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

84126091v1 -1- NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1441(a), (c),

AND 29 U.S.C. §§203, 206, &207 [ORIGINAL JURISDICTION]

SEDGWICK LLP

ROBERT D. EASSA, State Bar No. 107970

robert.eassa@sedgwicklaw.com

DELIA A. ISVORANU, State Bar No. 226750

delia.isvoranu@sedgwicklaw.com

333 Bush Street, 30th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94104-2834

Telephone: 415-781-7900

Facsimile: 415-781-2635

Attorneys for Defendant

CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND DIVISION

JENNIFER ANDERSON, on behalf of herself 

and other persons similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., a Delaware 

Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, 

inclusive

Defendants.

Case No. 

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1441(a), (c), AND 29 U.S.C. §§203, 206, &207

[ORIGINAL JURISDICTION]

TO THE CLERK OF THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (“CUSA”) hereby 

removes this action, currently pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of 

Contra Costa, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San 

Francisco/Oakland Division. This Court has original/federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. Sections 1331, 1441(a), (c), and 29 U.S.C. Sections 203, 206 and 207. CUSA further 

states as follows in support of this removal:

THE REMOVED CASE

1. The removed case is a civil action filed by Plaintiff Jennifer Anderson (“Plaintiff”) 
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

84126091v1 -2- NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1441(a), (c),

AND 29 U.S.C. §§203, 206, &207 [ORIGINAL JURISDICTION]

on September 7, 2016 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa, 

entitled Jennifer Anderson v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., and Does 1 through 100, Case No. C16-

01724. CUSA was not served at that time.

2. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint (“FAC”) on November 16, 

2016. (FAC and Civil Summons, collectively attached hereto as Exhibit A.)

3. Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action is for “Alleged Failure to Pay Wages Under the 

FLSA,” pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sections 203, 206, and 207, known as the Fair Labor Standards 

Act (“FLSA”). 

4. CUSA was served with the FAC and Civil Summons on December 8, 2016, when 

CUSA timely returned a duly executed Notice of Acknowledgment of Receipt.

REMOVAL IS APPROPRIATE AND TIMELY

5. Removal is appropriate because this Court has original/federal question 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1441(a) & (c) by virtue of Plaintiff’s federal 

FLSA claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sections 203, 206, and 207.

6. Removal is timely because, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b), this Notice of 

Removal if being filed within thirty (30) days after the receipt by CUSA, through service or 

otherwise, of a copy of the pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or 

proceeding is based. CUSA was first served with the Summons and FAC on December 8, 2016. 

This Notice is being filed within thirty (30) days after the service of a copy of Plaintiff’s 

Summons and FAC and is, therefore, timely filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b).

JURISDICTION

7. Original, federal-question jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 

and 1441(a) by virtue of Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action under 29 U.S.C. Sections 203, 206, and 

207, the FLSA.

8. Supplemental jurisdiction exists with regard to each of Plaintiff’s state claims 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a) because the relationship between Plaintiff’s FLSA and 

state claims is such that they form part of the same case or controversy. Supplemental jurisdiction 

also exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section1441(c).
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

84126091v1 -3- NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1441(a), (c),

AND 29 U.S.C. §§203, 206, &207 [ORIGINAL JURISDICTION]

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

9. The Northern District of California, San Francisco/Oakland Division, is the 

appropriate division assignment because the state court FAC was filed in the Superior Court of 

the State of California, Contra Costa County, and the FAC alleges that CUSA is headquartered 

and employs individuals in Contra Costa County.

PAPERS FROM REMOVED ACTION

10. As required by 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(a), attached are copies of all process and

pleadings served upon CUSA in the removed case, and are incorporated herein by this reference. 

True and correct copies of FAC and Civil Summons are collectively attached hereto as Exhibit A.

ALL REMOVAL PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS ARE SATISFIED

11. CUSA is the only named defendant. No other parties are required to join and 

consent to the removal of this action.

12. Promptly following the filing of this Notice of Removal, written notice of the 

removal of this action will be served upon Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(d).

13. A copy of this Notice of Removal will be promptly filed with the clerk of the 

Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(d).

14. No previous application has been made for the relief requested herein.

15. The prerequisites for removal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1441 are met.

16. The allegations of this notice are true and correct and within the jurisdiction of the 

United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

17. If any question arises as to the propriety of the removal of this action, CUSA 

requests the opportunity to present a written brief and oral argument in support of its position that 

this case is removable.

18. CUSA reserves the right to amend or supplement this Notice of Removal.

///

///

///

///
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

84126091v1 -4- NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1441(a), (c),

AND 29 U.S.C. §§203, 206, &207 [ORIGINAL JURISDICTION]

WHEREFORE, CUSA hereby removes this action now pending in the Superior Court of 

the State of California, County of Contra Costa, Case No. C16-01724 to this Honorable Court, and 

request this Court to retain jurisdiction over the entire matter for all further proceedings.

DATED: January 9, 2017 SEDGWICK LLP

By: /s/ Delia A. Isvoranu

DELIA A. ISVORANU

Attorneys for Defendant

CHEVRON U.S.A. INC. 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

SUMMONS 

(CITACION JUDICIAL) 

SUM-IOO 

FOR COURT USE ONLY 

(SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORTE) 

NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: \uj 

(AVISO AL DEMANDADO): 

CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 

100, inclusive, m NOV IK P ?: 5b 

YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: 

(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEM ANDANTE): 

JENNIFER ANDERSON, on behalf of herself and on behalf of a Class of 

all other persons similarly situated 

.ZuL 

I i ^ 

NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information 

below. 

You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy 

served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your 

case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts 

Online Self-Help Center {www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask 

the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on lime, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property 

may be taken without further warning from the court. 

There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney 

referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate 

these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site {www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center 

{www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE; The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and 

costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. 

jA VISOI Lo ban demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias, la coiie puede decidir en so contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la informacion a 

continuacidn. 

Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO despues de que le entreguen esta citacion y papeles legates para presentar una respuesta por escrifo en esta 

corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada tetefonica no to protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar 

en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta. 

Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas informacion en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la 

biblioteca de /eyes de su condado o en la corte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentacidn, pida al secretario de la corte 

que le de un formulario de exenclon de pago de cuotas. Si no presents su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corte le 

podra quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia. 

Hay otros requisitos legates. Es recomendable que llame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de 

remision a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios legates gratuitos de un 

programs de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services, 

fwww.lawhelpcalifornia.orgj, en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (Vvww.sucorte.ca.gov,) o poniendose en contacto con la corte o el 

colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobre 

cualquier recuperaclon de $10,000 6 mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesion de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que 

pagar el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar el caso. 

The name and address of the court Is: CASE NUMBER: 

(Numero del Caso): 

(?/ ^ (El nombre y direccidn de la corte es): 

County of Contra Costa, Wakefield Taylor 

725 Court Street, Martinez, CA 94553-1233 

The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: 

(El nombre, la direccidn y el numero de telefono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es): 

Richard E. Quintilone II (SEN 200995) 

Quintilone & Associates, 22974 El Toro, Suite 100, Lake Forest, CA 92630 

Telephone No.: 949-458-9675 

Fax No.: 949-458-9679 

//"//--// DATE: '• vJ3oer 

(Fecha) 

, Deputy 

(Adjunto) 

Clerk, by 

(Secretario) 

(For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).) 

(Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)). 

NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served 

1. I I as an individual defendant. 

2. | | as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): 

[SEAL] 

3. I I on behalf of (specify): 

under: IZZl CCP 416.10 (corporation) 

I I CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) 

I I CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) | | CCP 416.90 (authorized person) 

I I other (specify): 

4. I I by personal delivery on (date): 

| 1 CCP 416.60 (minor) 

I | CCP 416.70 (conservatee) 

Page 1 of 1 

Code of Civil Procedure §§ 412.20,465 

www.courtinfo.ca.gov 

LexisNexis® Automated California Judicial Council Forms 

Form Adopted for Mandatory Use 

Judicial Council of California 

SUM-100 [Rev. July 1, 2009] 

SUMMONS 

-2- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

ADDITIONAL COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF:

ROGER CARTER (SBN 140196) 

BIANCA A. SOFONIO (SBN 179520) 

THE CARTER LAW FIRM 

23 CORPORATE PLAZA DRIVE, SUITE 150 

NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 

TELEPHONE: (949) 629-2565 

EMAIL: RCARTER@CARTERLAWFIRM.NET; BIANCA@CARTERLAWFIRM.NET

MARC H. PHELPS (SBN 237036) 

THE PHELPS LAW GROUP 

23 CORPORATE PLAZA DRIVE, SUITE 150 

NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 

TELEPHONE: (949) 629-2565 

EMAIL: MARC@PHELPSLAWGROUP.COM 
-3- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

All allegations in this Class Action Complaint are based upon information and belief except for 

those allegations, which pertain to the PLAINTIFF and her counsel. Each allegation in this Complaint 

either has evidentiary support or is likely to have evidentiary support after discovery. PLAINTIFF 

JENNIFER ANDERSON (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, complains of 

DEFENDANTS, and each of them, and for causes of action in this Class Action Complaint alleges: 

1. INTRODUCTION 

1. This is a class action, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 382, and an FLSA 

collective action under 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207, on behalf of Plaintiff and all non-exempt production 

operations employees employed by, or formerly employed by, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., a Delaware 

Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100 (collectively “Defendants”), within the State of California in 

positions related to managing and inspecting the production and operations of job sites and work crews, 

including all “Operators” involved with production operations before, during, and after the refinery stages. 

These non-exempt production operations employees who are employed by, or who were formerly employed 

by, Defendants within the State of California are hereinafter referred to individually as “Class Members” 

and collectively as the “Class” or “Classes.” 

2. For at least four years prior to the filing of this action and through to the present (“relevant 

time period” or “liability period”), Defendants consistently maintained and enforced against Defendants’ 

non-exempt production operations employees, among others, the below addressed unlawful practices and 

policies, in violation of California state wage and hour laws, including: 

(a) During the relevant time period, Defendant has had a consistent policy of requiring 

employees to work more than eight (8) hours in any given day and/or more than 

forty (40) hours in any given week, and of not paying them all overtime 

compensation pursuant to applicable California Labor Code requirements and under 

the FLSA; 

(b) During the relevant time period, Defendant has had a consistent policy of requiring 

Class Members within the State of California, including Plaintiff, to work at least 

five (5) hours without a lawful meal period and failing to pay such employees one 

(1) hour of pay at the employees’ regular rate of compensation for each workday 
-4- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

that the meal period is not provided, as required by California state wage and hour 

laws. 

(c) During the relevant time period, Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing 

to provide Class Members within the State of California, including Plaintiff, rest 

periods of at least (10) minutes per three and a half (3.5) hours worked or major 

fraction thereof and failing to pay such employees one (1) hour of pay at the 

employees’ regular rate of compensation for each workday that the rest period is not 

provided, as required by California state wage and hour laws. 

(d) With respect to Class Members who either were discharged, laid off, or resigned, 

during the relevant time period, Defendants failed to pay them in accordance with 

the requirements of Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203; 

(e) During the Relevant Time Period, Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing 

to provide Class Members within the State of California, including Plaintiff, 

reimbursement of all necessary business expenses incurred in performing their job 

duties, including for uniforms and fire resistant clothing and for the miles they were 

required to drive to perform their job duties, as required under Labor Code § 2802; 

and 

(f) During the relevant time period, Defendants failed to maintain accurate records of 

Class Members’ earned wages and work periods as evidenced by Defendants’ 

failure to keep adequate records of meal periods. 

3. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all other Class Members, brings this action pursuant to 

California Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 218, 218.6, 226, 226.7, 432, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1198, 

1198.5, 1199, 2800, 2802, 2698, 2699, 2699.3, 2699.5, and California Code of Regulations, Title 8, sections 

11000, 11010, et seq., seeking unpaid overtime, meal and rest period compensation, reimbursement of 

business expenses, penalties, injunctive, and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 

4. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all Classes, pursuant to Business and Professions Code 

§§ 17200-17208, also seeks injunctive relief and restitution for the unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent practices 

alleged in this Complaint. 
-5- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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. PARTIES 

A. Plaintiff 

5. Plaintiff JENNIFER ANDERSON, at all relevant times, was and is a resident of California. 

She was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt production operations employee and consistently 

worked more than eight (8) hours a day without being paid all wages due. More specifically, Plaintiff and 

the other similarly situated Class Members were employed in a production operations capacity, with 

responsibilities for managing and inspecting the production and operations of job sites and work crews 

throughout California and are involved in planning, logistics, paperwork and permits, operations, team 

development, and in drilling, workover, snubbing, and coiled tubing operations and field operations and 

maintenance, including before, during, and after the refinery stages and throughout the pumping process. 

Plaintiff’s job titles and duties included Diatomite Production Operator, Production Thermal Operator, CoGen Unit Operator, and Rod Pumper. She shared similar job duties and responsibilities with, was subjected 

to the same policies and practices as, and endured similar violations at the hands of Defendants as did, the 

other Class Members who served in “Operator” related positions, including but not limited to Production 

Operators and Production Operations Specialists, Facility Operators, Diatomite Operators, Control Room 

Operators, Fieldmen, and those employed in other related job positions and capacities as these similarly 

situated employees (referred to herein as “production operations employees”). 

6. Defendants also failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class with lawful meal and rest periods, 

as employees were almost always scheduled to work alone or were otherwise expected to remain on-duty 

throughout their shifts, and thus, had no opportunity to take an uninterrupted and duty-free rest periods and 

meal breaks as required by the Labor Code. Defendants failed to record accurate time for these employees, 

and provided Plaintiff and the Class Members with inaccurate wage statements that prevented Plaintiff and 

the Class from learning of these unlawful pay practices. Defendants also refused to comply with a lawful 

request for personnel records under California law. 

B. Defendants 

7. CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100 

(collectively “Defendants”), does business within the State of California. Defendant CHEVRON U.S.A., 
-6- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

INC. does business throughout the United States, and upon information and belief has its principal 

place of business in San Ramon, California. 

8. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of 

Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, are currently unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues 

Defendants by such fictitious names under California Code of Civil Procedure § 474. Plaintiff is informed 

and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each of the Defendants designated herein as a DOE is legally 

responsible in some manner for the unlawful acts referred to herein. Plaintiff will seek leave of court to 

amend this Complaint to reflect the true names and capacities of the Defendants designated hereinafter as 

DOES when such identities become known. 

9. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each Defendant acted in 

all respects pertinent to this action as the agent of the other Defendants, carried out a joint scheme, business 

plan or policy in all respects pertinent hereto, and that the acts of each Defendant are legally attributable to 

the other Defendants. Furthermore, Defendants in all respects acted as the employer and/or joint employer 

of Plaintiff and the Classes. 

10. Venue as to each Defendant is proper in this judicial district, pursuant to California Code of 

Civil Procedure § 395. On information and belief, Defendants operate and are doing business as 

CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., with headquarters in Contra Costa County, California and are also doing 

business throughout the United States and throughout California, and each Defendant is within the 

jurisdiction of this Court for service of process purposes. The unlawful acts alleged herein have had a 

direct effect on Plaintiff and those similarly situated within the State of California. Defendant employs 

numerous Class Members in Contra Costa County. 

3. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

11. Plaintiff and the Class Members are, and at all times pertinent hereto have been, non-exempt 

production operations employees within the meaning of the California Labor Code and the implementing 

rules and regulations of IWC California Wage Orders. Defendant hires hourly employees who work in nonexempt positions in the State of California. 

12. During the course of Plaintiff and the Class Members’ employment with Defendants, they 

were not paid all wages they were owed, including for all work performed (resulting in “off the 
-7- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

clock” work) and for all overtime hours worked. Plaintiff and the Class Members were regularly 

asked to work twelve (12) hour shifts and were at least scheduled for eight (8) hour shifts. As a 

matter of uniform company policy, in order for Plaintiff and the Class Members to receive overtime, 

they were required to fill out a pink sheet, or a “Pinky,” detailing their overtime, and it was at the 

discretion of the managers as to whether they would actually sign the Pinky so that Plaintiff and the 

Class Members would be accurately paid for all the overtime that they rightfully earned. As a result, 

Plaintiff and the Class Members worked substantial overtime hours during their employment with 

Defendants for which they were not compensated, in violation of the California Labor Code. 

13. As a matter of uniform Company policy, Plaintiff and the Class Members were 

required to work off the clock due to the imposition of “turnover” time and preparation for “breakout 

meetings, both of which were not compensated by Defendants. Plaintiff and the Class Members were 

required to participate in a shift “turnover,” which required Plaintiff and the Class Members to work 

more than twelve (12) hours on their scheduled 12 hour shifts. This “turnover” time was off the clock 

work that was not compensated by Defendants. Plaintiff and the Class Members were also required 

by Defendants and their policies and practices to work off the clock before their work shifts. For 

example, if they were scheduled to begin a work shift at 6:00 a.m., Plaintiff and the Class Members 

were required to arrive at work well before the shift start time in order prepare information and 

documents required at “breakout” meetings that were scheduled by Defendants at the start of work 

shifts. During these meetings, Plaintiff and the Class Members would address what they needed to 

accomplish that workday, who their crews were going to be, where those crews were going to be 

located, equipment that was down, work permit issues, and the like. In order to address these matters 

at the breakout meeting, Plaintiff and the Class Members were required to be prepared to discuss 

them at the meetings and were compelled to arrive at work and work off the clock compiling all 

necessary information for the breakout meetings, which had to be gathered before the start of their 

work shift. This time invested in preparing for the meetings and participating in them was integral to 

Plaintiff and the Class performing their daily job duties for Defendant, and the expectation that they 

arrive as much as 30 minutes early for work was and understood policy and an expected practice. 

Managers would even state that, “if you’re on time, then you’re late.” Plaintiff and the Class 
-8- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

Members were thus required to work off the clock and were not compensated for such time, in 

violation of the California Labor Code and the FLSA. Plaintiff and the Class Members were also not

paid overtime for the time they were required to dedicate to responding to work related e-mails and 

text messages, and to comply with other requirements imposed upon them, which they had to 

complete while off-duty. 

14. As a result of these pre and post shift requirements to work off the clock, the daily work 

demands and pressures to work through breaks, the imposition of the “pinky” time tracking and approval 

policy that led to uncompensated work, and the other wage violations they endured at Defendant’s hands, 

Plaintiff and the Class Members were not properly paid for all wages earned and for all wages when 

working more than eight (8) hours in any given day and/or more than forty (40) hours in any given week. 

As a result of Defendants’ unlawful policies and practices, Plaintiff and Class Members were required 

to work more than 8 hours on most work days and worked more than 40 hours in each of their work 

weeks, thus consistently incurring overtime hours worked, but Plaintiff estimates they were not paid 

by Defendants for at least 2-3 hours of overtime per week. 

15. Defendants also failed to pay all overtime hours earned for hours worked on and beyond a 

seventh consecutive work day in violation of both state and federal law. Plaintiff and the Class Members 

generally were scheduled to work at least twelve (12) hour shifts, with those in some positions working 

generally eight (8) hour shifts. The pre-shift and post-shift transition requirements, and the other pressure to 

work off the clock and through breaks exerted on Plaintiff and the Class Members by Defendants, resulted 

in Class Members regularly working shifts of over eight (8) hours, and usually over twelve (12) hours in 

duration. Defendant also required Plaintiff and the Class Members to work these extended shifts for several 

consecutive days in a row, often as many as 7 to 10 days in a row during certain work weeks and pay 

periods. However, Defendants followed a policy and practice of further denying overtime payments to 

Plaintiff and the Class Members at an overtime rate of 1.5 times the regular rate for the first eight hours of 

the seventh consecutive work day in a week and overtime payments at the rate of 2 times the regular rate for 

hours worked over eight (8) on the seventh consecutive work day, as required under the Labor Code and 

applicable IWC Wage Orders. 
-9- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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. Plaintiff and the Class Members were also not provided lawful meal periods and were asked 

to work their twelve (12) hour shifts for Defendants without being provided with the requisite two (2) meal 

periods. Plaintiff and the Class Members were generally either scheduled to work alone, and could not be 

relieved to take breaks, or were required to remain on-duty at all times and were unable to take off-duty 

breaks. On the occasions when Plaintiff and the Class Members were provided with a meal period, it was 

often untimely or interrupted, as they were required to respond to work demands, and they were not 

provided with one (1) hour’s wages in lieu thereof. Defendant would also schedule meetings during times 

that should have been dedicated to meal periods, and informed Plaintiff she would be fine as long as she got 

some food. Meal period violations thus occurred in one or more of the following manners: 

(a) Class Members were not provided full thirty-minute duty free meal periods for work 

days in excess of five (5) hours and were not compensated one (1) hour’s wages in 

lieu thereof, all in violation of, among others, Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512, and the 

applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order(s); 

(b) Class Members were not provided second full thirty-minute duty free meal periods 

for work days in excess of ten (10) hours; 

(c) Class Members were required to work through at least part of their daily meal 

period(s); 

(d) Meal period were provided after five hours of continuous work during a shift; and 

(e) Class Members were restricted in their ability to take a full thirty-minute meal 

period. 

17. Plaintiff and the Defendants’ non-exempt production operations employees were also not 

authorized and permitted to take lawful rest periods, were often asked by Defendants to work their entire 

twelve (12) hour shift continuously without any rest break at all, and were not provided with one (1) hour’s 

wages in lieu thereof. Rest period violations therefore arose in one or more of the following manners: 

(a) Class Members were required to work without being provided a minimum ten 

minute rest period for every three and a half (3.5) hours or major fraction thereof 

worked and were not compensated one (1) hour of pay at their regular rate of 

compensation for each workday that a rest period was not provided; 
-10- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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) Class Members were not authorized and permitted to take timely rest periods for 

every four hours worked, or major fraction thereof; and 

(c) Class Members were restricted in their ability to take their full ten (10) minutes net 

rest time or were otherwise not provided with duty-free rest periods. 

18. As a result of these illegal policies and practices, Defendants engaged in and enforced the 

following additional unlawful practices and policies against Plaintiff and the Class Members she seeks to 

represent: 

(a) failing to pay all wages owed to Class Members who either were discharged, laid 

off, or resigned in accordance with the requirements of Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 

203; 

(b) failing to pay all wages owed to the Class Members twice monthly in accordance 

with the requirements of Labor Code § 204; 

(c) failing to pay Class Members all wages owed, including all meal and rest period 

premium wages pursuant to Labor Code § 226.7; and 

(d) failing to maintain accurate records of Class Members’ earned wages and meal 

periods in violation of Labor Code §§ 226 and 1174(d) and section 7 of the 

applicable IWC Wage Orders. 

19. Defendants have made it difficult to account with precision for the unlawfully withheld meal 

and rest period compensation owed to Plaintiff and the Class, during the liability period, because they did 

not implement and preserve a record-keeping method as required for non-exempt production operations 

employees by California Labor Code §§ 226, 1174(d), and paragraph 7 of the applicable California Wage 

Orders. Upon information and belief, time clock punches were not maintained for work shifts and meal 

periods, and were automatically presumed based on a certain amount of scheduled hours, including 

deductions for alleged meal periods. Defendants also failed to accurately record and pay for all regular and 

overtime hours worked and submitted by Plaintiff and the Class Members. Defendants have thus also failed 

to comply with Labor Code § 226(a) by inaccurately reporting total hours worked and total wages earned by 

Plaintiff and the Class Members, along with the appropriate applicable rates, among others requirements. 
-11- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

Plaintiff and Class Members are therefore entitled to penalties not to exceed $4,000 for each employee 

pursuant to Labor Code § 226(b). 

20. Defendants have failed to comply with paragraph 7 of the applicable California IWC Wage 

Orders by failing to maintain time records showing when the employee begins and ends each work period, 

meal periods, wages earned pursuant to Labor Code § 226.7, and total daily hours worked by itemizing in 

wage statements all deductions from payment of wages and accurately reporting total hours worked by the 

Class Members. 

21. As part of Plaintiff and the Class Members’ job duties Defendant required them to perform, 

Plaintiff and the Class were also required to wear fire resistant clothing, which was clothing of a unique 

design and style specific to their work that could not be worn elsewhere. Plaintiff and the Class Members 

were also often required to drive great distances in a work shift to visit assigned work sites and facilities. 

They were not provided with a company vehicle for this purpose and Defendants instead required nonexempt production operations employees to use their own automobiles, all without any reimbursement for 

the miles they drove or for the maintenance on their vehicles. Plaintiff and the Class Members were thus 

required to purchase fire resistant clothing, and incur mileage and wear and tear on their automobiles, in 

order to perform their assigned job duties. These are expenses for which Plaintiff and the Class Members 

were never reimbursed, in violation of California Labor Code § 2802(a) and the applicable California 

Code of Regulations. 

22. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ actions as described throughout 

this Complaint were willful. 

23. The Fair Labor Standards Act: The FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938, as 

amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. (hereinafter referred to as “FLSA”), provides for minimum 

standards for both wages and overtime entitlement, and details administrative procedures by which 

covered work time must be compensated. The enactment of the provisions of the FLSA provide the 

Courts with substantial authority to stamp out abuses and enforce the minimum wage and overtime pay 

provisions at issue in this Complaint. According to Congressional findings, the existence of Labor 

conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living engenders unfair 

commercial competition, labor disputes, and barriers to commerce and the free flow of goods in 
-12- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

commerce, and interferes with the orderly and fair marketing of goods. 

4. CLASS ALLEGATIONS 

24. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated as a class 

action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 382. Plaintiff seeks to represent a Class composed 

of and defined as: 

All persons who are employed or have been employed by Defendants in the State of California 

who, during any time from four years prior to the filing of this class action to the present, have 

worked as non-exempt production operations employees. 

Further, Plaintiff seeks to represent the following subclasses composed of and defined as follows: 

(a) Subclass 1. Overtime Subclass. All Class Members who

worked more than eight (8) hours in a day and/or forty (40) 

hours in any given week and who were not paid overtime 

compensation pursuant to the Labor Code and applicable IWC 

Wage Order requirements. 

(b) Subclass 1.1. Seven Consecutive Days Overtime Subclass. All

Class Members who were not paid at an overtime rate of 1.5 times 

the regular rate for the first eight hours of the seventh consecutive 

work day in a week and overtime payments at the rate of 2 times 

the regular rate for hours worked over eight (8) on the seventh 

consecutive work day, as required under the Labor Code § 510 and 

paragraph 3 of the applicable IWC Wage Orders. 

(c) Subclass 2. Meal Break Subclass. All Class Members who have 

not been provided a meal period for every five (5) hours or major 

fraction thereof worked per day, and were not provided one (1) 

hour’s pay for each day on which such meal period was not 

provided pursuant to Labor Code § 226.7 and § 512. 

(d) Subclass 3. Rest Period Subclass. All Class Members who have 

not been provided a rest period for every three and a half (3.5) 

hours or major fraction thereof worked per day, and were not 

provided compensation of one (1) hour’s pay for each day on 

which such rest period was not provided pursuant to Labor Code § 

226.7 and § 512. 

(e) Subclass 4. Paystub Subclass. All Class Members who were not 

provided an itemized wage statement accurately showing (1) gross 

wages earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee, (3) the 

number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece rate for 

Class Members paid on a piece-rate basis, (4) all deductions, (5) 
-13- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

net wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates of the period for which 

the employee is paid, (7) the name of the employee and only the 

last four digits of his or her social security number or an employee 

identification number other than a 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 pursuant to Labor Code § 226. 

(f) Subclass 5. Wage Payment Subclass. All Class Members who 

were not provided all straight time wages earned pursuant to the 

Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Orders. 

(g) Subclass 6. Twice Monthly Pay Subclass. All Class Members 

who were not paid twice monthly in accordance with Labor Code 

§ 204. 

(h) Subclass 7. Personnel Records Subclass. All Class Members 

who were not provided a copy of their employment records after a 

lawful request pursuant to Labor Code §§ 226, 432 and 1198.5. 

(i) Subclass 8. Expense Reimbursement Subclass. All Class 

Members who were not reimbursed for their business expenses 

pursuant to Labor Code § 2802. 

(j) Subclass 9. Termination Pay Subclass. All Class Members who 

were not provided all wages due upon termination or resignation 

pursuant to Labor Code §§ 200 through 203. 

(k) Subclass 10. B&P Code § 17200 Subclass. All Class Members 

who were subjected to Defendants’ unlawful, unfair or fraudulent 

business acts or practices in the form of Labor Code violations 

regarding overtime, meal periods, rest periods, expense 

reimbursement or minimum wages and/or waiting time penalties. 

25. Plaintiff reserves the right under Rule 1855(b) of the California Rules of Court, to amend or 

modify the class descriptions with greater specificity or to provide further division into subclasses or 

limitation to particular issues. 

26. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action under the 

provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure § 382 because there is a well-defined community of 

interest in the litigation and the proposed Classes are easily ascertainable. 

A. Numerosity 

27. The potential members of each Class as defined are so numerous that joinder of all the 

members of the Class is impracticable. Plaintiff estimates there are at least several hundred Class Members, 

and possibly several thousand, which is sufficient to satisfy the numerosity requirement. While the precise 
-14- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

number of Class Members has not been determined at this time, Plaintiff is informed and believes that 

Defendants currently employ, and during the relevant time periods employed, sufficiently numerous 

employees in positions as Defendants’ non-exempt production operations employees in California, who are 

or have been affected by Defendants’ unlawful practices as alleged herein. 

28. Employee turnover during the relevant time period will increase this number substantially. 

Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges Defendants’ employment records would provide information 

as to the number and location of all Class Members. Joinder of all members of the proposed Classes is not 

practicable. 

B. Commonality 

29. There are questions of law and fact common to each Class predominating over any 

questions affecting only individual Class Members. These common questions of law and fact include, 

without limitation: 

(a) Whether Defendants violated Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512, section 4 of the IWC 

Wage Orders, and Cal. Code Regs., Title 8, section 11010 et seq. by failing to 

provide a meal period to non-exempt production operations employees on days they 

worked work periods in excess of five (5) hours and failing to compensate said 

employees one (1) hour’s wages in lieu of meal periods; 

(b) Whether Defendants violated Labor Code § 226.7 and the IWC Wage Orders, and 

Cal. Code Regs., Title 8, section 11010 et seq. by failing to authorize and permit all 

daily ten (10) minute rest periods to non-exempt production operations employees 

for every three and a half (3.5) hours and/or 7 hours or major fraction thereof 

worked and failing to compensate said employees one (1) hour’s wages in lieu of 

rest periods; 

(c) Whether Defendants violated Labor Code § 226 and § 1174 and the IWC Wage 

Orders by failing to maintain accurate records of Class Members’ earned wages and 

work periods; 
-15- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

(d) Whether Defendants violated Labor Code § 1194 and Cal. Code Regs., Title 8, 

section 11000, et seq. by failing to compensate all employees during the relevant 

time period for all hours worked, whether regular or overtime; 

(e) Whether Defendants failed to comply with written requests to inspect of copy 

records during the relevant time period pursuant to Labor Code §§ 226, 432 and 

1198.5; 

(f) Whether Defendants violated Labor Code § 2802 by failing to compensate all 

employees during the relevant time period for all business expenses incurred in the 

discharge of their duties; 

(g) Whether Defendants violated Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. by 

failing to provide meal and rest periods without compensating non-exempt 

production operations employees one (1) hour’s pay for every day such periods 

were not provided, failing to pay compensation for denied meal and rest periods due 

and owing at the time a Class Member’s employment with Defendants terminated, 

and failing to keep accurate records; 

(h) Whether Defendants violated § 17200 et seq. of the Business and Professions Code, 

Labor Code §§ 201-203, 226.7, 512, 1174, and applicable IWC Wage Orders, which 

constitutes a violation of fundamental public policy; 

(i) Whether Plaintiff and the Class Members are entitled to equitable relief pursuant to 

Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq,; and 

(j) Whether Plaintiff and the Class Members are entitled to penalties pursuant to Labor 

Code §§ 2698 and 2699, affectionately known as “PAGA penalties.” 

There are common answers to these questions which further demonstrate that class treatment in 

appropriate in this case. 

C. Typicality 

30. The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Class Members. Plaintiff 

and all members of each Class sustained injuries and damages arising out of and caused by Defendants’ 

common course of conduct in violation of California laws, regulations, and statutes as alleged herein. 
-16- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

D. Adequacy of Representation 

31. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the members of each 

Class. Counsel who represent Plaintiff are competent and highly experienced in litigating large employment 

class actions. 

E. Superiority of Class Action 

32. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of 

this controversy. Individual joinder of all Class Members is not practicable, and questions of law and fact 

common to each Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class. 

Each member of the Class has been damaged and is entitled to recovery by reason of Defendants’ unlawful 

policies and practices alleged in the Complaint. 

33. 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. Plaintiff is unaware 

of any difficulties that are likely to be encountered in the management of this action that would preclude its 

maintenance as a class action. 

34. Class Plaintiff contemplates the eventual issuance of notice to the proposed Class Members 

of each Plaintiff Classes that would set forth the subject and nature of the instant action. The Defendants’ 

own business records can be utilized for assistance in the preparation and issuance of the contemplated 

notices. To the extent that any further notice is required additional media and/or mailings can be used. 

5. DELAYED DISCOVERY 

35. Defendants, as a prospective and actual employer of non-exempt, hourly employees, had a 

special fiduciary duty to disclose to prospective Plaintiff Classes the true facts surrounding Defendants’ pay 

practices, policies and working conditions imposed upon non-exempt, hourly employees as well as the 

effect of any alleged arbitration agreements that may have been forced upon them. In addition, Defendants 

knew that it possessed special knowledge about its pay practices and policies, most notably intentionally 

refusing to pay overtime and straight time hours actually worked and recorded on Defendants’ punch 

records and the consequence of the alleged arbitration agreements on the employees and class as a whole. 

36. Plaintiff and Plaintiff Classes did not discover the fact that they were entitled to all pay under 

the Labor Code until shortly before the filing of this lawsuit nor was there ever any discussion about 
-17- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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 and the Class’ wavier of their Constitutional rights of trial by jury, right to collectively organize 

and oppose unlawful pay practices under California and federal law as well as obtain injunctive relief 

preventing such practices from continuing. As a result, the applicable statutes of limitation were tolled until 

such time as Plaintiffs discovered their claims. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

FOR FAILURE TO PAY WAGES UNDER THE FLSA

[FLSA 29 USC §§ 203, 206, 207]

(Against All Defendants)

37. Plaintiff and the members of the Class (and subclasses) and the FLSA collective re-allege 

and incorporate by reference all of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this complaint as 

though fully set forth herein. 

38. At all relevant times hereto, Defendants have been an “enterprise engaged in commerce 

or in the production of goods for commerce,” as defined under 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(l). 

39. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants have required the 

Plaintiff and FLSA collective employees as part of their employment to work off the clock and for less 

than minimum wage under 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1). That Section provides the following: 

Every employer shall pay to each of his employees who in any workweek is engaged in 

commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or is employed in an enterprise engaged in 

commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, wages at the following rates: 

(1) except as otherwise provided in this section, not less than— 

(A) $5.85 an hour, beginning on the 60th day after May 25, 2007; 

(B) $6.55 an hour, beginning 12 months after that 60th day; and 

(C) $7.25 an hour, beginning 24 months after that 60th day;... 

40. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants required Plaintiff 

and requires the FLSA collective employees to work without overtime in excess of the forty (40) hours 

per week maximum under 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(I). That Section provides the following: 

Except as otherwise provided in this section, no employer shall employ any of his employees 

... for a workweek longer than forty hours unless such employee receives compensation for his 

employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate which is not less than one and onehalf times the regular rate at which he is employed. 
-18- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

41. In the performance of their duties for Defendants, members of the FLSA collective 

employees often did work off the clock and over forty (40) hours per week and did not receive 

minimum wages and overtime compensation for the work, labor and services they provided to 

Defendants, as required by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207. 

42. The precise number of unpaid wages and unpaid overtime hours will be proven at trial. 

43. The FLSA also imposes a record-keeping requirement on employers, including the 

obligation to keep accurate records of all hours worked by employees. Defendants have knowingly and 

willfully failed and continue to willfully fail to record, report, and/or preserve accurate records of all 

hours worked by Plaintiff and FLSA collective employees. By failing to record, report, and/or preserve 

records of all hours worked by Plaintiff and the FLSA collective employees, Defendants have violated, 

and continue to violate, the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq. 

44. Plaintiff proposes to undertake appropriate proceedings to have such FLSA Class 

Members aggrieved by Defendants’ unlawful conduct notified of the pendency of this action and to 

provide them with the opportunity to join this action as plaintiffs, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), by 

filing written consents to joinder with the Court. 

45. Defendants’ violations of the FLSA were willful within the meaning of the statue and 

interpretive case law and decisions. 

46. Plaintiff seeks judgment against Defendants on her own behalf and on behalf of those 

FLSA collective employees similarly situated who file written consents to joinder in this action, for all 

unpaid wages, including minimum and overtime wages owed by Defendants, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 

206 and 207, together with an award of an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and costs, 

interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees, as provided for under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and which may be 

brought in “any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees for and 

in behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated.” 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 
-19- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 

FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME COMPENSATION 

[CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §§ 510, 1194 and 1198] 

(Against All Defendants) 

47. Plaintiff and the Members of the Class (and subclasses) re-allege and incorporate by 

reference, as though fully set forth herein, the paragraphs previously alleged in this Complaint. 

48. This claim is brought by Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of the Class and the 

subclasses thereof. 

49. In California, employees must be paid at least the then applicable state minimum 

wage for all hours worked. (IWC Wage Order MW-2014). 

50. California Labor Code § 1198 provides that “[T]he maximum hours of work and the 

standard conditions of labor fixed by the commission shall be the maximum hours of work and the standard 

conditions of labor for employees. The employment of any employee for longer hours than those fixed by 

the order or under conditions of labor prohibited by the order is unlawful.” 

51. Employees in California shall not be employed more than eight hours in any work day, 

and/or more than forty hours in any workweek, unless they receive additional compensation beyond their 

regular wages in amounts specified by law. More specifically, Labor Code § 510 codifies the right to 

overtime compensation at one and one-half times the regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of eight 

(8) hours in a day or forty (40) hours in a week or for the first eight (8) hours worked on the seventh day of 

work, and overtime compensation at twice the regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of twelve (12) 

hours in a day or in excess of eight (8) hours in a day on the seventh day of work. 

52. California Labor Code § 1194 provides that “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.” The action may be maintained 

directly against the employer in an employee’s name without first filing a claim with the Department of 

Labor Standards and Enforcement. 
-20- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

53. At all times relevant hereto, the Labor Code requirements and paragraph 3 of the applicable 

IWC Wage Orders also provided for payment of overtime wages equal to one and one-half times an 

employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 8 hours a day and/or forty (40) hours in a work 

week, and for the first eight (8) hours on the seventh consecutive day of work in a work week. 

54. At all times relevant hereto, Labor Code § 510 and paragraph 3 of the applicable IWC Wage 

Orders provided for payment of overtime wage equal to double the employee’s regular rate of pay for all 

hours worked over twelve (12) hours in any workday, and for all hours worked over eight (8) hours on the 

seventh consecutive day of work in a work week. 

55. Defendants, and each of them, have intentionally and improperly avoided payment of 

overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code and California Code of Regulations and the IWC 

Wage Orders and guidelines set forth by the Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement, as described 

above. Defendants have also violated these provisions by requiring Plaintiff and other similarly situated 

non-exempt production operations employees to work through meal periods when they were required to be 

clocked out. Defendants, and each of them, have also intentionally and improperly rounded, changed, 

adjusted and/or modified certain employees’ hours, and imposed difficult to attain job and scheduling 

requirements on Plaintiff and the Class Members, which resulted in an underpayment of wages to 

employees over a period of time while benefiting Defendants. 

56. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff and the Class Members have worked more than eight 

(8) hours in a workday, and/or more than forty (40) hours in a workweek, as employees of Defendants. 

During the relevant time period, Plaintiff and the Class Members were not fully paid for all the hours they 

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

(40) hours in a week as a result of Defendants’ above described policies and practices. In addition to the 

other overtime payments Defendant failed to make for all off the clock work, Defendants scheduled Plaintiff 

and the Class Members to generally work shifts of over twelve (12) hours in duration and often for as many 

as 7 to 10 consecutive days in a row. However, Defendants followed a policy and practice of further 

denying overtime payments to Plaintiff and the Class Members at an overtime rate of 1.5 times the regular 

rate for the first eight hours of the seventh consecutive work day in a week and overtime payments at the 

rate of 2 times the regular rate for hours worked over eight (8) on the seventh consecutive work day, as 
-21- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

required under the Labor Code § 510 and paragraph 3 of the applicable IWC Wage Orders. 

57. Therefore, Plaintiff and the Class Members were not properly paid for all hours worked, 

including for the hours worked in excess of the maximum hours permissible by law under California Labor 

Code § 1194, § 1197 and § 1198 and the provisions of IWC Wage Orders and the applicable California 

Code of Regulations sections. 

58. On information and belief, Plaintiff and the Class Members allege that Defendants 

followed an unlawful policy and practice of refusing to pay and failing to pay them for all wages 

earned in each pay period, including by requiring and compelling off the clock work, by failing 

to pay for overtime hours worked, and for the other reasons set forth in detail above. 

59. As a result of Defendants’ failure to pay overtime pay throughout Plaintiff and the 

Class Members’ employment, Defendants intentionally failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class 

Members with all earned wages earned by and owed to them during the corresponding pay 

periods. Defendants willfully violated the provisions of Labor Code § 1194, the applicable IWC 

Wage Orders, and California law by failing to properly pay Plaintiff and the Class the overtime 

pay that Plaintiff and the Class Members were due. 

60. Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and the Class Members all wages owed to 

them also violated California Penal Code §§ 484 and 532 (obtaining labor through false 

pretenses), as their managers specifically instructed them that they were not entitled to receive 

overtime when Plaintiff and the Class were under the California Labor Code and related 

provisions. 

61. Plaintiff and the Class Members are informed and believe, and based upon that 

information and belief therefore further allege, that Defendants knew or should have known that 

Plaintiff and the Class did not qualify as exempt employees, and Defendants purposely elected 

not to pay Plaintiff and the Class Members for their overtime labor performed. 

62. By virtue of the Defendants’ unlawful failure to provide overtime pay to Plaintiff and the 

Plaintiff Classes, Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages in 

amounts which are presently unknown to them, but which exceed the jurisdictional limits of this Court and 

which will be ascertained according to proof at trial. 
-22- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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. Plaintiff and the Class Members are informed and believe, and based upon that information 

and belief allege, that Defendants, and each of them, purposely elected not to provide overtime pay. 

64. As a result of Defendants’ failure to pay overtime pay throughout Plaintiff and the 

Class Members’ employment, Plaintiff and the Class Members were deprived of wages in 

amounts to be determined at trial, and is entitled to recovery of such amounts, plus interest and 

penalties thereon, attorneys’ fees, and costs, for Defendants’ violations of Labor Code § 510 and 

applicable IWC Wage Order provisions. 

65. Defendants, and each of them, acted intentionally, oppressively and maliciously toward 

Plaintiff and the Class Members with a conscious disregard of their rights, or the consequences to Plaintiff 

and the Class Members, with the intent of depriving them of property and legal rights and otherwise causing 

Plaintiff and the Class Members injury. 

66. Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of members of the Class and Plaintiff Classes, requests 

recovery of both straight time and overtime compensation according to proof, interest, attorney’s fees and 

costs pursuant to Labor Code § 1194(a), as well as the assessment of any statutory penalties against these 

Defendants, and each of them, and any additional sums as provided by the Labor Code and/or other statutes. 

67. Further, Plaintiff and the Class Members are entitled to seek and recover reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Labor Code §§ 210 and 1194. 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 

FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIODS 

[CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §§ 226.7 and 512, and Paragraph 11 of Applicable IWC Wage Orders] 

(Against All Defendants) 

68. Plaintiff and the Members of the Class (and subclasses) re-allege and incorporate by 

reference, as though fully set forth herein, the paragraphs previously alleged in this Complaint. 

69. This claim is brought by Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of the Class Members 

and the subclasses thereof. 

70. Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 and paragraph 11 of the applicable IWC Wage Order provide 

that no employer shall employ any person for a work period of more than five (5) hours without a meal 

period of not less than thirty (30) minutes. 
-23- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

71. Labor Code § 226.7 and paragraph 11 of the applicable IWC Wage Orders also provide that, 

if an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period in accordance with this section, the employer 

shall pay the employee one (1) hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday 

that the meal period is not provided. 

72. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class Members with meal periods, as 

employees were always scheduled to work alone, and thus, had no opportunity to take an uninterrupted meal 

period as required by the Labor Code. 

73. Defendants, and each of them, have intentionally and improperly denied meal periods to 

Plaintiff and the Class Members in violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 and paragraph 11 of the 

applicable IWC Wage Orders, along with other applicable regulations and statutes. 

74. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff and the Class Members have worked more than five (5) 

hours in a workday. 

75. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendants, and each of them, failed to provide meal 

periods as required by Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 and paragraph 11 of the applicable IWC Wage Orders. 

76. By virtue of the Defendants’ unlawful failure to provide meal periods to Plaintiff and the 

Plaintiff Classes, Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages in 

amounts which are presently unknown to Plaintiff but which exceed the jurisdictional limits of this Court 

and which will be ascertained according to proof at trial. 

77. Plaintiff and the Class Members are informed and believe, and based upon that information 

and belief allege, that Defendants, and each of them, purposely elected not to provide meal periods. 

78. Defendants, and each of them, acted intentionally, oppressively and maliciously toward 

Plaintiff and the Class Members with a conscious disregard of their rights, or the consequences to them, with 

the intent of depriving them of property and legal rights and otherwise causing Plaintiff and the Class 

Members to suffer injury. 

79. Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of the Class, requests recovery of meal period 

compensation pursuant to Labor Code §§ 226.7 and paragraph 11 of the applicable IWC Wage Orders, as 

well as the assessment of any statutory penalties against these Defendants, and each of them, in a sum as 

provided by the Labor Code and other statutes. 
-24- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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 CAUSE OF ACTION 

FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST PERIODS 

[CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §§ 226.7 and 512, and Paragraph 11 of Applicable IWC Wage Orders] 

(Against All Defendants) 

80. Plaintiff and the Members of the Class (and subclasses) re-allege and incorporate by 

reference the paragraphs previously alleged in this Complaint. 

81. Labor Code §§ 226.7 and paragraph 12 of the applicable IWC Wage Orders provide that 

employers must authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods at the rate of ten (10) minutes net 

rest time per three and a half (3.5) work hours. 

82. Labor Code §§ 226.7 and paragraph 12 of the applicable IWC Wage Orders provide that if 

an employer fails to provide an employee rest period in accordance with this section, the employer shall pay 

the employee one (1) hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday that the 

rest period is not provided. 

83. Defendants, and each of them, have intentionally and improperly denied rest periods to 

Plaintiff and the Class Members in violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 and paragraph 12 of the 

applicable IWC Wage Orders. Defendants failed to authorize and permit Plaintiff and the Class Members to 

take rest periods, as required by the Labor Code. 

84. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff and the Class Members, have worked more than three 

and a half hours in a workday. 

85. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendants, and each of them, failed to provide rest periods 

as required by Labor Code §§ 226.7 and paragraph 12 of the applicable IWC Wage Orders. 

86. By virtue of the Defendants’ unlawful failure to provide rest periods to the Plaintiff and the 

Class Members, Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages in 

amounts which are presently unknown to the Plaintiff and the Class Members but which exceed the 

jurisdictional limits of this Court and which will be ascertained according to proof at trial. 

87. Plaintiff and the Class Members are informed and believe, and based upon that information 

and belief allege, that Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have known that Plaintiff and the Class 
-25- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

Members were entitled to rest periods and purposely elected not to provide them with rest periods. 

88. Defendants, and each of them, acted intentionally, oppressively and maliciously toward 

Plaintiff and the Class Members with a conscious disregard of their rights, or the consequences to Plaintiff 

and the Plaintiff Classes, with the intent of depriving Plaintiff and the Class of property and legal rights and 

otherwise causing the Plaintiff and the Class Members injury. 

89. Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of employees similarly situated, requests recovery of 

rest period compensation pursuant to Labor Code §§ 226.7 and paragraph 12 of the applicable IWC Wage 

Orders, as well as the assessment of any statutory penalties against these Defendants, and each of them, in a 

sum as provided by the Labor Code and/or other statutes. 

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

FAILURE TO FURNISH ACCURATE ITEMIZED STATEMENTS 

[CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE § 226] 

(Against All Defendants) 

90. Plaintiff and the Members of the Class (and subclasses) re-allege and incorporate by 

reference, as though fully set forth herein, the paragraphs previously alleged in this Complaint. 

91. Throughout the liability period, Defendants intentionally failed to furnish to Plaintiff and the 

Class Members, upon each payment of wages, itemized statements accurately showing: (1) gross wages 

earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee, (3) the number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable 

piece rate paid on a piece-rate basis, (4) all deductions, (5) net wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates of the 

period for which the employee is paid, (7) the name of the employee and only the last four digits of his or 

her social security number or an employee identification number other than a 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 pursuant 

to Labor Code § 226, amongst other statutory requirements. 

92. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered injury in 

that, among other things, the lack of the required information hindered them from determining the amount of 

wages owed to them and led them to believe they were not entitled to be paid wages all hours worked, for 

overtime, missed meal and rest breaks, or for each hour of labor they performed, for piece rates where 
-26- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

applicable, and the properly hourly rate where applicable, although they were so entitled. The absence of 

accurate wage statements has prevented timely challenges to Defendants’ unlawful pay practices, caused 

difficulty and expense in attempting to reconstruct time and pay records, and resulted in the submission by 

Defendants of inaccurate information about wages and deductions from wages to state and federal 

government agencies. The entitlement of Plaintiff and the Class Members is to receive wage statements that 

accurately list the total amount of wages earned and deductions from wages as reflected on wage statements, 

and Plaintiff and the Class Members have thereby been injured by the Defendants’ failure to report the total 

amount of wages earned during each pay period on each paycheck stub. All Class Members have been 

similarly injured. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered injury 

because their legal right to receive accurate wage statements was violated. 

93. Labor Code§ 226(a) requires Defendants “semimonthly or at the time each payment to 

wages” to furnish to Plaintiff and the Class Members “an accurate itemized statement in writing” 

showing (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee, (3) the number of piece-rate units 

earned and any applicable piece rate for Class Members paid on a piece-rate basis, (4) all deductions, (5) net 

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

employee and only the last four digits of his or her social security number or an employee identification 

number other than a 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 pursuant to Labor Code § 226. Defendants knowingly and 

intentionally failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class Members with such timely and accurate wage 

and hour statements.

94. Plaintiff and the Class Members suffered injury as a result of Defendants’ knowing 

and intentional failure to provide them with the wage and hour statements as required by law and are 

presumed to have suffered injury and entitled to penalties under Labor Code § 226(e), as the 

Defendants have failed to provide a wage statement, failed to provide accurate and complete 

information as required by any one or more of items Labor Code § 226 (a)(1) to (9), inclusive, and the 

Plaintiff and Class Members cannot promptly and easily determine from the wage statement alone 

one or more of the following: (i) The amount of the gross wages or net wages paid to the employee 
-27- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

during the pay period or any of the other information required to be provided on the itemized wage 

statement pursuant to items (2) to (4), inclusive, (6), and (9) of subdivision (a), (ii) Which deductions 

the employer made from gross wages to determine the net wages paid to the employee during the pay 

period, (iii) The name and address of the employer and, (iv) The name of the employee and only the 

last four digits of his or her social security number or an employee identification number other than a 

social security number. For purposes of Labor Code § 226(e) “promptly and easily determine” means 

a reasonable person [i.e. an objective standard] would be able to readily ascertain the information 

without reference to other documents or information. 

95. Plaintiff and the Class Members suffered injury as a result of Defendants’ knowing 

and intentional failure to provide them with the wage and hour statements as required by law. 

96. Plaintiff and the Class Members are entitled to the amounts provided in Labor Code § 226(e), 

plus costs and attorneys’ fees. 

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

FAILURE TO PAY WAGES FOR HOURS WORKED 

[CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §§ 1194, 558] 

(Against All Defendants) 

97. Plaintiff and the Members of the Class re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though 

fully set forth herein, the paragraphs previously alleged in this Complaint. 

98. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants policy of failing to pay employees for all hours worked 

whether regular time or overtime violates the Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders. 

99. California Labor Code § 1198 provides that “[T]he maximum hours of work and the 

standard conditions of labor fixed by the commission shall be the maximum hours of work and the standard 

conditions of labor for employees. The employment of any employee for longer hours than those fixed by 

the order or under conditions of labor prohibited by the order is unlawful.” 

100. Employees in California shall not be employed more than eight hours in any work day, 

and/or more than forty hours in any workweek, unless they receive additional compensation beyond their 

regular wages in amounts specified by law. More specifically, Labor Code § 510 codifies the right to 

overtime compensation at one and one-half times the regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of eight 
-28- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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) hours in a day or forty (40) hours in a week or for the first eight (8) hours worked on the seventh day of 

work, and overtime compensation at twice the regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of twelve (12) 

hours in a day or in excess of eight (8) hours in a day on the seventh day of work. 

101. California Labor Code § 1194 provides that “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.” The action may be maintained 

directly against the employer in an employee’s name without first filing a claim with the Department of 

Labor Standards and Enforcement. 

102. At all times relevant hereto, the Labor Code requirements and paragraph 3 of the applicable 

IWC Wage Orders also provided for payment of overtime wages equal to one and one-half times an 

employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 8 hours a day and/or forty (40) hours in a work 

week, and for the first eight (8) hours on the seventh consecutive day of work in a work week. 

103. At all times relevant hereto, Labor Code § 510 and paragraph 3 of the applicable IWC Wage 

Orders provided for payment of overtime wage equal to double the employee’s regular rate of pay for all 

hours worked over twelve (12) hours in any workday, and for all hours worked over eight (8) hours on the 

seventh consecutive day of work in a work week. 

104. Defendants, and each of them, have intentionally and improperly rounded, changed, 

adjusted and/or modified certain employees’ hours, including Plaintiff’s, to avoid payment of overtime 

wages and other benefits in violation of the California Labor Code and California Code of Regulations and 

the IWC Wage Orders and guidelines set forth by the Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement. 

Defendants have also violated these provisions by requiring Plaintiff and other similarly situated nonexempt production operations employees to work through meal periods when they were required to be 

clocked out or to otherwise work off the clock before or after their work shifts to complete their daily job 

duties or to attend and participate in company required activities. 

105. Defendants, and each of them, have also intentionally and improperly rounded, changed, 

adjusted, underpaid, and/or modified certain employees’ hours, including by requiring pre and post-shift off 

the clock work, requiring work to be performed while on breaks, and by not properly paying production 
-29- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

operations employees all overtime hours they worked and reported, and imposed difficult to attain job and 

scheduling requirements on Plaintiff and the Class Members. This resulted in an underpayment of wages to 

employees over a period of time while benefiting Defendants. 

106. During the relevant time period, Plaintiff and the Class Members were not fully paid for all 

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

excess of forty (40) hours in a week as a result of Defendants’ above described policies and practices. 

Therefore, Plaintiff and the Class Members were not properly paid for all of their overtime work. 

Defendants also followed a policy and practice of further denying overtime payments to Plaintiff and the 

Class Members at an overtime rate of 1.5 times the regular rate for the first eight hours of the seventh 

consecutive work day in a week and overtime payments at the rate of 2 times the regular rate for hours 

worked over eight (8) on the seventh consecutive work day, as required under the Labor Code § 510 and 

paragraph 3 of the applicable IWC Wage Orders. 

107. During the relevant time period, Defendants willfully failed to pay all regular and overtime 

wages owed to Plaintiff and the Class Members. 

108. Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and the Class Members the unpaid balance of regular 

wages owed and overtime compensation, as required by California law, violates the provisions of Labor 

Code §§ 510 and 1198, and is therefore unlawful. 

109. Labor Code § 558(a) provides “any employer or other person acting on behalf of an 

employer who violates, or causes to be violated, a section of this chapter or any provisions regulating hours 

and days of work in any order of the IWC shall be subject to a civil penalty as follows: (1) For any violation, 

fifty dollars ($50) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid 

in addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages. (2) For each subsequent violation, one 

hundred dollars ($100) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was 

underpaid in addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages. (3) Wages recovered pursuant to 

this section shall be paid to the affected employee.” Labor Code § 558(c) states, “the civil penalties 

provided for in this section are in addition to any other civil or criminal penalty provided by law.” 

110. Defendants have violated provisions of the Labor Code regulating hours, pay as well as the 

IWC Wage Orders. As a result, Plaintiff and the Class seek the remedies set forth in Labor Code § 558. 
-30- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

111. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ policy of failing to pay 

employees for all hours worked whether regular time or overtime violates the Labor Code and IWC Wage 

Orders. Pursuant to Labor Code § 1194, Plaintiff and the Class Members are entitled to recover their unpaid 

wages owed, including their regular wages and overtime compensation, as well as interest, costs and 

attorneys’ fees. 

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

FAILURE TO PAY WAGES TWICE IN EACH CALENDAR MONTH 

[CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE § 204] 

(Against All Defendants) 

112. Plaintiff and the Members of the Class (and Plaintiff Classes) re-allege and incorporate 

by reference the paragraphs previously alleged in this Complaint 

113. Labor Code § 204 requires that all wages are due and payable twice in each calendar 

month. 

114. The wages required by the Labor Code § 1194 and other sections became due and 

payable to each employee in each pay period that he or she was not provided with a meal period or rest 

period or paid straight or overtime wages to which he or she was entitled. 

115. Defendants violated Labor Code § 204 by systematically refusing to pay wages due 

under the Labor Code. 

116. As a result of the unlawful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff and the Class he seeks to 

represent has been deprived of wages in amounts to be determined at trial, and is entitled to recovery 

of such amounts, plus interest and penalties thereon, attorneys’ fees, and costs, pursuant to Labor Code 

§ 210, 218.5 and 1194. 

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH WRITTEN REQUEST TO INSPECT OR COPY RECORDS 

[CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §§ 226, 432 and 1198.5] 

(Against All Defendants) 

117. Plaintiff and the Members of the Class (and subclasses) re-allege and incorporate by 

reference the paragraphs previously alleged in this Complaint. 
-31- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

118. Labor Code § 226(b) requires Defendants to permit current and former employees to inspect 

or copy payroll records pertaining to that current or former employee. An employer who receives a written 

or oral request from a current or former employee to inspect or copy his or her payroll records shall comply 

with the request as soon as practicable, but no later than 21 calendar days from the date of the request. A 

failure by an employer to permit a current or former employee to inspect or copy his or her payroll records 

within the aforementioned 21 calendar day period entitles the current or former employee to recover a 

penalty from the employer in a civil action before a court of competent jurisdiction, under Labor Code § 

226, subdivisions (c) and (f). 

119. Defendants are required to keep accurate payroll records on each employee, and such 

records must be made readily available for inspection by the employee upon reasonable request. Plaintiff 

requested complete timecards, timekeeping records, and payroll information including all itemized earning 

statements showing, but not limited to, the hours worked and the applicable rate of pay for each pay period, 

and earning statements for each period. (See IWC Orders 1 through 15, Section 7, and IWC Order 16, 

Section 6.) Section 7 of the applicable IWC Wage Orders states as follows: 

7. Records 

(A) Every employer shall keep accurate information with respect to each employee 

including the following: 

(1) Full name, home address, occupation and social security number. 

(2) Birth date, if under 18 years, and designation as a minor. 

(3) Time records showing when the employee begins and ends each work period. 

Meal periods, split shift intervals and total daily hours worked shall also be recorded. Meal 

periods during which operations cease and authorized rest periods need not be recorded. 

(4) Total wages paid each payroll period, including value of board, lodging, or other 

compensation actually furnished to the employee. 

(5) Total hours worked in the payroll period and applicable rates of pay. This 

information shall be made readily available to the employee upon reasonable request. 

(6) When a piece rate or incentive plan is in operation, piece rates or an explanation 

of the incentive plan formula shall be provided to employees. An accurate production record 

shall be maintained by the employer. 

(B) Every employer shall semimonthly or at the time of each payment of wages furnish each 

employee, either as a detachable part of the check, draft, or voucher paying the employee’s wages, 

or separately, an itemized statement in writing showing: (1) all deductions; (2) the inclusive dates of 

the period for which the employee is paid; (3) the name of the employee or the employee’s social 

security number; and (4) the name of the employer, provided all deductions made on written orders 

of the employee maybe aggregated and shown as one item. 
-32- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

(C) All required records shall be in the English language and in ink or other indelible form, properly 

dated, showing month, day, and year and shall be kept on file by the employer for at least three (3) 

years at the place of employment or at a central location within the State of California. An 

employee’s records shall be available for inspection by the employee upon reasonable request. 

120. Labor Code § 432 requires employers, like Defendants, to give an employee or job 

applicant, upon request, a copy of any documents that the employee or applicant has signed relating to the 

obtaining or holding of employment. 

121. Labor Code § 1198.5 requires that employers, like Defendants, allow employees and former 

employees access to their personnel files and records that relate to the employee’s performance or to any 

grievance concerning the employee. Inspections must be allowed at reasonable times and intervals. To 

facilitate the inspection, employers must do one of the following: (1) keep a copy of each employee’s 

personnel records at the place where the employee reports to work, (2) make the personnel records available 

at the place where the employee reports to work within a reasonable amount of time following the 

employee’s request, or (3) permit the employee to inspect the records at the location where they are stored 

with no loss of compensation to the employee. 

122. Before Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Classes filed this action, Plaintiff wrote a prelitigation demand letter to Defendants in which she requested Defendants produce: Plaintiff’s pay 

check stubs or other wage statements; any documents signed by Plaintiff relating to her employment; 

and Plaintiff’s personnel file. Defendants have failed to produce and explicitly refuse to produce these 

documents within thirty (30) days of Plaintiff’s written request. 

123. Under Labor Code § 226, subsections (e) and (f), and based on Defendants’ conduct as 

alleged herein, Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Classes are entitled to (a) fifty dollars ($50) for the initial 

pay period in which a wage and hour statement violation occurred, and one hundred dollars ($100) 

per employee for each violation in subsequent pay periods, not exceeding an aggregate penalty of 

four thousand ($4,000); (b) an additional seven hundred and fifty dollar ($750) penalty for 

Defendants’ failure to allow Plaintiff to timely inspect and copy pertinent records; and (c) injunctive 

relief to ensure Defendants’ compliance with Labor Code § 226; and (d) an award of costs and 

reasonable attorney’s fees. 
-33- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

124. Defendants’ conduct also entitles Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Classes to seek preliminary 

and permanent injunctive relief, including but not limited to an order that Defendants comply with a 

lawful request to provide personnel records, copies of signed documents and that Defendants issue 

wage and hour statements to Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Classes that comply with Labor Code § 226.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

FAILURE TO REIMBURSE BUSINESS EXPENSES 

 [CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §§ 2800-2802] 

(Against all Defendants) 

125. Plaintiff and members of the Class (and subclasses) re-allege and incorporate by 

reference the paragraphs above, with the same force and effect as if set forth herein in full. 

126. Plaintiff and the Class are informed and believe and based thereon allege that 

throughout the period applicable, Defendants were required to pay for lawful and necessary work 

related expenses such as, but not limited to fire resistant clothing as required to perform the job, that 

could not reasonably be worn elsewhere and was specific to the job. Plaintiff and the Class Members 

were also often required to drive great distances in a work shift to visit assigned work sites and 

facilities. Defendant required non-exempt production operations employees to use their own 

automobiles for these work purposes, all without any reimbursement for the miles they drove or for 

the maintenance on their vehicles. Plaintiff and the Class Members were not reimbursed for those 

lawful and necessary work related expenses or losses incurred in direct discharge of their job duties 

during employment with Defendants and at the direction of the Defendants pursuant to Labor Code § 

2802(a) and the applicable IWC Wage Orders and sections of the California Code of Regulations. 

127. Defendants’ knowing and willful failure to reimburse lawful necessary work related 

expenses and losses to Plaintiff and the Class Members resulted in damages because, among other 

things, Defendants did not inform employees of their right to be reimbursed for those work related 

expenses. As Defendants failed to inform and misled Plaintiff and the Class Members with regard to 

their rights, Plaintiff and the Class Members were led to believe that incurring those lawful and 

necessary expenses and losses was an expected and essential function of their employment with 
-34- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

Defendant and that failure to incur those expenses would have adverse consequences on their 

employment status. 

128. Therefore, Plaintiff and the Class Members are entitled to reimbursement for any and 

all necessary work related expenses, as provided for in Labor Code § 2802(b), incurred during the 

direct discharge of their duties while employed by Defendant as well as accrued interest on those 

expenses that were not reimbursed from the date Plaintiff and the Class Members incurred those 

expenses. Further, Plaintiff and the Class Members are entitled to costs and attorney’s fees pursuant 

to Labor Code § 2802(c). 

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

FOR FAILURE TO PAY WAGES UPON TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT 

[CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §§ 201-203] 

(Against All Defendants) 

129. Plaintiff and the Members of the Class (and subclasses) re-allege and incorporate by 

reference, as though fully set forth herein, the paragraphs previously alleged in this Complaint. 

130. Plaintiff and many of the Class Members quit or were discharged from their employment 

with Defendants within the applicable statute of limitations. 

131. However, Defendants failed to pay them without abatement, all wages as defined by 

applicable California law. Among other things, these employees were not paid any of the overtime 

compensation or premium pay referred to in this Complaint. Defendants’ failure to pay said wages within the 

required time was willful within the meaning of Labor Code § 203. 

132. Therefore, each of these employees is entitled to one day’s wages for each day he or she was 

not timely paid all said wages due, up to a maximum of thirty (30) days’ wages for each employee. Because 

none of the employees were ever paid all earned overtime wages to which they were entitled, and as referred 

to in this Complaint, each of these employees is entitled to thirty (30) days of wages. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 
-35- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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 

FOR UNLAWFUL COMPETITION AND UNLAWFUL BUSINESS PRACTICES 

[CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE §§ 17200, et seq.] 

(Against All Defendants) 

133. Plaintiff and the Members of the Class (and subclasses) re-allege and incorporate by 

reference, as though fully set forth herein, the paragraphs previously alleged in this Complaint. 

134. This claim is brought by Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of the Class and the 

subclasses thereof. 

135. At all times relevant hereto, from time to time, the Class Members have worked more than 

eight (8) hours in a workday, and/or more than forty (40) hours in a workweek, as employees of Defendants. 

The representative Plaintiff herein and members of the Class have had their hours adjusted, changed, 

underpaid, and/or modified to not reflect their actual number of hours worked per day and per pay period, 

including by Defendants’ failure to pay for all overtime hours worked at the appropriate rate of pay and by 

requiring off the clock work before and after work shifts. 

136. At all times relevant hereto, from time to time, Plaintiff and aggrieved employees have 

worked more than twelve (12) hours in a workday, and/or more than eight (8) hours on the seventh (7th) 

consecutive workday in a workweek, as employees of Defendants. The representative Plaintiff herein and 

members of the Class have not been paid overtime, or have not been paid overtime at the appropriate rates, 

for all hours worked on and after a seventh consecutive work shift. 

137. At all times relevant hereto, from time to time, Plaintiff and the Class Members have been 

denied meal breaks by Defendants. 

138. At all times relevant hereto, from time to time, Plaintiff and the Class Members have been 

denied rest breaks by Defendants. 

139. Defendants, and each of them, are “persons” as defined under of Business & Professions 

Code § 17021. 

140. Since at least four years to the present time and at all times relevant hereto, by and through 

the conduct described herein, the Defendants have engaged in unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business 

practices, in violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq., and have thereby 
-36- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

deprived Plaintiff, and all persons in interest, of fundamental rights and privileges guaranteed to all 

employees under California law. 

141. Defendants own, operate and manage facilities in California which provide services in 

California to the public as defined in of Business & Professions Code §§ 17022 and 17024. 

142. Defendants, as set forth in this Complaint, supra, engaged in false, unfair and misleading 

business practices, consisting of acts and omissions that include, but are not limited to: 

(a) The fact that Defendants required non-exempt, hourly employees to work more than 

three and a half (3.5) hour shifts without a ten (10) minute rest period; 

(b) The fact that Defendants required non-exempt, hourly employees to work more than 

five (5) hour shifts without a thirty (30) minute meal period; 

(c) The fact that Defendants adjusted, altered, underpaid and/or changed time and/or 

pay schedules to reflect that employee Class Members had not worked all straight 

time and overtime hours; 

(d) The fact that Defendants required non-exempt, hourly employees to work more than 

five (5) hours per week without a thirty (30) minutes rest period, and then adjusted, 

altered and/or changed schedules and/or time clocks to reflect that they had received 

a thirty (30) minute meal period; 

(e) The fact that Defendants kept no detailed records of non-exempt, hourly employees’ 

actual daily work activities, in part, to prevent Plaintiff and Plaintiff Classes from 

recovering overtime wages from Defendants after the discovery of Defendants’ 

deceptive, fraudulent, false, unfair and unlawful conduct; 

(f) The fact that Defendants failed to pay all earned wages to Plaintiff and Plaintiff 

Class for all hours worked. 

(g) The fact that Defendants failed to pay all earned wages to Plaintiff and Plaintiff 

Class twice monthly for all hours worked. 

(h) The fact that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Plaintiff Classes all business 

expenses incurred in the discharge of their duties; 

(i) The fact that Defendants failed to pay all earned wages to Plaintiff and Plaintiff 
-37- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

Class upon termination of employment. 

(j) The fact that Defendants failed to pay all earned wages to Plaintiff and the Plaintiff 

Class twice monthly. 

(k) The fact that Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class personnel 

records, signed documents and pay records when requested. 

(l) The fact that Defendants’ activities related to their failure to disclose material and 

relevant information constitutes violations of Business & Professions Code § 17200. 

143. Defendants, and each of them, have underreported to state authorities, wages earned by nonexempt, hourly employees and, therefore, have underpaid state taxes, employer matching funds, 

unemployment premiums and Worker’s Compensation premiums. The aforesaid conduct is criminal in 

nature and subjects the Defendants, and each of them, to sanctions, fines and imprisonment, and is 

actionable under of Business & Professions Code §§ 17000, et seq. and 17200, et seq.

144. Pursuant to of Business & Professions Code §§ 17071 and 17075, the failure of Defendants, 

and each of them, to pay overtime wages, related benefits, and employment taxes, is admissible as evidence 

of Defendants’ intent to violate Chapter 4 of the Unfair Business Trade Act.

145. Defendants’ practices are unlawful, unfair, deceptive, untrue, and misleading. Non-exempt, 

hourly employees, including Plaintiff and Plaintiff Classes are likely to be deceived by these practices. 

146. As a direct and proximate result of these acts and omissions, Plaintiff, is informed and 

believes, and based upon that information and belief alleges, that the Defendants, and each of them, were 

able to unfairly compete with other manufacturing facilities in the state of California by not paying overtime 

and wages in violation of Business & Professions Code Chapters 4 and 5, et al. Due to this unfair business 

practice, Defendants have been able to charge lower prices for its goods and services than the prices charged 

by other comparable jewelers doing business in the state of California. 

147. The victims of this unfair business practice include, but are not limited to, all non-exempt, 

hourly employees of Defendants, competitors of Defendants in the state of California, and the general 

public. 

148. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon that information and belief alleges, that 

Defendants, and each of them, performed the above-mentioned acts with the intent of gaining an unfair 
-38- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

competitive advantage and thereby injuring Plaintiff, other employees, other competitors, and the general 

public. 

149. By and through the conduct described above, Plaintiff, and all non-exempt, hourly 

employees, has been deprived of the right to be paid all wages earned, including meal and rest premiums 

and overtime compensation earned by virtue of employment with the Defendants at regular intervals, in 

accordance with the requirements of Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 218, 218.6, 226, 226.7, 432, 510, 

512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1198, 1198.5, 1199, 2800, 2802, 2698, 2699, 2699.3, 2699.5, and California Code of 

Regulations, Title 8, sections 11000, 11010, et seq., 

150. By and through their unfair, unlawful and/or fraudulent business practices described herein, 

Defendants, has obtained valuable property, money and services from Plaintiff, and all persons similarly 

situated, and has deprived Plaintiff, and all non-exempt, hourly employees of valuable rights and benefits 

guaranteed by law, all to their detriment. 

151. Plaintiff and the Class have injury-in-fact as a result of Defendants’ conduct. Moreover, 

Plaintiff and the Class have lost money as a direct result of Defendants’ unfair, unlawful, deceptive and 

fraudulent conduct. 

152. All of the acts described herein as violations of, among other things, the California Labor 

Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, are unlawful and in violation of public policy; and 

in addition are immoral, unethical, oppressive, fraudulent and unscrupulous, and thereby constitute unfair, 

unlawful and/or fraudulent business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 

17200, et seq. 

153. Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of members of the Plaintiff Classes, is entitled to, and 

does seek such relief as may be necessary to disgorge the profits which the Defendants have acquired, or of 

which Plaintiff has been deprived, by means of the above-described unfair, unlawful and/or fraudulent 

business practices. Plaintiff, and the members of the Plaintiff Classes, is not obligated to establish individual 

knowledge of the unfair practices of Defendants in order to recover restitution. 

154. Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of members of the Plaintiff Classes, is further entitled to 

and does seek a declaration that the above described business practices are unfair, unlawful and/or 

fraudulent, and injunctive relief restraining the Defendants, and each of them, from engaging in any of the 
-39- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

above-described unfair, unlawful and/or fraudulent business practices in the future. 

155. Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of members of the Plaintiff Classes, has no plain, 

speedy, and/or adequate remedy at law to redress the injuries which he has suffered as a consequence of the 

Defendants’ unfair, unlawful and/or fraudulent business practices. As a result of the unfair, unlawful and/or 

fraudulent business practices described above, Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class have suffered and will 

continue to suffer irreparable harm unless the Defendants’ and each of them, are restrained from continuing 

to engage in said unfair, unlawful and/or fraudulent business practices. 

156. Plaintiff also alleges that if Defendants are not enjoined from the conduct set forth herein 

above, they will continue to fail to pay overtime wages to non-exempt, hourly employees. In addition, 

Defendants, and each of them, will continue to avoid paying the appropriate taxes, insurance and 

unemployment holdings. 

157. Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of members of the Plaintiff Classes, requests that the 

Court issue a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the Defendants, and each of them, from 

requiring non-exempt, hourly employees from working more than eight (8) hours a work day and/or forty 

(40) hours a week in any work week without payment of overtime wages. 

158. Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of members of the Plaintiff Classes, also requests that 

the Court order Defendants to disgorge all illegally obtained monies from failing to pay taxes, state disability 

insurance premiums, and unemployment taxes, obtained by way of their violation of Business & Professions 

Code §§ 17200, et seq. 

159. As Plaintiff seeks to enforce an important right affecting the public interest, to wit, the 

lawful payment of overtime wages as required by law the disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and the restitution 

of unlawfully withheld wages, with interest thereon, Plaintiff requests an award of attorneys’ fees, pursuant 

to Code Civil Procedure § 1021.5. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 
-40- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

VIOLATION OF PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERALS ACT 

[CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §§ 2698 and 2699] 

(Against All Defendants) 

160. Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Classes (and subclasses) re-allege and incorporate by reference, as 

though fully set forth herein, the paragraphs previously alleged in this Complaint. 

161. As a result of the previously alleged policies and practices and Defendants’ resulting 

violations of the sections of the California Labor Code addressed above, Plaintiff seeks penalties under 

Labor Code §§ 2698 and 2699 on behalf of herself and all other similarly aggrieved employees. 

162. Plaintiff has met all of the requirements set forth in Labor Code §§ 2699.3 necessary to 

commence a civil action against Defendants for violations of Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.3,

226.7, 510, 512, 1174, 1194, 1197, and 1199, predicated on violations of paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12 of the 

applicable IWC Wage Orders and the Labor Code violations alleged throughout the operative complaint. 

163. Plaintiff is also entitled to recover unpaid wages for violations that occurred 

during the statutory period, which are payable directly to Plaintiff and other current and former 

employees who suffered one or more violations alleged herein. 

164. Labor Code § 558 provides that any employer or other person acting on behalf of 

an employer who violates, or causes to be violated, a section of this chapter or any provision 

regulating hours and days of work in any order of the Industrial Welfare Commission may be 

liable for civil penalties and resulting unpaid wages. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants are 

responsible for the nonpayment of wages, as well as the related Labor Code violations 

complained of herein for instituting and enforcing unlawful policies and procedures and for 

failing to remediate the unlawful conditions, in spite of complaints to Defendants’ management. 

165. Plaintiff, for herself and on behalf of all other similarly aggrieved current and former 

employees of Defendants, seeks civil penalties in the amount of: 

(a) one hundred dollars ($100.00) for each of the first violation per employee, per pay 

period; 
-41- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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) two hundred dollars ($200.00) for each subsequent violation of each such provision, 

per employee, per pay period; 

(c) For their failure to provide uninterrupted off-duty meal and rest periods, Defendants 

are liable to all Plaintiffs for one hour of additional pay at the regular rate of compensation for each workday 

that the full and uninterrupted, off-duty rest and meal periods were not provided. Defendants are also liable 

for civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code §§ 558 and 2699 as follows: for any initial violation, $50.00 for 

each Plaintiff for each pay period during which the Plaintiffs were not provided proper meal and rest breaks; 

and for each subsequent violation $100.00 for each Plaintiff for each pay period during which the Plaintiffs 

were not provided proper meal and rest breaks. 

(d) For Defendants’ failure to pay wages due, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover such 

amounts, plus interest thereon, attorney’s fees and costs. Defendants are also liable for civil penalties 

pursuant to Labor Code §§ 558 and 2699 as follows: for any initial violation, $50.00 for each Plaintiff for 

each pay period during which the Plaintiff was not paid all earned wages; and for each subsequent violation, 

$100.00 for each Plaintiff for each pay period during which the Plaintiff was not paid all wages. 

(e) For Defendants’ failure to furnish accurate wage statements, Plaintiffs are entitled to 

recover the greater of all actual damages or $50.00 for the initial violation and $100.00 for each subsequent 

violation, up to $4,000.00. Defendants are additionally liable for civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code §§ 

226.3 and 2699 in the amount of $250.00 for each Plaintiff per initial violation and $1,000.00 for each 

Plaintiff per subsequent violation. 

(f) For Defendants’ failure to keep accurate payroll records, Defendants are liable for 

civil penalties pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 1174.5 and 2699 in the amount of $500.00 per 

violation. 

166. These penalties will be allocated 75% to the Labor Workforce Development Agency 

(“LWDA”) and 25% to the affected employees. 

167. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and each Plaintiff Classes he seeks to represent request relief as 

described herein and below and as deemed just. 
-42- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

PRAYER 

WHEREFORE, the PLAINTIFF DEMANDS and JURY TRIAL and prays for judgment as follows: 

ON THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: 

(a) For Facilitated Notice under 29 USC § 216(b); 

(b) For compensation pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, 206, 207, et 

seq. 

(c) Conditional and Final Certification of a Collective Action; 

(d) For interest on any compensatory damages; and 

(e) For attorneys’ fees, interest, and costs of suit pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 

216(b). 

ON THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: 

(a) For compensatory damages and/or statutory damages and statutory penalties 

resulting from improper compensation according to proof; 

(b) For interest on any compensatory damages; 

(c) For Certification of the Classes defined herein, or such other Classes and/or 

subclasses as the Court will certify; and 

(d) For attorneys’ fees and costs as allowed by law. 

ON THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: 

(a) For statutory compensation, including one hour of pay for each workday that a 

lawful meal period was not provided; 

(b) For interest on any compensatory damages; 

(c) For Certification of the Classes defined herein, or such other Classes and/or 

subclasses as the Court will certify; 

(d) For attorneys’ fees and costs. 

ON THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: 

(a) For statutory compensation, including one hour of pay for each workday that a 

lawful rest period was not provided; 

(b) For interest on any compensatory damages; 
-43- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

(c) For Certification of the Classes defined herein, or such other Classes and/or 

subclasses as the Court will certify; and 

(d) For attorneys’ fees and costs. 

ON THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: 

(a) For statutory penalties; 

(b) For compensatory damages and interest thereon for actual harm caused; 

(c) For Certification of the Classes defined herein, or such other Classes and/or 

subclasses as the Court will certify; and 

(d) For attorneys’ fees and costs as allowed by law. 

ON THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: 

(a) For compensatory damages and/or statutory damages and statutory penalties 

resulting from improper compensation according to proof; 

(b) For interest on any compensatory damages; 

(c) For Certification of the Classes defined herein, or such other Classes and/or 

subclasses as the Court will certify; and 

(d) For attorneys’ fees and costs as allowed by law. 

ON THE SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: 

(a) For statutory penalties; 

(b) For attorneys’ fees and costs as allowed by law. 

ON THE EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION: 

(a) For statutory penalties; 

(b) For the equitable, injunctive and declaratory relief requested; 

(c) For Certification of the Classes defined herein, or such other Classes and/or 

subclasses as the Court will certify; and 

(d) For attorneys’ fees and costs as allowed by law. 

ON THE NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION: 

(a) For actual expenses incurred as allowed by Labor Code § 2802 

(b) For special damages; 
-44- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

(c) For certification of the Classes defined herein, or such other Classes and/or 

subclasses as the Court will certify; and 

(d) For attorneys’ fees and costs. 

ON THE TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: 

(a) For statutory penalties, including 30 days of pay for each employee not timely paid 

wages upon termination; 

(b) For penalty enhancements for willful conduct; 

(c) For Certification of the Classes defined herein, or such other Classes and/or 

subclasses as the Court will certify; and 

(d) For attorneys’ fees and costs. 

ON THE ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: 

(a) For the equitable, injunctive and declaratory relief; 

(b) Treble damages; 

(c) For Certification of the Classes defined herein, or such other Classes and/or 

subclasses as the Court will certify; and 

(d) For disgorgement of profits. 

ON THE TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: 

(a) That DEFENDANTS be ordered to pay civil penalties pursuant to violations of 

Labor Code §§ 2698 and 2699, in the amount of $100 for the first violation per 

employee per pay period, and $200 for subsequent violations per employee per pay 

period to be allocated 75% to the LWDA and 25% to the affected employees; and 

(b) For reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as allowed by statute. 

ON ALL CAUSES OF ACTION: 

(a) For reasonable attorneys’ fees; 

(b) For costs of suit; and, 

(c) For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. 
-45- 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

Dated: November 16, 2016 QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES 

By: ___________________________________ 

RICHARD E. QUINTILONE II, 

ALVIN B. LINDSAY 

Attorney for Plaintiff JENNIFER ANDERSON, 

on behalf of herself and on behalf of a Class of all 

other persons similarly situated 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 Plaintiff hereby demands trial of the claims by jury to the extent authorized by law. 

Dated: November 16, 2016 QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES 

By: ___________________________________ 

RICHARD E. QUINTILONE II, 

ALVIN B. LINDSAY 

Attorney for Plaintiff JENNIFER ANDERSON, 

on behalf of herself and on behalf of a Class of all 

other persons similarly situated