

understanding his pay. Ultimately, Plaintiff Soto was not fully compensated for all his time 

worked and for all the tasks he completed. 

25. OCC required Plaintiffs to work a grueling schedule, well over 10 hours per day and 

7 days per week. Specifically, Plaintiff Soto typically worked 12 to 18 hours per day, 6 to 7 days 

per week. It was common for him to begin his day around 6:00 a.m. and work until 12:00 a.m., the 

following morning. He often worked 100 to 120 hours per week. 
_______________________________________________________________________________ 5 

COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Soto and Stricklen v. O.C. Communications, Inc. 

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

26. Plaintiff Stricklen typically worked between 10 to 13 hours per day, 5 to 6 days per 

week. He often worked 60 to 78 hours per week. 

27. Similar to Plaintiffs, the Collective and Class Members are current and former nonexempt Technicians who work, or have worked, for OCC in California and throughout the United 

States. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege that the policies and practices of OCC 

have at all relevant times been similar for Plaintiffs and the Collective and Class Members, 

regardless of location. 

28. Although OCC requires Plaintiffs and Collective and Putative Class Members to 

work grueling schedules, OCC does not permit Technicians to log all of their time worked. This 

results in Technicians performing substantial off-the-clock work, including overtime work, which 

goes unrecorded and unpaid by OCC. 

29. OCC requires Plaintiffs and other Technicians to begin their days early in the 

morning. Technicians must drive to several customer sites throughout the day to provide services. 

Driving can take a significant amount of time, upwards of an hour in between customers. 

However, OCC instructs Plaintiffs and other Technicians to only record 10 minutes of drive time 

between customers, no matter the actual drive time. The remaining work time was done off-theclock. 

30. OCC schedules numerous customer visits for Plaintiffs and other Technicians 

throughout the day. Even though each customer visit involves different work and can present 

unforeseen situations requiring additional work time, OCC expects Plaintiffs and Technicians to 

complete each job in the same amount of time, without regard for how long each customer visit 

actually takes, knowing fully that each job can take more time. Specifically, OCC allots Plaintiffs 

and Technicians with 2 hours for each customer visit, even though each visit can often take 

substantially more time. Furthermore, OCC often schedules each Technician with more than 1 

customer visit during the two-hour periods, making it nearly impossible to complete both visits. If 

Plaintiffs and other Technicians exceed 2 hours of work on a particular customer, OCC only 

permits Plaintiffs and Technicians to log 2 hours of work. The remaining work time is done offthe-clock. Plaintiffs and Technicians are constantly pressured by OCC to underreport the amount 
_______________________________________________________________________________ 6 

COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Soto and Stricklen v. O.C. Communications, Inc. 

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

of time worked. Sometimes, OCC does not pay Plaintiffs and other Technicians for the jobs they 

complete. 

31. Ultimately, OCC expects Plaintiffs and other Technicians to work constantly 

throughout the day, including during breaks (as more fully discussed below). In fact, OCC 

constantly checks in with Plaintiffs and other Technicians throughout the day, often calling them 

numerous times to make sure they are constantly working. However, OCC does not permit 

Plaintiffs and Technicians to record all of their time worked. On several occasions, OCC instructs 

Plaintiffs and other Technicians to reduce the number of hours they log to reflect much fewer 

hours worked. OCC provides express directions to Technicians to change their timecards. Often, 

OCC’s directives cause Plaintiffs and other Technicians to underreport several hours per day, 

upwards of 6 hours of off-the-clock work per day. Should Plaintiffs and other Technicians fail to 

follow OCC’s instructions, OCC management manipulates time records so that Technicians’ 

hours worked are significantly underreported. 

32. As a result of OCC’s practices, Technicians are not paid for all hours worked, 

including minimum wage and overtime. This daily time that Defendant requires Technicians to 

work without compensation deprives them of substantial amounts of pay to which they are entitled 

under California and Federal law. Depending upon how many hours Technicians work in a day, 

this unpaid time is owed to Technicians at both straight-time and overtime rates. 

33. In addition, OCC routinely denies Plaintiffs and Collective and Putative Class 

Members timely and compliant off-duty meal periods and rest periods. Specifically, OCC 

routinely refuses to authorize, permit, and/or make available to Technicians timely and compliant 

thirty-minute meal periods as required by law. Furthermore, Defendant requires Technicians to 

work in excess of ten hours per day, but does not authorize, permit, and/or make available to them 

a second thirty-minute meal period as required by law. Under California law, generally, nonexempt, hourly employees are to receive one thirty-minute unpaid meal break at the conclusion of 

every five hours of labor performed. Defendant’s policy violates California law in this respect. 

34. Additionally, OCC routinely refuses to authorize or permit Technicians to take tenminute rest periods as required by law. Under California law, non-exempt, hourly employees are 
_______________________________________________________________________________ 7 

COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Soto and Stricklen v. O.C. Communications, Inc. 

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

to receive one ten-minute rest period for every four hours, or major fraction thereof, worked. 

Defendant’s policy violates California law in this respect. 

35. Plaintiffs and other Technicians routinely work well over 10 hours per day, yet are 

also routinely denied meal and rest periods for two reasons: (1) OCC does not authorize and 

permit and/or make available meal and rest breaks for Technicians; and (2) even to the extent that 

OCC does authorize and permit and/or make available meal and rest breaks for Technicians, OCC 

knows or has reason to know that Technicians are too busy with work during the day to have time 

to take bona fide meal and rest breaks. 

36. As example, Plaintiffs and other Technicians are often too busy or not able to take 

meal and rest periods because OCC management provides them with unrelenting schedules for the 

day that are impossible to complete if Technicians take breaks. Management also monitors 

Plaintiffs and other Technicians throughout the day, including by telephone, directing them to go 

from customer to customer without breaks. 

37. Even though OCC instructs and prevents Plaintiffs and other Technicians from 

taking breaks, OCC nevertheless requires Plaintiffs and other Technicians to record taking thirtyminute meal breaks on their timecards. As a result, the time worked by Plaintiffs and other 

Technicians goes unrecorded and uncompensated. Further, OCC fails to pay Plaintiffs and other 

Technicians for their missed breaks. 

38. OCC is aware of the fact that its Technicians do not get the meal and rest periods to 

which they are entitled and that it maintains policies and practices that deprive its Technicians of 

compensation for time worked, including overtime compensation. In fact, OCC has been involved 

in similar litigation in the past yet continues to engage in these practices. Therefore, the denial of 

meal and rest periods and denial of wages to Technicians is knowing and willful. 

39. Furthermore, OCC requires Plaintiffs and other Technicians to incur numerous 

work-related expenses, including but not limited to tools, supplies, and gasoline. Despite this 

requirement, OCC refuses to compensate Plaintiffs and Technicians for the costs associated with 

their work-related expenses. 
_______________________________________________________________________________ 8 

COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Soto and Stricklen v. O.C. Communications, Inc. 

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

40. OCC is aware that the company is required to compensate Technicians for workrelated expenses, yet refuses to do so. OCC’s unlawful conduct has been widespread, repeated, 

and willful throughout California and the United States. 

41. Plaintiffs and Collective and Putative Class Members experience a number of 

derivate issues from the wage and hour practices, including but not limited receiving incorrect 

wage statements and not receiving all pay owing to them at the end of their employment. Wage 

statements do not accurately reflect the actual hours worked. Compensation for off-the-clock 

work, overtime, and premium pay for missed breaks remains outstanding after termination. 

 COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS UNDER THE FLSA 

42. Plaintiffs bring the First Count (the FLSA claim) as an “opt-in” collective 

action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) on behalf of a proposed collection of similarly situated 

employees defined as: 

All current and former non-exempt hourly employees of Defendant 

working as Technicians throughout the United States during the time 

period three years prior to the filing of the original complaint until 

resolution of this action (“the Collective”). 

43. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons defined 

above, seek relief on a collective basis challenging Defendant’s policy and practice of failing to 

accurately record all hours worked, and failing to properly pay Plaintiffs for all hours worked, 

including overtime compensation. The number and identity of other similarly situated persons yet 

to opt-in and consent to be party-plaintiffs may be determined from the records of Defendant, and 

potential opt-ins may be easily and quickly notified of the pendency of this action. 

44. Plaintiffs’ claims for violations of the FLSA may be brought and maintained as an 

“opt-in” collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA, because Plaintiffs’ FLSA 

claims are similar to the claims of the members of the Collective. 

45. The members of the Collective are similarly situated, as they have substantially 

similar job duties and requirements and are subject to a common policy, practice, or plan that 
_______________________________________________________________________________ 9 

COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Soto and Stricklen v. O.C. Communications, Inc. 

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

requires them to perform work “off-the-clock” and without compensation in violation of the 

FLSA. 

46. Plaintiffs are representatives of the members of the Collective and is acting on behalf 

of their interests, as well as Plaintiffs’ own interests, in bringing this action. 

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

members of the Collective. Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and experienced in 

employment and wage and hour class action and collective action litigation. 

48. The similarly situated members of the Collective are known to Defendant, are 

readily identifiable, and may be located through Defendant’s records. These similarly situated 

employees may readily be notified of this action, and allowed to “opt-in” to this case pursuant to 

29 U.S.C. § 216(b) for the purpose of collectively adjudicating their claims for unpaid wages, 

unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages (or, alternatively, interest), and attorneys’ fees 

and costs under the FLSA. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 23 

49. Plaintiffs bring the Second through Tenth Counts (the California state law claims) as 

an “opt-out” class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The California Class is 

initially defined as: 

All current and former non-exempt hourly employees of Defendant 

working as Technicians throughout the state of California during the time 

period four years prior to the filing of the complaint, until resolution of 

this action (the “Class”). 

50. Numerosity: Defendant has employed potentially thousands of non-exempt, hourly 

employees as Technicians during the applicable statutory period. The number of Putative Class 

Members are therefore far too numerous to be individually joined in this lawsuit. 

51. Existence and Predominance of Common Questions: There are questions of law 

and fact common to Plaintiffs that predominate over any questions affecting only individual 

members of the Class. These common questions of law and fact include, without limitation: 
_______________________________________________________________________________ 10 

COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Soto and Stricklen v. O.C. Communications, Inc. 

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

a. Whether Defendant fails to authorize and permit, make available, and/or provide 

Putative Class Members meal periods to which they are entitled in violation of the 

Labor Code and Wage Orders; 

b. Whether Defendant fails to authorize and permit, make available, and/or provide 

Putative Class Members meal periods to which they are entitled in violation of 

Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.; 

c. Whether Defendant fails to authorize and permit, make available, and/or provide 

Putative Class Members rest periods to which they are entitled in violation of the 

Labor Code and Wage Orders; 

d. Whether Defendant fails to authorize and permit, make available, and/or provide 

Putative Class Members rest periods to which they are entitled in violation of Business 

and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.; 

e. Whether Defendant fails to compensate Putative Class Members for all hours worked, 

including overtime compensation, in violation of the Labor Code and Wage Orders; 

f. Whether Defendant fails to compensate Putative Class Members for all hours worked 

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

g. Whether Defendant fails to reimburse Putative Class Members for necessary business 

expenditures in violation of the Labor Code and Wage Orders; 

h. Whether Defendant fails to reimburse Putative Class Members for necessary business 

expenditures in violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.; 

i. Whether Defendant has a policy and/or practice of requiring Putative Class Members 

to perform work off-the-clock and without compensation; 

j. Whether Defendant fails to provide Putative Class Members with timely, accurate 

itemized wage statements in violation of the Labor Code and Wage Orders; 

k. Whether Defendant fails to pay Putative Class Members all wages due upon the end of 

their employment in violation of the Labor Code and Wage Orders; 
_______________________________________________________________________________ 11 

COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Soto and Stricklen v. O.C. Communications, Inc. 

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

l. Whether Defendant’s failure to pay Putative Class Members all wages due upon the 

end of their employment has been an unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or 

practice in violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.; 

m. Whether Defendant is liable for penalties to Putative Class Members under the PAGA; 

and 

n. The proper formula for calculating restitution, damages, and penalties owed to 

Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members as alleged herein. 

52. Typicality: Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class. Defendant’s 

common policies, practices, and course of conduct in violation of law as alleged herein have 

caused Plaintiffs to sustain the same or similar injuries and damages. Plaintiffs’ claims are 

thereby representative of and co-extensive with the claims of the Class. 

53. Adequacy: Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of 

the Class because Plaintiffs’ interests do not conflict with the interests of the members of the Class 

they seeks to represent. Plaintiffs have retained Counsel competent and experienced in complex 

employment and wage and hour class action litigation, and intend to prosecute this action 

vigorously. Plaintiffs and their Counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the 

Class. 

54. Superiority: A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and 

efficient adjudication of this controversy. Individual joinder of all Putative Class Members is not 

practicable, and questions of law and fact common to Plaintiffs predominate over any questions 

affecting only individual members of the Class. The injury suffered by each Putative Class 

Member, while meaningful on an individual basis, is not of such magnitude as to make the 

prosecution of individual actions against Defendant economically feasible. Individualized 

litigation increases the delay and expense to all Parties and the Court. By contrast, class action 

treatment will allow those similarly situated persons to litigate their claims in the manner that is 

most efficient and economical for the parties and the judicial system. 
_______________________________________________________________________________ 12 

COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Soto and Stricklen v. O.C. Communications, Inc. 

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

55. In the alternative, the Class may be certified because the prosecution of separate 

actions by the individual members of the Class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying 

adjudication with respect to individual members of the Class, and, in turn, would establish 

incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant. 

56. Class treatment will allow those similarly situated persons to litigate their claims in 

the manner most efficient and economical for the Parties and the judicial system. 

57. Plaintiffs know of no difficulty that would be encountered in the management of this 

litigation that would preclude its maintenance as a class action. 

58. Plaintiffs intend to send notice to all Putative Class Members to the extent required 

under applicable class action procedures. Plaintiffs contemplate providing a notice or notices to 

the California Class, as approved by the Court, to be delivered through the United States mail. The 

notice or notices shall, among other things, advise the California Class that they shall be entitled 

to “opt out” of the class certified for the California Action if they so request by a date specified 

within the notice, and that any judgment on the California Action, whether favorable or not, 

entered in this case will bind all Putative Class Members except those who affirmatively exclude 

themselves by timely opting out. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act 

29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.

(By Plaintiffs and the Collective) 

59. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth 

herein. 

60. The FLSA requires that covered employees receive compensation for all hours 

worked and overtime compensation not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for 

all hours worked in excess of forty hours in a work week. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). 

61. At all times material herein, Plaintiffs and the Collective are covered employees 

entitled to the rights, protections, and benefits provided under the FLSA. See 29 U.S.C. § 203(e). 

62. Defendant is a covered employer required to comply with the FLSA’s mandates. See

29 U.S.C. § 203(d); 29 C.F.R. § 552.109(a). 
_______________________________________________________________________________ 13 

COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Soto and Stricklen v. O.C. Communications, Inc. 

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

63. Defendant has violated the FLSA with respect to Plaintiffs and the Collective, by, 

inter alia, failing to compensate Plaintiffs and the Collective for all hours worked and, with 

respect to such hours, failing to pay the legally mandated overtime premium for such work and/or 

minimum wage. Defendant has also violated the FLSA by failing to keep required, accurate 

records of all hours worked by Plaintiffs and the Collective. 29 U.S.C. § 211(c). 

64. Plaintiffs and the Collective are victims of a uniform and company-wide 

compensation policy. This uniform policy, in violation of the FLSA, has been applied to current 

and former non-exempt, hourly employees of Defendant, working in their retail establishments 

throughout the United States. 

65. Plaintiffs and the Collective are entitled to damages equal to the mandated pay, 

including minimum wage, straight time, and overtime premium pay within the three years 

preceding the filing of the original complaint, plus periods of equitable tolling, because Defendant 

has acted willfully and knew or showed reckless disregard for whether the alleged conduct was 

prohibited by the FLSA. 

66. Defendant has acted neither in good faith nor with reasonable grounds to believe that 

its actions and omissions were not a violation of the FLSA, and as a result thereof, Plaintiffs and 

the Collective are entitled to recover an award of liquidated damages in an amount equal to the 

amount of unpaid overtime pay and/or prejudgment interest at the applicable rate. 29 U.S.C. § 

216(b). 

67. As a result of the aforesaid violations of the FLSA’s provisions, pay, including 

minimum wage, straight time, and overtime compensation, has been unlawfully withheld by 

Defendant from Plaintiffs and the Collective. Accordingly, Defendant is liable for unpaid wages, 

together with an amount equal as liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs of this action. 

68. Wherefore, Plaintiffs and the Collective request relief as hereinafter provided. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 

Failure to Authorize, Permit, and/or Make Available Meal and Rest Periods 

Labor Code §§ 203, 223, 226.7, 512, and 1198 

(By Plaintiffs and the California Class) 

69. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth 
_______________________________________________________________________________ 14 

COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Soto and Stricklen v. O.C. Communications, Inc. 

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

herein. 

70. California Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 and the applicable IWC Wage Orders 

require Defendant to authorize, permit, and/or make available timely and compliant meal and rest 

periods to its employees. Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 and the IWC Wage Orders prohibit 

employers from employing an employee for more than five hours without a meal period of not 

less than thirty minutes, and from employing an employee more than ten hours per day without 

providing the employee with a second meal period of not less than thirty minutes. Section 226.7 

and the applicable Wage Orders also require employers to authorize and permit employees to take 

ten minutes of net rest time per four hours, or major fraction thereof of work, and to pay 

employees their full wages during those rest periods. Unless the employee is relieved of all duty 

during the thirty-minute meal period and ten-minute rest period, the employee is considered “on 

duty” and the meal or rest period is counted as time worked under the applicable wage orders. 

71. Under Labor Code § 226.7(b) and the applicable Wage Orders, an employer who 

fails to authorize and permit a required meal period must, as compensation, pay the employee one 

hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal period 

was not authorized and permitted. Similarly, an employer must pay an employee denied a 

required rest period one hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each 

workday that the rest period was not authorized and permitted. 

72. Despite these requirements, Defendant has knowingly and willfully refused to 

perform its obligations to authorize and permit Plaintiffs and the Class to take the timely and 

compliant off-duty meal and rest periods to which they are entitled. Plaintiffs and the Class are 

routinely denied rest periods and work through their meal periods. 

73. Defendant has also failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Class one hour of pay for each 

untimely, non-compliant meal and/or rest period that they are denied. 

74. Defendant’s conduct described herein violates California Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 

512 and the applicable Wage Orders. Therefore, pursuant to Labor Code § 226.7(b), Plaintiffs and 

the Class are entitled to compensation for the failure to authorize and permit meal and rest periods, 

plus interest, attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs of suit. 
_______________________________________________________________________________ 15 

COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Soto and Stricklen v. O.C. Communications, Inc. 

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

75. Wherefore, Plaintiffs and the Class request relief as hereinafter provided. 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 

Failure to Compensate for All Hours Worked 

Labor Code §§ 200, 1194, 1198 

(By Plaintiffs and the California Class) 

76. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth 

herein. 

77. California Labor Code § 1194(a) provides as follows: 

Notwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage, any employee 

receiving less than the legal minimum wage or the legal overtime 

compensation applicable to the employee is entitled to recover in a civil 

action the unpaid balance of the full amount of this minimum wage or 

overtime compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable attorneys’ 

fees, and costs of suit. 

78. California Labor Code § 200 defines wages as “all amounts for labor performed by 

employees of every description, whether the amount is fixed or ascertained by the standard of 

time, task, piece, commission basis or other method of calculation.” 

79. Defendant required Plaintiffs and the Class to work off-the-clock without 

compensation for their work performed. In other words, Plaintiffs and the Class were forced to 

perform work for the benefit of Defendant without compensation. 

80. Specifically, Defendant requires its Technicians to perform work “off-the-clock” and 

without compensation. OCC requires Plaintiffs and Class Members to work grueling schedules, 

well over 10 hours per day and sometimes 7 days per week. However, Defendant rarely pays 

Technicians for all hours worked. Instead, Defendant manipulates time records so that 

Technicians’ hours worked are significantly underreported. These unreported hours go unpaid by 

Defendant. 

81. In violation of California law, Defendant knowingly and willfully refuses to perform 

its obligations to provide Plaintiffs and the Class with compensation for all time worked. 

Specifically, Defendant requires its non-exempt, hourly Technicians to perform off-the-clock 

work, knowing full well that such work in not compensated. Therefore, Defendant committed, 

and continues to commit, the acts alleged herein knowingly and willfully and in conscious 

disregard of the Plaintiffs’ and the Class’s rights. Plaintiffs and the Class are thus entitled to 
_______________________________________________________________________________ 16 

COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Soto and Stricklen v. O.C. Communications, Inc. 

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

recover nominal, actual, and compensatory damages in amounts according to proof at time of trial. 

82. As a proximate result of the aforementioned violations, Plaintiffs and the Class have 

been damaged in an amount according to proof at time of trial. 

83. Wherefore, Plaintiffs and the Class request relief as hereinafter provided. 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Failure to Pay Minimum Wage 

Labor Code §§ 1182.11, 1182.12, 1197 

 (By Plaintiffs and the Class)

84. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth 

herein. 

85. OCC has maintained policies and procedures that create a working environment 

where Plaintiffs and Class Members are routinely compensated at a rate that, at times, is less than 

the statutory minimum wage. 

86. During the applicable statutory period, Labor Code §§ 1182.11, 1182.12 and 1197, 

and the IWC Minimum Wage Order were in full force and effect and required that Defendant’s 

hourly employees receive the minimum wage for all hours worked irrespective of whether 

nominally paid on a piece rate, or any other bases, at the rate of eight dollars ($8.00) per hour 

commencing January 1, 2008 and then at the rate of nine dollars ($9.00) per hour commencing 

July 1, 2014. 

87. IWC Wage Order 2-2001(2)(G) defines hours worked as “the time during which an 

employee is subject to the control of an employer, and includes all the time the employee is 

suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so.” 

88. Labor Code § 1194(a) provides as follows: 

Notwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage, any employee 

receiving less than the legal minimum wage or the legal overtime 

compensation applicable to the employee is entitled to recover in a civil 

action the unpaid balance of the full amount of this minimum wage or 

overtime compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable attorneys’ 

fees, and costs of suit. 

89. Plaintiffs and proposed Class Members regularly work well in excess of eight hours 

per day and forty hours per week. 
_______________________________________________________________________________ 17 

COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Soto and Stricklen v. O.C. Communications, Inc. 

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

90. Plaintiffs and the proposed Class Members also pay expenses necessary to their 

employment with OCC, and are not reimbursed for these expenditures. 

91. The combination of long work schedules and unreimbursed expenses regularly result 

in payment at rates below the minimum wage, as determined by the IWC. 

92. Labor Code § 1194.2 provides that, in any action under § 1194 to recover wages 

because of the payment of a wage less than minimum wage fixed by an order of the commission, 

an employee shall be entitled to recover liquidated damages in an amount equal to the wages 

unlawfully unpaid and interest thereon. 

93. By failing to maintain adequate time records as required by Labor Code § 1174(d) 

and IWC Wage Order 2-2001(7), Defendant makes it difficult to calculate the minimum wage 

compensation due to Plaintiffs and proposed Class Members. 

94. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful acts and/or omissions, 

Plaintiffs and proposed Class Members have been deprived of minimum wages in an amount to be 

determined at trial, and are entitled to a recovery of such amount, plus liquidated damages, plus 

interest thereon, attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit pursuant to Labor Code §§ 1194, 1194.2 and 

1197.1. 

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Failure to Pay Overtime Wages 

Labor Code §§ 200, 510, 1194 

(By Plaintiffs and the California Class) 

95. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth 

herein. 

96. California Labor Code § 510(a) provides as follows: 

Eight hours of labor constitutes a day’s work. Any work in excess of eight 

hours in one workday and any work in excess of 40 hours in any one 

workweek and the first eight hours worked on the seventh day of work in 

any one workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than one and 

one-half times the regular rate of pay for an employee. Any work in excess 

of 12 hours in one day shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice 

the regular rate of pay for an employee. In addition, any work in excess of 

eight hours on any seventh day of a workweek shall be compensated at the 

rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay of an employee. Nothing in 

this section requires an employer to combine more than one rate of overtime 
_______________________________________________________________________________ 18 

COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Soto and Stricklen v. O.C. Communications, Inc. 

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

compensation in order to calculate the amount to be paid to an employee for 

any hour of overtime work. 

97. California Labor Code § 1194(a) provides as follows: 

Notwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage, any employee 

receiving less than the legal minimum wage or the legal overtime 

compensation applicable to the employee is entitled to recover in a civil 

action the unpaid balance of the full amount of this minimum wage or 

overtime compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable attorney’s 

fees, and costs of suit. 

98. California Labor Code § 200 defines wages as “all amounts for labor performed by 

employees of every description, whether the amount is fixed or ascertained by the standard of 

time, task, piece, commission basis or other method of calculation.” All such wages are subject to 

California’s overtime requirements, including those set forth above. 

99. Defendant’s policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs and the Class to perform work 

off-the-clock is unlawful. Even absent this off-the-clock work, many of Defendant’s hourly, nonexempt Technicians, including Plaintiffs and the Class, have worked over eight hours in a day 

and/or over forty hours in a week. Accordingly, as a result of Defendant’s unlawful policy alleged 

herein of requiring Plaintiffs and the Class to perform off-the-clock work, Plaintiffs and the Class 

have worked overtime hours for Defendant without being paid overtime premiums in violation of 

the California Labor Code, applicable IWC Wage Orders, and other applicable law. 

100. As alleged above, Defendant requires its non-exempt, hourly Technicians to perform 

off-the-clock work, including unpaid overtime work, knowing full well that such work is being 

performed outside of their paid shifts. Defendant has, therefore, knowingly and willfully refused 

to perform its obligations to compensate Plaintiffs and the Class for all premium wages for 

overtime work. As a proximate result of the aforementioned violations, Defendant has damaged 

Plaintiffs and the Class in amounts to be determined according to proof at time of trial, but in an 

amount in excess of the jurisdictional requirements of this Court. 

101. Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs and the Class for the unpaid overtime and civil 

penalties, with interest thereon. Furthermore, they are entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and 
_______________________________________________________________________________ 19 

COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Soto and Stricklen v. O.C. Communications, Inc. 

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

costs as set forth below. 

102. Wherefore, Plaintiffs and the Class request relief as hereinafter provided. 

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Failure to Reimburse for Necessary Business Expenditures in 

Labor Code § 2802 

(By Plaintiffs and the California Class) 

103. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth 

herein. 

104. Labor Code § 221 provides that it shall be unlawful for any employer to collect or 

receive any part of wages theretofore paid by said employer to said employee. 

105. California Labor Code § 2802 provides that an employer must reimburse an 

employee for necessary expenditures and losses incurred by an employee in the direct 

consequence of the discharge of his or her duties. 

106. Defendant requires Plaintiffs and the Class to incur numerous work-related expenses, 

including but not limited to tools, supplies, and gasoline, to perform their work duties. However, 

Defendant does not compensate Plaintiffs and the Class for the expenses required to perform their 

work-related tasks. 

107. Because of Defendant’s failure to comply with the provisions of the applicable Wage 

Order and California Labor Code §§ 221 and 2802, Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered 

damages. Plaintiffs and the Class seek reimbursement for the necessary expenditures they have 

incurred in direct consequence of the discharge of their duties in an amount according to proof at 

time of trial, with interest thereon, costs, applicable civil penalties and attorneys’ fees pursuant to 

California Labor Code § 2802 and the applicable Wage Order. 

108. Wherefore, Plaintiffs and the Class request relief as hereinafter provided. 

// 

// 

// 
_______________________________________________________________________________ 20 

COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Soto and Stricklen v. O.C. Communications, Inc. 

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

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Waiting Time Penalties 

Labor Code §§ 201-203 

(By Plaintiffs and the California Class) 

109. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth 

herein. 

110. Labor Code § 201 provides: 

If an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the 

time of discharge are due and payable immediately. 

111. Labor Code § 202 provides: 

If an employee not having a written contract for a definite period quits his or 

her employment, his or her wages shall become due and payable not later 

than 72 hours thereafter, unless the employee has given 72 hours previous 

notice of his or her intention to quit, in which case the employee is entitled 

to his or her wages at the time of quitting. 

112. Labor Code § 203 provides, in relevant part: 

If an employer willfully fails to pay, without abatement or reduction, in 

accordance with Sections 201, 201.5, 202, and 205.5, any wages of an 

employee who is discharged or who quits, the wages of the employee shall 

continue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or 

until an action therefor is commenced; but the wages shall not continue for 

more than 30 days. 

113. Some of the Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members have left their employment with 

Defendant during the statutory period, at which time Defendant owed them unpaid wages. These 

earned, but unpaid, wages derive from time spent working through their meal and rest breaks, 

from time spent outside of their scheduled and paid shifts performing other work-related activities, 

and overtime compensation that was not accounted for in the performance of off-the-clock work. 

114. Defendant willfully refused, and continues to refuse, to provide Plaintiffs and the 

Class with meal and rest period premium pay and with payment for off-the-clock work performed. 

In particular, as alleged above, Defendant is aware Plaintiffs and the Class regularly miss or have 

interrupted their meal and rest breaks as a result of Defendant’s unlawful policies and practices, 

but Defendant, nevertheless, refuses to authorize premium pay for missed or interrupted meal and 

rest periods. Likewise, as alleged above, although Defendant knew, and continues to know, full 
_______________________________________________________________________________ 21 

COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Soto and Stricklen v. O.C. Communications, Inc. 

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

well that Plaintiffs and the Class performed required off-the-clock work, Defendant still refuses to 

pay Plaintiffs and the Class for the off-the-clock work performed. 

115. Accordingly, Defendant willfully refused and continues to refuse to pay those 

members of the Class that left their employment with Defendant all the wages that were due and 

owing them upon the end of their employment. As a result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiffs and 

the Putative Class Members have suffered and continue to suffer substantial losses, including lost 

earnings and interest. 

116. Defendant’s willful failure to pay the former employees the wages due and owing 

them constitutes a violation of Labor Code §§ 201-202. As a result, Defendant is liable to them 

for all penalties owing pursuant to Labor Code §§ 201-203. 

117. In addition, Labor Code § 203 provides that an employee’s wages will continue as a 

penalty up to thirty days from the time the wages were due. Therefore, the former employees are 

entitled to penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 203, plus interest. 

118. Wherefore, Plaintiffs and the Class request relief as hereinafter provided. 

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Itemized Wage Statements 

Labor Code § 226 

 (By Plaintiffs and the California Class) 

119. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth 

herein. 

120. Labor Code § 226(a) provides: 

Every employer shall, semimonthly or at the time of each payment of 

wages, furnish each of his or her employees, either as a detachable part of 

the check, draft, or voucher paying the employee’s wages, or separately 

when wages are paid by personal check or cash, an accurate itemized 

statement in writing showing (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked 

by the employee, except for any employee whose compensation is solely 

based on a salary and who is exempt from payment of overtime under 

subdivision (a) of Section 515 or any applicable order of the Industrial 

Welfare Commission, (3) the number of piece-rate units earned and any 

applicable piece rate if the employee is paid on a piece-rate basis, (4) all 

deductions, provided that all deductions made on written orders of the 

employee may be aggregated and shown as one item, (5) net wages earned, 

(6) the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the 

name of the employee and his or her social security number, (8) the name 

and address of the legal entity that is the employer, and (9) all applicable 

hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of 
_______________________________________________________________________________ 22 

COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Soto and Stricklen v. O.C. Communications, Inc. 

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

hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee. The deductions made 

from payments of wages shall be recorded in ink or other indelible form, 

properly dated, showing the month, day, and year, and a copy of the 

statement or a record of the deductions shall be kept on file by the employer 

for at least four years at the place of employment or at a central location 

within the State of California. 

121. Labor Code § 226(e) provides: 

An employee suffering injury as a result of a knowing and intentional failure 

by an employer to comply with subdivision (a) is entitled to recover 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, not exceeding an aggregate 

penalty of four thousand dollars ($4,000), and is entitled to an award of 

costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. 

Plaintiffs seek to recover actual damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees under this section. 

122. Defendant has failed to provide timely, accurate, itemized wage statements to 

Plaintiffs and the Class in accordance with Labor Code § 226(a) and the IWC Wage Orders. In 

particular, the wage statements the Defendant provides its employees, including to Plaintiffs and 

the Class, do not accurately reflect the actual hours worked, actual gross wages earned, or actual 

net wages earned. This is because, in part, Defendant does not count as “hours worked” the offthe-clock time its hourly, non-exempt Technicians spend performing work activities outside of 

their scheduled paid shifts and other work-related activities. 

123. Defendant’s failure to comply with Labor Code § 226(a) was and continues to be 

knowing and intentional. Although, as alleged herein, Defendant was aware that Plaintiffs and the 

Class performed off-the-clock work, Defendant systematically fails to include this time worked in 

Plaintiffs’ wage statements. 

124. Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered injury as a result of Defendant’s knowing and 

intentional failure to provide timely, accurate itemized wage statements to Plaintiffs and the Class 

in accordance with Labor Code § 226(a). In particular, the injury stemming from Defendant’s 

violations is evidenced by this live and active dispute regarding unpaid wages, including, overtime 

pay, between the Parties. As a result of Defendant’s violations, Plaintiffs and the Class are 

required to undertake the difficult and costly task of attempting to reconstruct Defendant’s 
_______________________________________________________________________________ 23 

COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Soto and Stricklen v. O.C. Communications, Inc. 

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

incomplete and inaccurate time and pay records to ensure that they are paid for all hours worked 

as required by California law. 

125. Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs and the Class alleged herein for the amounts 

described above in addition to the civil penalties set forth below, with interest thereon. 

Furthermore, Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs as set 

forth below. 

126. Wherefore, Plaintiffs and the Class pray for relief as set forth below. 

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Unfair Business Practices 

Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq. 

(By Plaintiffs and the California Class) 

127. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth 

herein. 

128. California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq. prohibits unfair 

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

129. California Business and Professions Code § 17204 allows a person injured by the 

unfair business acts or practices to prosecute a civil action for violation of the UCL. 

130. Labor Code § 90.5(a) states it is the public policy of California to vigorously enforce 

minimum labor standards in order to ensure employees are not required to work under substandard 

and unlawful conditions, and to protect employers who comply with the law from those who 

attempt to gain competitive advantage at the expense of their workers by failing to comply with 

minimum labor standards. 

131. Beginning at an exact date unknown to Plaintiffs and the Class, but at least since the 

date four years prior to the filing of this suit, Defendant has committed acts of unfair competition 

as defined by the Unfair Business Practices Act by engaging in the unlawful, unfair, and 

fraudulent business acts and practices described in this Consolidated Complaint, including, but not 

limited to: 

a. violations of Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 and IWC Wage Orders pertaining to meal 

and rest breaks; 
_______________________________________________________________________________ 24 

COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Soto and Stricklen v. O.C. Communications, Inc. 

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

b. violations of Labor Code § 1194 and IWC Wage Orders pertaining to the payment of 

wages; 

c. violations of Labor Code § 510 and applicable IWC Wage Orders pertaining to 

overtime; 

d. violations of Labor Code § 2802 and IWC wage orders pertaining to reimbursement of 

necessary business expenditures; and 

e. violations of Labor Code §§ 201-203. 

132. The violations of these laws and regulations, as well as of the fundamental California 

public policies protecting wages and discouraging overtime labor underlying them, serve as 

unlawful predicate acts and practices for purposes of Business and Professions Code § 17200, et 

seq.

133. The acts and practices described above constitute unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent 

business practices, and unfair competition, within the meaning of Business and Professions Code 

§ 17200, et seq. Among other things, the acts and practices have taken from Plaintiffs’ and the 

Class’s wages rightfully earned by them, while enabling the Defendant to gain an unfair 

competitive advantage over law-abiding employers and competitors. 

134. Business and Professions Code § 17203 provides that the Court may make such 

orders or judgments as may be necessary to prevent the use or employment by any person of any 

practice which constitutes unfair competition. 

135. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts and practices, Plaintiffs 

and the Class have suffered a loss of money and property, in the form of unpaid wages which are 

due and payable to them. 

136. Business and Professions Code § 17203 provides that the Court may restore to any 

person in interest any money or property which may have been acquired by means of such unfair 

competition. Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to restitution pursuant to Business and 

Professions Code § 17203 for all wages and payments unlawfully withheld from employees 

during the four-year period prior to the filing of this Complaint. 
_______________________________________________________________________________ 25 

COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Soto and Stricklen v. O.C. Communications, Inc. 

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

137. Plaintiffs’ success in this action will enforce important rights affecting the public 

interest and, in that regard, Plaintiffs sue on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. 

Plaintiffs and the Class seek and are entitled to unpaid wages, declaratory relief, and all other 

equitable remedies owing to them. 

138. Plaintiffs herein take it upon themselves enforcement of these laws and lawful 

claims. There is a financial burden involved in pursuing this action, the action is seeking to 

vindicate a public right, and it would be against the interests of justice to penalize Plaintiffs by 

forcing them to pay attorneys’ fees from the recovery in this action. Attorneys’ fees are 

appropriate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and otherwise. 

139. Wherefore, Plaintiffs and the Class request relief as hereinafter provided. 

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Penalties 

Private Attorneys General § 2699(a) 

(By Plaintiffs and the California Class) 

140. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth 

herein. 

141. Labor Code § 2699(a) provides: 

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

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

Workforce Development Agency or any of its departments, divisions, 

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

may, as an alternative, be recovered through a civil action brought be an 

aggrieved employee on behalf of himself or herself and other current or 

former employees. 

142. Labor Code § 203 provides, in relevant part: 

If an employer willfully fails to pay, without abatement or reduction, in 

accordance with Sections 201, 201.5, 202, and 205.5, any wages of an 

employee who is discharged or who quits, the wages of the employee shall 

continue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or 

until an action therefor is commenced; but the wages shall not continue for 

more than 30 days. 

143. Labor Code § 226.7 provides: 

(a) No employer shall require any employee to work during any meal or rest 

period mandated by an applicable order of the Industrial Welfare 

Commission. 
_______________________________________________________________________________ 26 

COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Soto and Stricklen v. O.C. Communications, Inc. 

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

(b) If an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period or rest period 

in accordance with an applicable order of the Industrial Welfare 

Commission, the employer shall pay the employee one additional hour of 

pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each work day 

that the meal or rest period is not provided. 

144. Labor Code § 226(a) provides: 

Every employer shall, semimonthly or at the time of each payment of 

wages, furnish each of his or her employees, either as a detachable part of 

the check, draft, or voucher paying the employee’s wages, or separately 

when wages are paid by personal check or cash, an accurate itemized 

statement in writing showing (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked 

by the employee, except for any employee whose compensation is solely 

based on a salary and who is exempt from payment of overtime under 

subdivision (a) of Section 515 or any applicable order of the Industrial 

Welfare Commission, (3) the number of piece-rate units earned and any 

applicable piece rate if the employee is paid on a piece-rate basis, (4) all 

deductions, provided that all deductions made on written orders of the 

employee may be aggregated and shown as one item, (5) net wages earned, 

(6) the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the 

name of the employee and his or her social security number, (8) the name 

and address of the legal entity that is the employer, and (9) all applicable 

hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of 

hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee. The deductions made 

from payments of wages shall be recorded in ink or other indelible form, 

properly dated, showing the month, day, and year, and a copy of the 

statement or a record of the deductions shall be kept on file by the employer 

for at least four years at the place of employment or at a central location 

within the State of California. 

145. Labor Code § 226.3 provides: 

Any employer who violates subdivision (a) of Section 226 shall be subject 

to a civil penalty in the amount of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) 

per employee per violation in an initial citation and one thousand dollars 

($1,000) per employee for each violation in a subsequent citation, for 

which the employer fails to provide the employee a wage deduction 

statement or fails to keep the records required in subdivision (a) of Section 226. 

The civil penalties provided for in this section are in addition to any other 

penalty provided by law. In enforcing this section, the Labor Commissioner 

shall take into consideration whether the violation was inadvertent, and in his 

or her discretion, may decide not to penalize an employer for a first violation 

when that violation was due to a clerical error or inadvertent mistake. 
_______________________________________________________________________________ 27 

COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Soto and Stricklen v. O.C. Communications, Inc. 

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

146. Plaintiffs and the Class seek civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 2699(a) for 

each failure by Defendant, alleged above, to timely pay all wages owed to Plaintiffs and the Class 

in compliance with Labor Code §§ 201-202 in the amounts established by Labor Code § 203. 

Plaintiffs and the Class seek such penalties as an alternative to the penalties available under Labor 

Code § 203, as prayed for herein. 

147. In addition, Plaintiffs and the Class seek civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 

2699(a) for each occasion on which Defendant, alleged above, required Plaintiffs and the Class to 

be denied timely and compliant meal and rest periods in violation of Labor Code § 226.7(a) and 

applicable Wage Orders. Plaintiffs and the Class seek such penalties in the amounts established 

by Labor Code § 226.7(b) as an alternative to the penalties available under Labor Code § 203, as 

prayed for herein. 

148. Plaintiffs and the Class also seek civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 2699(a) 

for each failure by Defendant, alleged above, to provide Plaintiffs and the Class accurate, itemized 

wage statements in compliance with Labor Code § 226(a) in the amounts established by Labor 

Code § 226(e). Plaintiffs and the Class seek such penalties as an alternative to the penalties 

available under Labor Code § 226(e), as prayed for herein. 

149. Pursuant to Labor Code § 2699.3(a)(1) and (2), Plaintiffs have provided the Labor 

and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) with notice of their intention to file this claim. 

The time period has elapsed for the LWDA to respond, without any notice to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs 

have satisfied the administrative prerequisites to commence this civil action. 

150. Plaintiffs seeks the aforementioned penalties on behalf of the State, other aggrieved 

employees, and themselves as set forth in Labor Code § 2699(h). 

151. Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs, the Class, and the State of California for the civil 

penalties set forth in this Complaint, with interest thereon. Plaintiffs and the Class are also 

entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs as set forth below. 

152. Wherefore, Plaintiffs and the Class pray for relief as set forth below. 
_______________________________________________________________________________ 28 

COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Soto and Stricklen v. O.C. Communications, Inc. 

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

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Penalties 

Private Attorneys General Act § 2699(f) 

(By Plaintiffs and the California Class) 

153. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth 

herein. 

154. Labor Code § 2699(f) provides: 

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

specifically provided, there is established a civil penalty for a violation of 

these provisions, as follows: . . . (2) If, at the time of the alleged violation, 

the person employs one or more employees, the civil penalty is one hundred 

dollars ($100) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial 

violation and two hundred dollars ($200) for each aggrieved employee per 

pay period for each subsequent violation[.] 

155. To the extent than any violation alleged herein does not carry penalties under Labor 

Code § 2699(a), Plaintiffs seek civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 2699(f) for each pay 

period in which Plaintiffs were aggrieved, in the amounts established by Labor Code § 2699(f). 

156. Pursuant to Labor Code § 2699.3(a)(1) and (2), Plaintiffs have provided the LWDA 

with notice of their intention to file this claim. The time period has elapsed for the LWDA to 

respond, without any notice to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have satisfied the administrative prerequisites 

to commence this civil action. 

157. Plaintiffs and the Class seek the aforementioned penalties on behalf of the State, 

other aggrieved employees, and themselves as set forth in Labor Code § 2699(h). 

158. Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs, the Class, and the State of California for the civil 

penalties set forth in this Complaint, with interest thereon. Plaintiffs and the Class are also 

entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs as set forth below. 

159. Wherefore, Plaintiffs and the Class pray for relief as set forth below. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, the Collective, and the Class pray for relief as follows: 

160. Damages and restitution according to proof at trial for all unpaid wages and other 

injuries, as provided by the California Labor Code; 
_______________________________________________________________________________ 29 

COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Soto and Stricklen v. O.C. Communications, Inc. 

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

161. For a declaratory judgment that Defendant has violated the California Labor Code 

and public policy as alleged herein; 

162. For a declaratory judgment that Defendant has violated Business and Professions 

Code § 17200, et seq., as a result of the aforementioned violations of the Labor Code and of 

California public policy protecting wages; 

163. For a declaratory judgment that Defendant has violated the Fair Labor Standards Act 

as alleged herein; 

164. For an equitable accounting to identify, locate, and restore to all current and former 

Plaintiffs the wages they are due, with interest thereon; 

165. For an order awarding Plaintiffs, the Collective, and the Class liquidated and 

compensatory damages, including lost wages, earnings, and other employee benefits, restitution, 

and all other sums of money owed to Plaintiffs, the Collective, and the Class, together with 

interest on these amounts, according to proof; 

166. For an order awarding Plaintiffs and the Class civil penalties pursuant to the Labor 

Code provisions cited herein, with interest thereon; 

167. For an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees as provided by the California Labor 

Code, California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, and/or other applicable law; 

168. For all costs of suit; 

169. For interest on any damages and/or penalties awarded, as provided by applicable 

law; and 

170. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. 

Date: January 18, 2017 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Nicole N. Coon 

Carolyn Hunt Cottrell 

Nicole N. Coon 

SCHNEIDER WALLACE 

COTTRELL KONECKY 

WOTKYNS LLP 
_______________________________________________________________________________ 30 

COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Soto and Stricklen v. O.C. Communications, Inc. 

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

Shanon J. Carson (pro hac vice to be submitted) 

Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen (pro hac vice to be 

submitted) 

Alexandra K. Piazza (pro hac vice to be submitted) 

Camille Fundora (pro hac vice to be submitted) 

BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, the Collective and Putative 

Class 
_______________________________________________________________________________ 31 

COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Soto and Stricklen v. O.C. Communications, Inc. 

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

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial on all claims and issues for which Plaintiffs, the 

Collective and the Class are entitled to a jury. 

Date: January 18, 2017 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Nicole N. Coon

Carolyn Hunt Cottrell 

Nicole N. Coon 

SCHNEIDER WALLACE 

COTTRELL KONECKY 

WOTKYNS LLP 

Shanon J. Carson (pro hac vice to be submitted) 

Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen (pro hac vice to be 

submitted) 

Alexandra K. Piazza (pro hac vice to be submitted) 

Camille Fundora (pro hac vice to be submitted) 

BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, the Collective and Putative 

Class 
_______________________________________________________________________________ 2 

NOTICE OF FILING CONSENT TO JOIN COLLECTIVE ACTION 

Soto and Stricklen v. O.C. Communications, Inc.

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on January 18, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing document with 

the Clerk of the Court using the Court's CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic 

filing to all CM/ECF participants. 

Date: January 18, 2017 

 /s/ Nicole N. Coon 

Nicole N. Coon 

SCHNEIDER WALLACE 

COTTRELL KONECKY 

WOTKYNS LLP 

2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 

Emeryville, CA 94608 

Telephone: (415) 421-7100 

Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 

ncoon@schneiderwallace.com