oO on anuw F Ww NH

wy NN NNN BP Be Be Be eB Be Be Be eB
A FB WOH fF OO WAN DH FF WwW NHN F CO

of one-and-one-half their regular rate of pay. For example, during the work period
January 10, 2016 through January 16, 2016, Plaintiff worked a minimum of forty-five
hours and was paid for those forty-five hours at his regular hourly rate of $12 per
hour;

17. By not paying overtime wages in compliance with the FLSA, Defendants violated the
rights of Plaintiff under the FLSA;

18. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants failure to pay overtime wages under
the FLSA, Plaintiff incurred compensatory damages in the form of lost overtime
compensation;

19. Defendants conduct was willful and intentional, and done with reckless disregard of
their responsibilities under the FLSA, and without good cause, and failed to pay
Plaintiff his overtime compensation, and thus Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for
liquidated damages in an amount equal to their lost overtime wages pursuant to 29
U.S.C. §216(b);

20. Plaintiff has been compelled to retain an attorney to bring this action for relief and is

entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below;

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of California Labor Code Sections 510- Non Payment of Overtime)

21. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1- 20 as if fully set
forth herein;

22. During the last 3 years, Plaintiff's employment was subject to California Labor Code
Section 510, et. al, and the applicable Wage Orders promulgated by the California
Industrial Welfare Commission pursuant to Labor Code Section 1173, which require

Padilla v. Oakland Pallet Company, Inc.

Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial
5


oOo wowN DOD UH fF WwW YN

mw NNN NN BF Be Be Be ee ew oe ek
S&S ££ ®2@N =F CO MN AAR HN HE OO

44,

45.

46.

pay day. This Labor Code section was violated for the additional reason that the
aggrieved employees and those similarly situated were not paid the overtime wages
earned twice during each calendar month, on days designated in advance by the
employer as the regular pay days;

Labor Code Section 226 — Plaintiff Francisco Padilla, and other similarly situated
persons, received an itemized statement as required by Labor Code section 226,
which was inaccurate for the following reasons:

1. Each statement of each aggrieved person was inaccurate because it did not set
forth the “gross wages” because overtime hours were not calculated and included in
the “gross wage;”

2. Each itemized statement of each aggrieved person was inaccurate because it did

not set forth the “net wages,” because overtime hours were not calculated and

included in the “net wage;

3. Each itemized statement for each aggrieved person does not set forth the number

of hours worked because it does not state the overtime hours worked, nor the rate of

pay;
Labor Code Section 226.7 — Plaintiff Francisco Padilla, and other similarly situated
persons, during the term of their employment, worked in excess of eight hours per
day and were not provided a rest or recovery period as mandated by Labor Code
Section 512, or were required to work during the rest or recovery period;
Labor Code Section 510 — Plaintiff Francisco Padilla, and other similarly situated
persons, regularly worked in excess of eight hours per day and in excess of forty

hours per week, and were not paid overtime compensation;

Padilla v. Oakland Pallet Company, Inc.
Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial
10


oO wn aura 6 NY eB

yw NNN NN 2B Bee we Be ee ew ek
S&S 8 ®8N F CO MANA HA KF wWDNH HO

29,

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Meal and Rest Breaks
Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512)
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1-28 as if fully
stated herein;
At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff's employment with Defendants was governed by
the California Labor Code and applicable Wage Orders promulgated by the California
Industrial Welfare Commission;
During the period three years prior to the filing of the complaint, Plaintiff routinely
worked more than eight hours per day and over forty hours per week, yet Defendants
denied Plaintiff meal breaks, and mandatory ten-minute rest breaks, and compelled
Plaintiff to work through those meal and rest break periods;
By requiring Plaintiff to work through the mandated meal and rest breaks, Defendants
violated Plaintiff’ rights under Labor Code Section 226.7;
As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants failure to provide the mandated meal
and rest breaks under the California Labor Code and Wage Orders, Plaintiff has
incurred compensatory damages in the form of lost meal and rest break premiums in
amounts to be proven at trial;
Defendants were aware of the existence and requirements of California Labor Code

Sections 226.7 and 512 and the Wage Orders, and Defendants willfully, knowingly,

and intentionally failed to provide Plaintiff with the mandatory meal and rest breaks;

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.

Padilla v. Oakland Pallet Company, Inc.
Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial
7


oO won anu F Ww DYN

wm oN NN NN BF Be Be ee ew ee ee
RB 8B ®S &® FCO mW NAA KWH HF OO

all covered employees to be paid overtime for work performed in excess of forty

hours per week and eight hours per day, unless specifically exempted by the law;
23. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of forty hours per

week and/or in excess of eight hours per day. Plaintiff was not paid the required

overtime rate;

24. During the last 3 years, Defendants knowingly and willfully caused, suffered and

permitted Plaintiff to regularly work in excess of forty hours per week and/or eight

hours per day without paying him the required overtime rate;

25. By not paying Plaintiff overtime wages in compliance with California law,

Defendants violated Plaintiff's rights under the law, specifically California Labor

Code Section 510;

26. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ failure to pay proper overtime wages

under the California Labor Code and Wage Orders, Plaintiff has incurred
compensatory damages in the form of lost overtime compensation in amounts to be
proven at trial;

27. Defendants were aware of the existence and requirements of the California Labor
Code Section 510 and the Wage Orders, and willfully, knowingly and intentionally
failed to pay Plaintiff the overtime compensation;

28. Plaintiff has been compelled to retain an attorney for the purpose of redress of the
Labor Code violations and is entitled to an award of attorneys fees and pre-judgment
interest pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1194(a), and other applicable
Code sections;

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.

Padilla v. Oakland Pallet Company, Inc.
Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial
6


oO wn oauwnr WwW NY

wm YN NNN Be Be Be eB ee ee ek
SR £8 ® YY F&F CO MN DAA KFH NH SF SG

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

Defendants are in competition with, and who were in compliance with California
wage and hour laws;

As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants statutory violations, the rights of the
Plaintiff under the law were violated, causing him to incur general damages in the
form of unpaid and lost wages to which he is legally entitled;

Defendants were aware of the existence and requirements of the state and federal
wage and hour laws, and willfully, knowingly, and intentionally failed to pay Plaintiff
overtime pay and provide meal and rest breaks. Plaintiff herein seeks restitution of
such compensation pursuant to the Business and Professions Code §17203;
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004)

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates those allegations 1-40, as if fully stated herein;
Plaintiff and those persons similarly situated to Plaintiff are aggrieved employees as
defined in California Labor Code section 2699(c), for the following Labor Code
violations committed by Defendants, and are entitled to penalties for each plaintiff
and similarly situated person of $100 per pay period for the initial violation and $200
per Plaintiff and similarly situated person for each subsequent pay period violation,
for the following violations;
Labor Code Section 204(b)(1) & (2) — Plaintiff Francisco Padilla, and other similarly
situated employees, are due overtime within the statutory period. Labor Code Section
204(b) was violated because the aggrieved employees were paid on a weekly basis,
and earned overtime during each workweek, and Defendants failed to pay the
aggrieved employees the earned overtime compensation no later than the next regular
Padilla v. Oakland Pallet Company, Inc.

Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial
9


oO own nw Fw DYN

wm NN NN NB Be Be Be Be Be Be Be Be
vA FB WO ND KF ODO wa NN DOD HF FW NH KF OO

ROBERT DAVID BAKER, INC.
Robert David Baker, Esq. (87314)
80 South White Road

San Jose, CA 95127

Telephone: (408) 251-3400
Facsimile: (408) 251-3401
rbaker@rdblaw.net

Attorney for Plaintiff
FRANCISCO PADILLA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO PADILLA, on behalf of himself
and those similarly situated individuals,

Plaintiff,
vs.

OAKLAND PALLET COMPANY, INC.;
JOSE G. PADILLA; CARLOS PADILLA;
MANUEL PADILLA; JAVIER PADILLA;
JUANA PADILLA

Defendants.

CASE NUMBER:

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

1.) Violation of FLSA, section 207 (overtime
wages);

2.) Violation of California Labor Code § 510
(overtime wages);

3.) Violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512 (meal
and rest breaks)

4.) For Restitution of Unpaid Wages in Violation
of California Unfair Trade Practices Act under
Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.
5.) For Violations of PAGA

Plaintiff Francisco Padilla, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated individuals

allege as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This action is brought pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., and this court has

jurisdiction pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and the doctrines of pendent and supplemental

Padilla v. Oakland Pallet Company, Inc.
Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial

1


oOo wn nun F Ww N

YN DYN Be Be ee ee ee ee
RE OS £&§ 6 OMAR AARHNH EO

. Enter an order certifying this action as an FLSA collective class action based on the

class of hourly employees who worked for Defendants within the past four years, and

who were entitled to overtime compensation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 207;

. Enter an order certifying Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons pursuant to the

Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, for the violations of the labor

code as set forth in the sixth cause of action, and attendant attorney fees;

. Enter a permanent injunctive order against Defendants ensuring compliance with

California Labor Code and Wage Orders and the FLSA;

. An order holding Defendants Jose G. Padilla, Carlos Padilla, Manuel Padilla, Javier

Padilla, and Juana Padilla, personally liable for all damages incurred by Plaintiff;

. For reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to California Labor Code §1194(a) and the

FLSA;

10. Award Plaintiff costs of suit herein;

11. Grant such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.

PLAINTIFF DEMAND A JURY TRIAL ON ALL CAUSES

Dated: February 1 20 \ a

Robert David Baker, Esq.

Padilla v. Oakland Pallet Company, Inc.
Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial
12


oO owmnNauwn rt WO NY

we NNN NN B® Bee we Be ee ee ee
S&S £8 ®2NnN F&F CO MNA HM KEWDW ND HO

47. Labor Code Section 512 — Plaintiff Francisco Padilla, and other similarly situated
persons, were denied meal periods, during the statutory period in violation of Labor
Code section 512 and the Wage Orders;

48. Labor Code Section 1174(d) — Defendants failed to keep payroll records showing the
hours worked daily and the wages paid to each aggrieved person, by virtue of the
failure to include overtime hours worked;

49. Plaintiff has mailed the required notification to the Labor and Workforce
Development Agency, requesting an investigation of the above violations.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below;

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendants and demand as

follows:

1. Award Plaintiff economic and compensatory economic damages for unpaid overtime
wages, meal, and rest break premiums, and other pecuniary losses in amounts to be
proven at trial;

2. Award Plaintiff pre-judgment interest of 10% on the amounts due under the
California Labor Code;

3. Award Plaintiff liquidated damages according to the FLSA;

4. Award Plaintiff restitution of unpaid overtime and meal and rest break premiums,
inter alia, pursuant to California Business and Professions Code §17203 in amounts to

be proven at trial;

Padilla v. Oakland Pallet Company, Inc.
Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial
i


own Oa fF Ww DYN

wh NN NNN Be Be ewe we ee ee ek
An F Oo YN KF OO OD NWO a fF WwW NH KY OO

35.

36.

37.

38.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Restitution of Unpaid Overtime Wages

In Violation of California’s Unfair Trade Practices Act

Business and Profession Code Sections 17200, et seq.)
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates those allegations of paragraphs 1-34, as if fully
stated herein;
At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff's employment with Defendants was governed by
the California Labor Code and applicable Wage Orders promulgated by the California
Industrial Welfare Commission and the FLSA, which require all employees to be paid
overtime for work performed in excess of forty hours per week or eight hours per day
unless specifically exempted by the law. Pursuant to the California Labor Code and
Applicable Wage Orders, Defendants were required to provide meal and rest breaks
to its employees;
During 4 years prior to filing the complaint, Defendants were subject to the California

Unfair Trade Practices Act (California Business and Professions Code Section

§17000 et seq.). Defendants violated the Unfair Trade Practices Act, by inter alia,

failure to pay Plaintiff overtime pay and provide meal and rest breaks; and pay a
minimum wage;

During 4 years prior to filing the complaint, Defendants wrongfully obtained monies
in the form of overtime wages and equivalent employee meal and rest break hours
that inured to Plaintiff. By doing so, Defendants violated California Unfair Trade
Practices Act, Business and Professions Code §17200, et seg. by committing acts
prohibited by the California Labor Code and applicable California Wage Orders, in

order to give Defendants a competitive advantage over businesses with whom

Padilla v. Oakland Pallet Company, Inc.
Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial
8


o wn au Ft Ww ND

wm NN NYDN Fe Be Be ee Be ew ek
QBS ONY F&F SCO OWN A HA KR wWDN FO

10.

11.

12.

13.

14,

15.

16.

During all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was not subject to an exemption from
overtime compensation pursuant to California or Federal law;
Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants had a plan, scheme, and policy,
whereby they would increase their profits and gain competitiveness over similarly
situated businesses by depriving hourly workers of overtime compensation, and
therefore Plaintiff is bringing this action as a class action pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) to redress this uniform plan, scheme, company
policy;
The unlawful decision, plan, and scheme employed by Defendants not paying
overtime to its hourly labor employees for hours worked over forty hours per week;
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act — Overtime Compensation
29 US.C. § 207)
Plaintiff incorporate those paragraphs 1 through 12, inclusive, as if fully set forth
hereinafter;
At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was covered pursuant to the provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. A. § 201, et seg. (“FLSA”).
Defendants were employers within the meaning of the 29 U.S.C.A. § 203(d);
29 U.S.C.A. § 207 requires all covered employees to be paid overtime for work
performed in excess of forty hours per week, unless specifically exempted by law;
Although Plaintiff was not exempt from overtime compensation during his
employment with Defendants, and although Defendants had full knowledge of their
duty to pay overtime compensation to Plaintiff, Defendants knowingly, through the

scheme described in paragraph 12, supra, caused, suffered, and permitted Plaintiff to
regularly work in excess of forty hours per week without paying him overtime wages
Padilla v. Oakland Pallet Company, Inc.

Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial
4


oO ont anuw rrr ww Nn eB

NNN NN BF Bw Be ee ee ee
REeSS &§ 6 OH UTTAR ANH EOS

Pallet Company, Inc. and the individual Defendants; the formalities of the corporate
structure are disregarded by Oakland Pallet Company Inc. and the individual
Defendants; The individual Defendants otherwise ignore the corporate separateness

between themselves and Oakland Pallet Company, Inc.;

. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each employee, agent, or manager of

Defendants personally participated, directed, authorized, and ratified the conduct set
forth hereinafter. The conduct of these individuals was done in the course and scope

of their agency and employment with Defendants;

. Plaintiff alleges that he and those individuals similarly situated to him were subject to

a plan, scheme, and policy of Defendants that deprived them of their lawfully earned
overtime compensation;

SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS

. Plaintiff began working at Oakland Pallet Company, Inc. more than four years prior

to the filing of this complaint;

. Plaintiff performed hourly labor and driving duties that were non-exempt duties under

both California and Federal wage and hour law;

. From on or after the date of their hire, Plaintiff was required to work in excess of

eight hours per day and/or forty hours per week without overtime compensation;

. During their employment with Defendants, Plaintiff worked at an hourly rate and was

paid weekly;

. During all times relevant herein, up to or about December 2016, Plaintiff was denied

meal breaks. At all times alleged, Plaintiff was denied rest periods;

Padilla v. Oakland Pallet Company, Inc.
Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial
3


an

jurisdiction pursuant. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiff bring this action on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated individuals (hereinafter collectively “Plaintiff”).
1. Plaintiff Francisco Padilla is an individual who has his place of residence in the
Northern District of California;
2. Defendant Oakland Pallet Company, Inc. is a California Corporation, with its
principal place of business in Alameda County, California. Defendants Jose G.
Padilla, Carlos Padilla, Manuel Padilla, Javier Padilla, and Juana Padillar (collectively

referred to as “the individual Defendants”), are individuals, residing in the Northern

oO own aun tz wo N

DY NNN ee ee eee ee
RRSS fF FO HDA AaARHNH HRS

District of California, who are the controlling stockholders in Defendant Oakland
Pallet Company, Inc. All Defendants are collectively referred to as (“Defendants”).
Plaintiff is informed and believes that Oakland Pallet Company, Inc., is the alter ego
of the individual Defendants, and that Oakland Pallet Company, Inc. was formed,
among other reasons, to defraud workers like Plaintiff by erecting a corporate shield
to protect the individual Defendants’ wrongful conduct. Oakland Pallet Company,
Inc. is not properly capitalized to respond in damages to workers’ wage complaints
such as Plaintiff herein. There is such a unity of interests between Oakland Pallet
Company, Inc. and the individual Defendants that it would be unfair and inequitable
to honor the corporate shield in the instant case because the result would be to
fraudulently deprive Plaintiff in this action of money lawfully owing to him due to his
earnest labors, and such a result would be inequitable. There is a unity of interest and
ownership between Oakland Pallet Company, Inc. and the individual Defendants such
that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individual Defendants no

longer exist, inter alia, to wit: money and assets are comingled between and Oakland

Padilla v. Oakland Pallet Company, Inc.
Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial
2