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 AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 

SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN (SBN 310719) 

sliss@llrlaw.com 

LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 

729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 

Boston, MA 02116 

(617) 994-5800 

MICHAEL L. FREEDMAN (SBN 262850) 

mfreedman@llrlaw.com 

LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 

466 Geary St., Suite 201 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

(415) 630-2651 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ELANA PERA and SARAH MURPHY, 

individually and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

S.A.W. ENTERTAINMENT LTD., d/b/a 

CONDOR GENTLEMEN’S CLUB 

Defendant 

Case No. ____________ 

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE 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 

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 

I. INTRODUCTION 

1. Plaintiffs Elana Pera and Sarah Murphy brings this suit as a class and collective 

action on behalf of other similarly situated aggrieved employees of S.A.W. Entertainment Ltd. 

d/b/a Condor Gentlemen’s Club (“Condor Club” or the “Club”) who have worked as exotic 

dancers for the Condor Club during the relevant statutory period. The Club has misclassified 

Plaintiffs and other similarly situated exotic dancers as independent contractors and, in so doing, 

has violated various provisions of California and federal law, including: (1) Cal. Lab. Code 

§§ 1197 and 1194 for failing to pay minimum wage; (2) the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 

§ 201, et seq., for failing to pay minimum wage; (3) Cal. Lab. Code § 226(a) for failing to 

provide itemized wage statements; (4) the Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Profs. Code 

§§ 17200, et seq.; (5) Cal. Lab. Code § 2802 by requiring dancers to pay various expenses that 

should have been borne by the employer; (6) Cal. Lab. Code § 351 (enforceable through Cal. 

Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200) by failing to allow dancers to retain all gratuities paid by customers; 

and San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 12R for failing to pay minimum wage. 

II. PARTIES 

2. Plaintiff Elana Pera is an adult resident of Richmond, California. She worked as a 

dancer at the Club from approximately August 2013 to June 2016.

3. Plaintiff Sarah Murphy is an adult resident of Oakland, California. She worked as 

a dancer at the Club from approximately October 2013 to February 2015.

4. Plaintiffs bring this case as a Rule 23 class action on behalf of all exotic dancers 

who have worked at the Club within the last four years and as an FLSA collective action on 

behalf of all exotic dancers who have worked at the Club within the last three years who may 

choose to opt in to this action.

5. Defendant S.A.W. Entertainment, Ltd. is a California corporation, with its 

principal place of business in San Francisco, California, which operates the Condor Gentlemen’s 

Club located at 560 Broadway Street in San Francisco, California.

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 

6. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1367. 

7. Venue is proper in this Court because Plaintiffs and other members of the class 

were employed by Defendant in San Francisco, California. 

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS 

8. The Club is an adult entertainment club located in San Francisco. 

9. The Club advertises itself on its website as “San Francisco’s Original 

Gentlemen’s Club since 1964.” 

10. The Club classifies all exotic dancers who perform at the Club as independent 

contractors, when in reality they are employees of Defendant. 

11. Defendant has exercised extensive control over the manner in which its exotic 

dancers, including Plaintiffs, perform their jobs and conduct themselves while on Defendant’s 

premises, including how much dancers can receive for private dances and sessions and how 

dancers can interact with customers. For example, Defendant has required Plaintiffs and other 

dancers to work at least three days per week and Defendant has imposed fines and other penalties 

for dancers who miss or are late for their scheduled shifts. Defendant also requires all dancers to 

work from when they arrive at the Club until the Club closes at 2:00 AM. 

12. In addition, Defendant is in the business of providing adult entertainment to its 

patrons. The dancers perform services in the usual course of the Defendant’s business, and 

without the dancers, Defendant would have no business. 

13. For example, the Club maintains a website on which it provides photographs and 

other information regarding the dancers who perform at the Club (including advertising the 

specific dates when dancers are working) and advertises special events. 

14. Exotic dancers who have worked for Defendant have not received any wages 

from Defendant. 

15. Instead, any compensation the dancers have received has come directly from 

patrons in the form of gratuities or tips. 

16. Out of these gratuities or tips, the dancers have been required to pay a portion 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4 

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 

(20%-50%) back to Defendant, as well as share their tips with other employees who are not 

eligible to share in tips, including managers and non-service employees (such as “house moms,” 

VIP hosts, and bouncers). 

17. Even if these payments from patrons were deemed to be the dancers’ “wages”, the 

dancers have not been permitted to retain the full amount of these wages, since Defendant has 

subtracted various fines, charges, and fees from these amounts (as well as requiring the dancers 

to share them with other employees). 

18. Based on their misclassification as independent contractors, Plaintiffs and other 

dancers have been required to bear expenses of their employment, including expenses for 

wardrobe that meets Defendant’s requirements. California law requires employers to reimburse 

employees for such expenses, which are for the benefit of the employer and are necessary for the 

employees to perform their jobs. 

19. Defendant have failed to provide Plaintiffs and other dancers with itemized wage 

statements showing the dancers’ hours worked, total wages earned, all deductions from wages, 

and all other information required by Cal. Lab. Code § 226(a). 

V. CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

20. Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 23, on behalf of all other dancers who have performed at the Club and who have been 

designated as “independent contractors” during the past four years. 

21. Plaintiffs and other class members have uniformly been misclassified as 

independent contractors. 

22. The members of the class or classes are so numerous that joinder of all class 

members is impracticable. 

23. Common questions of law and fact exist as to members of the class who have 

been misclassified as independent contractors. Among the questions of law and fact that are 

common to these drivers are: 

a. Whether class members have been required to follow uniform procedures and 

policies regarding their work for the Club; 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5 

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 

b. Whether the work performed by class members— nude or semi-nude dancing —

is within the Club’s usual course of business, and whether such service is fully 

integrated into its businesses; 

c. Whether these class members have been required to bear the expenses of their 

employment, such as expenses for their wardrobe, and other expenses. 

d. Whether class members were entitled to receive an hourly rate of the applicable 

California minimum wage for all hours worked at the Club. 

24. The named Plaintiffs are members of the class or classes described above, who 

suffered damages as a result of Defendant’s conduct and actions alleged herein. 

25. The named Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the class or classes 

described above, and the named Plaintiffs have the same interests as the other members of the 

class. 

26. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests 

of the class members. The named Plaintiffs have retained able counsel experienced in class 

action litigation. The interests of the named Plaintiffs are coincident with, and not antagonistic 

to, the interests of the other class members. 

27. The questions of law and fact common to the members of the class or classes 

predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, including legal and factual 

issues relating to liability and damages. 

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

adjudication of this controversy because joinder of all class members is impractical. Moreover, 

since the damages suffered by individual class members may be relatively small, the expense and 

burden of individual litigation makes it practically impossible for the members of the class 

individually to redress the wrongs done to them. Prosecution of this action as a class action will 

eliminate the possibility of repetitive litigation. There will be no difficulty in the management of 

this action as a class action. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6 

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 

29. Plaintiffs also bring this case as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) on 

behalf of any dancers who have worked at the Club within the last three years who may choose 

to “opt in” to this case. 

30. Plaintiffs are similarly situated to all other dancers who worked at the Club, and 

there is a group of similarly situated employees who were subject to Defendant’s common 

policies and who are entitled to notice of this action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). 

COUNT I 

Violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1197 and 1194 

31. Defendant’s conduct, as set forth above, in failing to pay their dancers minimum 

wage for all hours worked as required by California law, violates Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1197 and 

1194. This claim is brought on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals who worked for 

Defendant. 

COUNT II 

Violation of 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1)(C) 

32. Plaintiffs and other dancers who worked for Defendant were employees of 

Defendant for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act. However, Defendant has failed to pay 

the dancers an hourly rate of at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Defendant 

has thus violated the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1)(C), and has done so willfully, intentionally, 

and in bad faith. 

COUNT III 

Violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 226(a) 

33. Defendant’s conduct, as set forth above, in failing to provide itemized wage 

statements, as required by California state law, violates Cal. Lab. Code § 226(a). This claim is 

brought on behalf of a class of all dancers who have worked for Defendant during the relevant 

time period. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7 

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 

COUNT IV 

Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. 

34. Defendant’s conduct, as set forth above, violates the California Unfair 

Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. (“UCL”). Defendant’s conduct 

constitutes unlawful business acts or practices, in that Defendant has violated California Labor 

Code §§ 210, 226, 1194, 1197, and 2802. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs 

and class members suffered injury in fact and lost money and property, including, but not limited 

to unpaid wages, unpaid minimum wages, and business expenses that dancers were required to 

pay. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code § 17203, Plaintiffs and class members 

seek to recover restitution. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, Plaintiffs 

and class members who worked for Defendant in California are entitled to recover reasonable 

attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses incurred in bringing this action. 

COUNT V 

Violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 2802 

35. Defendant’s conduct, as set forth above, in misclassifying their dancers as 

independent contractors, and failing to reimburse them for expenses they paid that should have 

been borne by their employer, including requiring them to pay fees in order to work for which 

they are not reimbursed, constitutes a violation of California Labor Code Section 2802. This 

claim is brought on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals who have worked for 

Defendant during the relevant statutory period.

COUNT VI 

Violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 351 

(Enforceable Through Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.) 

36. Defendant’s conduct, as set forth above, in failing to permit dancers to retain all 

gratuities, including dance fees, paid by customers, constitutes a violation of California Labor 

Code § 351. This violation is enforceable pursuant to the UCL, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 

et seq. Defendant’s conduct constitutes unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent acts or practices, in that 

Defendant has violated California Labor Code §351 in not permitting dancers to retain all 
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 

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 

gratuities paid by customers to dancers. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiffs and class 

members suffered injury in fact and lost money and property, including the loss of gratuities to 

which they were entitled. Pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203, Plaintiffs and class 

members seek declaratory and injunctive relief for Defendant’s unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent 

conduct and to recover restitution. 

COUNT VII 

Violation of San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 12R 

37. Defendant’s conduct, as set forth above, in failing to pay their dancers minimum 

wage for all hours worked as required by the San Francisco Administrative Code, violates San 

Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 12R. This claim is brought on behalf of a class of 

similarly situated individuals who worked for Defendant. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the members of the putative class, pray for relief as 

follows: 

a. Certification of this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; 

b. Issuance of notice allowing similarly situated individuals to opt in to this case 

pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 28 U.S.C. § 216(b); 

c. Designation of Plaintiffs as representatives of the putative class and collective 

action; 

d. Designation of Plaintiffs’ Counsel as Class Counsel for the putative class and 

collective action; 

e. Damages for failure to pay minimum wage pursuant to federal and California law; 

f. Restitution pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; 

g. Liquidated damages pursuant to federal law; 

// 

// 

// 

// 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9 

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 

h. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and 

i. Attorneys’ fees and costs. 

Dated: January 11, 2017 Respectfully submitted, 

ELANA PERA and SARAH MURPHY, individually and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated, 

 

By their attorneys, 

__/s/ Shannon Liss-Riordan_____________________ 

SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN (State Bar No. 310719) 

sliss@llrlaw.com 

LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 

729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 

Boston, MA 02116 

(617) 994-5800 

MICHAEL L. FREEDMAN (State Bar No. 262850) 

mfreedman@llrlaw.com 

LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 

466 Geary St., Suite 201 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

(415) 630-2651