Preview
1 DOUGLAS HAN (SBN 232858)
SHUNT TATAVOS-GHARAJEH (SBN 272164)
2 TALIA LUX (SBN 336074)
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
3
751 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101
4 Pasadena, California 91103
Telephone: (818) 230-7502
5 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10 ISAAC HERNANDEZ, individually, and on Case No.: 22-CIV-04380
behalf of aggrieved employees pursuant to
11 the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”); Assigned for All Purposes to:
Honorable Marie S. Weiner
12 Plaintiff, Department 2
13 v. DECLARATION OF TALIA LUX IN
14 SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF ISAAC
DELTA STAR, INC.; a Delaware
HERNANDEZ’S OPPOSITION TO
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
15 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY
inclusive;
ACTION
16
Defendants.
[Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Stay the
17 Action filed concurrently herewith]
18
Hearing Date: July 25, 2023
19 Hearing Time: 2:00 p.m.
Hearing Place: Department 2
20
Complaint Filed: October 19, 2022
21 Removal Filed: November 21, 2022
22 Remanded on: February 2, 2023
Trial Date: None Set
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF TALIA LUX IN SUPPORT OF PLAINITFF’S
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY THE ACTION
1 DECLARATION OF TALIA LUX
2 I, Talia Lux, declare as follows:
3 I am an attorney duly licensed to practice before all courts of the State of California and I
4 am an attorney at Justice Law Corporation, attorneys of record for Plaintiff Isaac Hernandez
5 (“Plaintiff”) in this case. The facts set forth in this declaration are within my personal knowledge,
6 or based on information and belief, and, if called as a witness, I could and would competently
7 testify as follows.
8 1. On July 27, 2022, Plaintiff provided written notice to the Labor & Workforce
9 Development Agency (“LWDA”) and Defendant of the specific provisions of the Labor Code he
10 contends were violated and the theories supporting his contentions. The sixty-five day period for
11 the LWDA to take action or investigate the matter expired on or about September 30, 2022, with
12 the LWDA having taken no action. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s July 27, 2022 notice to
13 the LWDA is attached hereto as “EXHIBIT 1.”
14 2. On October 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed his complaint, alleging a single cause of action
15 under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), in the Superior Court of California,
16 County of San Mateo. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s PAGA Complaint is attached hereto
17 as “EXHIBIT 2.”
18 3. On November 21, 2022, Defendant Delta Star, Inc. (“Defendant”) filed its Notice
19 of Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1441, and 1446. A true and correct copy of
20 Defendant’s Notice of Removal is attached hereto as “EXHIBIT 3.”
21 4. On November 21, 2022, Defendant also filed its Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint.
22 A true and correct copy of Defendant’s Answer is attached hereto as “EXHIBIT 4.”
23 5. On December 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Remand. A true and correct
24 copy of Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is attached hereto as “EXHIBIT 5.”
25 6. On February 2, 2023, the United States District Court for the Northern District of
26 California issued an Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. A true and correct copy of the
27 District Court’s Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is attached hereto as “EXHIBIT 6.”
28 1
DECLARATION OF TALIA LUX IN SUPPORT OF PLAINITFF’S
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY THE ACTION
1 7. On September 16, 2021, Defendant filed its Answer to Plaintiff Max Wilson’s
2 Complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, Case No.: 21-CIV-04448.
3 A true and correct copy of Defendant’s Answer to Plaintiff Max Wilson’s Complaint is attached
4 hereto as “EXHIBIT 7.”
5 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
6 foregoing is true and correct.
7 Executed June 29, 2023 at Pasadena, California.
8
9 ______________________________________
10 Talia Lux
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 2
DECLARATION OF TALIA LUX IN SUPPORT OF PLAINITFF’S
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY THE ACTION
EXHIBIT 1
751 N. Fair Oaks Ave., Ste. 101, Pasadena, CA 91103 T: (818) 230-7502 F: (818) 230-7259 www.JusticeLawCorp.com
July 27, 2022
BY U.S. EMAIL/ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION
PAGAfilings@dir.ca.gov
State of California
Labor & Workforce Development Agency
800 Capitol Mall, MIC-55
Sacramento, California 95814
Re: DELTA STAR, INC.
Dear Representative:
We have been retained to represent Isaac Hernandez against Delta Star, Inc.
(including any and all affiliates, managers, members, subsidiaries, and parents, and their
shareholders, officers, directors, and employees), any individual, owner, officer and
managing agent, DOES 1-10 as an “Employer” or person acting on behalf of an “Employer”
pursuant to California Labor Code section 558.1, and DOES 11-201 for violations of California
wage-and-hour laws (hereinafter collectively referred to as “DELTA STAR”).
Mr. Hernandez is pursuing his California Labor Code section 2698, et seq., the Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) claim on a representative basis. Therefore, Mr.
Hernandez may seek penalties for violations of the Labor Code on behalf of the State of
California and aggrieved employees, which are recoverable under PAGA. This letter is sent in
compliance with the reporting requirements of California Labor Code section 2699.3.
Delta Star, Inc. is a Delaware corporation located at 3550 Mayflower Drive, Lynchburg,
Virginia 24501.
DELTA STAR employed Mr. Hernandez as an hourly-paid non-exempt Assembler
within one year of the data of this letter (until in or around June of 2022) in the State of
California. DELTA STAR directly controlled the wages, hours and/or working conditions of Mr.
Hernandez and other aggrieved employees’ employment, including direction, retention,
scheduling, supervision, and termination.
The “aggrieved employees” that Mr. Hernandez may seek penalties on behalf of are
all current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees (whether hired directly or
through a staffing agency) of DELTA STAR within the State of California.
1
Mr. Hernandez does not know the true names or capacities, whether individual, partner or corporate, of DOES 1 through
20, inclusive, and for that reason, said DOES are designated under such fictitious names. Mr. Hernandez will amend this
notice when the true names and capacities are known. Mr. Hernandez is informed and believes that each DOE was
responsible in some way for the matters alleged herein and proximately caused Mr. Hernandez and other current and
former aggrieved employees to be subject to the illegal employment practices, wrongs and injuries complained of herein.
LWDA
July 27, 2022
Page 2 of 7
DELTA STAR failed to properly pay its hourly-paid or non-exempt employees for all
hours worked, failed to properly provide or compensate minimum and overtime wages and
for meal and rest breaks, failed to issue compliant wage statements and failed to reimburse
for all necessary business-related costs and expenses, thus resulting in other Labor Code
violations as stated below.
Pursuant to Huff v. Securitas Security Services, 23 Cal. App. 5th 745, 751 (2018), an
employee who brings a representative action and was affected by at least one of the
violations alleged in the complaint has standing to pursue penalties on behalf of the state not
only for that violation, but for violations affecting other employees as well. Accordingly, Mr.
Hernandez has standing to pursue penalties on behalf of the state for violations affecting all
the aggrieved employees at DELTA STAR, regardless of their classification, job title, location,
or whether they were hired directly or through a staffing agency.
DELTA STAR has violated and/or continues to violate, among other provisions of the
California Labor Code and applicable wage law, California Labor Code sections 201, 202,
203, 204, 210, 218.5, 221, 226(a), 226.3, 226.7, 246, 432.5, 510, 512(a), 551, 552, 558,
1174(d), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2800 and 2802, and the IWC Wage Orders.
California Labor Code sections 510, 1194, and 1198 require employers to pay at least
minimum wage for all hours worked, pay time-and-a-half, or double-time overtime wages,
and make it unlawful to work employees for hours longer than eight hours in one day and/or
over forty hours in one week without paying the premium overtime rates. During the relevant
time period, Mr. Hernandez and other aggrieved employees routinely worked in excess of 8
hours in a day and 40 hours in a week. DELTA STAR failed to compensate Mr. Hernandez and
other aggrieved employees for all hours worked and performing off-the-clock work,
including pre- and post-shift, and during meal breaks. DELTA STAR also failed to include
non-discretionary bonuses and incentives in Mr. Hernandez and other aggrieved employees’
regular rate of pay for purposes of overtime compensation. Therefore, Mr. Hernandez and
aggrieved employees were entitled to receive certain wages for overtime compensation, but
they were not paid for all overtime hours worked.
///
///
///
LWDA
July 27, 2022
Page 3 of 7
California Labor Code section 246 requires that employers provide employees with
paid sick leave of not less than one hour per every 30 hours worked. California Labor Code
section 246(l) also requires that paid sick leave be paid at a non-exempt employee’s regular
rate of pay for the workweek in which the employee uses paid sick time or at a rate calculated
by dividing the employee’s total wages, not including overtime premium pay, by the
employee’s total hours worked in the full pay periods of the prior 90 days of employment.
During the relevant time period, DELTA STAR failed to pay Mr. Hernandez and other
aggrieved employees with paid sick leave that complied with California Labor Code section
246, by, for example, failing to pay paid sick leave at non-exempt employee’s regular rate of
pay or at a rate calculated by dividing the employee’s total wages, not including overtime
premium pay, by the employee’s total hours worked in the full pay periods of the prior 90
days of employment.
California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512 require employers to pay an employee
one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate for each workday that a meal or rest
break is not provided. During the relevant time period, DELTA STAR routinely required
aggrieved employees to work through, interrupt, cut short, and/or delay their meal and rest
breaks to comply with DELTA STAR’s policies and expectations. DELTA STAR failed to
provide coverage to aggrieved employees so they may be relieved of all work duties and
take legally mandated meal and rest breaks. Moreover, DELTA STAR also failed to authorize
and permit aggrieved employees to take the requisite number of meal and rest breaks,
including second meal breaks and third rest breaks, when working shifts exceeding 10 hours
in length. Despite these facts, DELTA STAR failed to compensate aggrieved employees all
the premium wages they were owed, including failing to pay premium wages at aggrieved
employees’ regular rate of pay.
California Labor Code section 551 states “[e]very person employed in any occupation
of labor is entitled to one day’s rest therefrom in seven.” Section 552 further states “[n]o
employer of labor shall cause his employees to work more than six days in seven.” DELTA
STAR required aggrieved employees to work seven days in a row or more without one day’s
rest.
California Labor Code section 432.5 states “[n]o employer, or agent, manager,
superintendent, or officer thereof, shall require any employee or applicant for employment to
agree, in writing, to any term or condition which is known by such employer, or agent,
manager, superintendent, or officer thereof to be prohibited by law.” DELTA STAR required
aggrieved employees to execute arbitration agreements as a condition of employment
despite knowing that such agreements are prohibited under Labor Code section 432.6.
///
///
LWDA
July 27, 2022
Page 4 of 7
California Labor Code section 201 requires that if an employer discharges an
employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge are due and payable
immediately. California Labor Code section 202 requires that if an employee not having a
written contract for a definite period quits his or her employment, his or her wages shall
become due and payable not later than 72 hours thereafter, unless the employee has given
72 hours previous notice of his or her intention to quit, in which case the employee is entitled
to his or her wages at the time of quitting. California Labor Code section 203 provides that if
an employer willfully fails to pay, without abatement or reduction, in accordance with Labor
Code sections 201 201.3, 201.5, 201.6, 201.8, 201.9, 202, and 205.5, any wages of an
employee who is discharged or who quits, the wages of the employee shall continue as a
penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or until an action therefor is
commenced; but the wages shall not continue for more than 30 days. During the relevant
time period, DELTA STAR failed to pay Mr. Hernandez and other aggrieved employees all
wages, including for uncompensated off-the-clock work, unpaid overtime premiums and
premium wages for failing to provide legally mandated meal and rest breaks, due to them
within any time period specified by California Labor Code sections 201 and 203 and
therefore is liable under California Labor Code section 203.
California Labor Code section 204 requires that all wages earned by any person in any
employment between the 1st and the 15th days, inclusive, of any calendar month, other than
those wages due upon termination of an employee, are due and payable between the 16th
and the 26th day of the month during which the labor was performed, and that all wages
earned by any person in any employment between the 16th and the last day, inclusive, of any
calendar month, other than those wages due upon termination of an employee, are due and
payable between the 1st and the 10th day of the following month. California Labor Code
section 204 also requires that all wages earned for labor in excess of the normal work period
shall be paid no later than the payday for the next regular payroll period. During the relevant
time period, DELTA STAR failed to pay Mr. Hernandez and other aggrieved employees all
wages due to them, including for uncompensated off-the-clock work, unpaid overtime
premiums and premium wages for failing to provide legally mandated meal and rest breaks
within any time period specified by California Labor Code section 204.
///
///
///
LWDA
July 27, 2022
Page 5 of 7
California Labor Code section 226 requires employers to make, keep and provide
complete and accurate itemized wage statements to their employees. During the relevant
time period, DELTA STAR did not provide Mr. Hernandez and other aggrieved employees
with complete and accurate itemized wage statements. The wage statements they received
from DELTA STAR were in violation of California Labor Code section 226(a). The violations
include, but are not limited to, the failure to include (1) gross wages earned by Mr.
Hernandez and other aggrieved employees, (2) total hours worked by Mr. Hernandez and
other aggrieved employees, (3) the number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable
piece rate by Mr. Hernandez and other aggrieved employees (4) all deductions for Mr.
Hernandez and other aggrieved employees, (5) net wages earned by Mr. Hernandez and
other aggrieved employees, (6) the inclusive dates of the period for which Mr. Hernandez
and other aggrieved employees are paid, (7) the name of the aggrieved 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 Mr. Hernandez and other
aggrieved employees.
California Labor Code section 558 allows recovery of penalties. (a) 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 shall be subject to a civil penalty as follows: (1) For any initial
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. Mr. Hernandez and other aggrieved employees have been denied their
wages and premium wages and, therefore, are entitled to penalties.
California Labor Code sections 1174(d) requires an employer to keep, at a central
location in the state or at the plants or establishments at which employees are employed,
payroll records showing the hours worked daily by and the wages paid to, and the number of
piece-rate units earned by and any applicable piece rate paid to, employees employed at the
respective plants or establishments. These records shall be kept with rules established for this
purpose by the commission, but in any case, shall be kept on file for not less than two years.
During the relevant time period, DELTA STAR failed to keep accurate and complete payroll
records showing the hours worked daily and the wages paid, to Mr. Hernandez and other
aggrieved employees.
///
LWDA
July 27, 2022
Page 6 of 7
California Labor Code sections 1194, 1197 and 1197.1 provide the minimum wage to
be paid to employees, and the payment of a lesser wage than the minimum so fixed is
unlawful. During the relevant time period, DELTA STAR did not provide Mr. Hernandez and
other aggrieved employees with the minimum wages to which they were entitled despite
constructive and actual knowledge of off-the-clock work, including pre- and post-shift, and
during meal breaks.
California Labor Code sections 2800 and 2802 require an employer to reimburse its
employee for all necessary expenditures incurred by the employee in direct consequence of
the discharge of his or her job duties or in direct consequence of his or her obedience to the
directions of the employer. During their employment, Mr. Hernandez and other aggrieved
employees incurred necessary business-related expenses and costs that were not fully
reimbursed by DELTA STAR, including for purchasing tools and equipment they were
required to use while working.
We believe that Mr. Hernandez and other current and former California-based hourly-
paid or non-exempt employees are entitled to penalties as allowed under California Labor
Code section 2698, et seq. for violations of Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210,
218.5, 221, 226(a), 226.3, 226.7, 246, 432.5, 510, 512(a), 551, 552, 558, 1174(d), 1194, 1197,
1197.1, 1198, 2800 and 2802, and the IWC Wage Orders.
California Labor Code section 2699.3 requires that a claimant send a certified letter to
the employer in questions and the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency
setting forth the claims, and the basis for the claims, thereby giving the California Labor &
Workforce Development Agency an opportunity to investigate the claims and/or take any
action it deems appropriate.
The purpose of this letter is to satisfy the requirement created by California Labor
code section 2699 prior to seeking penalties allowed by law for the aforementioned statutory
violations. We look forward to determining whether California Labor & Workforce
Development Agency intends to take any action in reference to these claims. We kindly
request that you respond to this notice according to the time frame contemplated by the
California Labor Code.
Mr. Hernandez will seek these penalties on his own behalf and on behalf of other
similarly situated California-based hourly-paid or non-exempt employees of DELTA STAR
within one year of the date of this letter, as allowed by law.
///
///
LWDA
July 27, 2022
Page 7 of 7
If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to
contact us. Thank you for your attention to this matter and the noble cause you advance each
and every day.
Very truly yours,
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
Douglas Han, Esq.
CC: (By Certified U.S. Mail Only):
Delta Star, Inc.
c/o CSC – Lawyers Incorporating Service
2710 Gateway Oaks Dr. Ste. 150N
Sacramento, California 95833
Agent for Service of Process for Delta Star, Inc.
EXHIBIT 2
1 DOUGLAS HAN (SBN 232858)
SHUNT TATAVOS-GHARAJEH (SBN 272164)
2 TALIA E. LUX (SBN 336074)
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
3 751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101
4 Pasadena, California 91103
Telephone: (818) 230-7502
5 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 10/19/2022
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10 22-CIV-04380
ISAAC HERNANDEZ, individually, and on Case No.:
11 behalf of aggrieved employees pursuant to
the Private Attorneys General Act COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL
12 (“PAGA”); PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF
LABOR CODE § 2698 et seq.
13 Plaintiff, (PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL
ACT OF 2004)
14 v.
15
DELTA STAR, INC., a Delaware
16 corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive;
17
Defendants.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES
1 Plaintiff ISAAC HERNANDEZ (“Plaintiff”) hereby submits his Complaint against
2 Defendant DELTA STAR, INC. and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive; (collectively,
3 “Defendants”), on behalf of himself and other current and former aggrieved employees of
4 Defendants for penalties as follows:
5 INTRODUCTION
6 1. This representative action brought pursuant to Labor Code § 2698 et seq.
7 (the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”)) for Defendants’ violations of Labor
8 Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 218.5, 221, 226(a), 226.3, 226.7, 246, 432.5, 510, 512(a),
9 558, 1174(d), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2800 and 2802.
10 2. This Complaint challenges Defendants’ systemic illegal employment
11 practices resulting in violations of the stated provisions of the Labor Code against the
12 identified group of employees.
13 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants
14 jointly and severally acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious
15 disregard to the rights of all employees in (1) failing to pay all meal period wages and rest
16 break wages, (2) failing to properly calculate and pay all minimum and overtime wages, (3)
17 failing to provide accurate wage statements, (4) failing to pay all wages due and owing during
18 employment and upon termination of employment, and (5) failing to reimburse all necessary
19 business expenses.
20 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
21 4. This action is brought pursuant to PAGA. The civil penalties sought by
22 Plaintiff exceed the minimal jurisdiction limits of the Superior Court and will be established
23 according to proof at trial.
24 5. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to California
25 Constitution, Article VI, Section 10, which grants the Superior Court original jurisdiction in all
26 causes except those given by statute to other courts. The statutes under which this action is
27 brought do not specify any other basis for jurisdiction.
28 ///
2
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES
1 6. This Court has jurisdiction over the violations of PAGA and Labor Code
2 §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 218.5, 221, 226(a), 226.3, 226.7, 246, 432.5, 510, 512(a), 558,
3 1174(d), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2800 and 2802.
4 7. This Court has jurisdiction over all Defendants because, upon
5 information and belief, each party has sufficient minimum contacts in California, or otherwise
6 intentionally avails itself of California law so as to render the exercise of jurisdiction over it by
7 the California courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
8 8. Venue is proper in this Court because, upon information and belief, the
9 named Defendants transact business and/or have offices in this county, and the acts and
10 omissions alleged herein took place in this county. Moreover, this action is brought on behalf
11 of the State of California as a private attorney general and has jurisdiction in this venue.
12 PARTIES
13 9. Plaintiff ISAAC HERNANDEZ is an individual residing in the State of
14 California. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants within the statutory time period.
15 10. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants
16 are licensed to do business and actually doing business in the State of California, including the
17 County of San Mateo.
18 11. Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities, whether individual,
19 partner or corporate, of Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and for that
20 reason, said Defendants are sued under such fictitious names, and Plaintiff prays for leave to
21 amend the complaint when the true names and capacities are known. Plaintiff is informed and
22 believes and thereon alleges that each of Defendants designated as a DOE was responsible in
23 some way for the matters alleged herein and proximately caused Plaintiff and other current and
24 former aggrieved employees to be subject to the illegal employment practices, wrongs and
25 injuries complained of herein.
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
3
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES
1 12. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, were
2 agents, partners, joint venturers, representatives, servants, employees, successors-in-interest,
3 co-conspirators and assigns, each of the other, and at all times relevant hereto were acting
4 within the course and scope of their authority as such agents, partners, joint venturers,
5 representatives, servants, employees, successors, co-conspirators and assigns, and that all acts
6 or omissions alleged herein were duly committed with ratification, knowledge, permission,
7 encouragement, authorization and consent of each Defendant designated herein.
8 13. As such, and based upon all the facts and circumstances incident to
9 Defendants’ business in California, Defendants are subject to PAGA and Labor Code §§ 201,
10 202, 203, 204, 210, 218.5, 221, 226(a), 226.3, 226.7, 246, 432.5, 510, 512(a), 558, 1174(d),
11 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2800 and 2802.
12 CAUSE OF ACTION
13 VIOLATION OF PAGA
14 (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS BY PLAINTIFF)
15 14. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through
16 13 as though fully set forth herein.
17 15. PAGA expressly establishes that any provision of the California Labor
18 Code which provides for a civil penalty to be assessed and collected by the LWDA, or any of
19 its departments, divisions, commissions, boards, agencies or employees for a violation of the
20 California Labor Code, may be recovered through a civil action brought by an aggrieved
21 employee on behalf of himself or herself, and other current or former employees.
22 16. On July 27, 2022, Plaintiff Hernandez provided written notice to the
23 LWDA and Defendants of the specific provisions of the Labor Code he contends were
24 violated, and the theories supporting his contentions. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and
25 incorporated by reference is a copy of the written notice to the LWDA. Plaintiff believes that
26 on or about September 30, 2022, the sixty-five (65) day notice period expired, and the LWDA
27 did not take any action to investigate or prosecute this matter. Therefore, Plaintiff has
28 exhausted his administrative remedies.
4
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES
1 17. Plaintiff and the other hourly-paid or non-exempt employees are
2 “aggrieved employees” as defined by California Labor Code § 2699(c) in that they are all
3 current or former employees of Defendants who worked for Defendants at any time during the
4 period from July 27, 2021 to the present, and one or more of the alleged violations was
5 committed against them.
6 Failure to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages
7 18. At all times relevant herein, Defendants were required to compensate
8 their non-exempt employees minimum wages for all hours worked and overtime wages for all
9 hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a day or forty (40) hours in a workweek, pursuant
10 to the mandate of Labor Code §§ 510, 1194, 1197, and 1198.
11 19. As a pattern and practice, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and
12 other aggrieved current and former employees for all hours worked, resulting in a failure to pay
13 all minimum wages and overtime wages, where applicable.
14 20. As a pattern and practice, Defendants failed to include non-discretionary
15 bonuses and incentives in aggrieved employees’ regular rate for purposes of overtime
16 compensation.
17 Failure to Provide Meal Periods and Rest Breaks
18 21. In accordance with the mandates of Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512,
19 Defendants were required to authorize and permit their non-exempt employees to take a 10-
20 minute rest break for every four (4) hours worked or major fraction thereof, and were further
21 required to provide their non-exempt employees with a 30-minute meal period for every five
22 (5) hours worked.
23 22. As a pattern and practice, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and
24 other aggrieved current and former employees with legally-mandated meal periods and rest
25 breaks and failed to pay proper compensation for this failure.
26 Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment
27 23. At all times relevant herein, Defendants were required to pay their
28 employees within a specified time period pursuant to the mandate of Labor Code § 204.
5
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES
1 24. As a pattern and practice, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other
2 aggrieved current and former employees all wages due and owing them within the required
3 time period.
4 Failure to Timely Pay Wages Upon Termination
5 25. At all times relevant herein, Defendants were required to pay their
6 employees all wages owed in a timely fashion at the end of employment pursuant to California
7 Labor Code §§ 201 to 204.
8 26. As a result of Defendants’ Labor Code violations alleged above,
9 Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the other aggrieved former employees their final wages
10 pursuant to Labor Code §§ 201 to 204 and accordingly owe waiting time penalties pursuant to
11 Labor Code § 203.
12 Failure to Provide Complete and Accurate Wage Statements
13 27. At all times relevant herein, Defendants were required to keep accurate
14 records regarding their California employees pursuant to the mandate of Labor Code §§ 226
15 and 1174.
16 28. As a result of Defendants’ various Labor Code violations, Defendants
17 failed to keep accurate records regarding Plaintiff and other aggrieved current and former
18 employees. For example, Defendants failed in their affirmative obligation to keep accurate
19 records regarding Plaintiff and other aggrieved current and former employees’ gross wages
20 earned, total hours worked, all deductions, net wages earned, and all applicable hourly rates
21 and the number of hours worked at each hourly rate.
22 Failure to Provide Paid Sick Days
23 29. At all times relevant herein, Defendants were required to provide their
24 employees with paid sick days pursuant to Labor Code § 246.
25 30. As a policy and practice, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and other
26 aggrieved current and former employees with paid sick days pursuant to Labor Code § 246
27 ///
28 ///
6
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES
1 Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses
2 31. At all times relevant herein, Defendants were required to reimburse their
3 employees for any and all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employees in direct
4 consequences of the discharge or their duties pursuant to the mandate of Labor Code §§ 2800
5 and 2802.
6 32. As a pattern and practice, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other
7 aggrieved current and former employees all business expenses incurred and owing them within
8 the required time period.
9 Penalties
10 33. Pursuant to California Labor Code § 2699, Plaintiff, individually, and on
11 behalf of other current and former aggrieved employees, requests and is entitled to recover
12 from Defendants, and each of them, civil penalties, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant,
13 including but not limited to:
14 34. Penalties under California Labor Code § 2699 in the amount of a
15 hundred dollars ($100) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial violation,
16 and two hundred dollars ($200) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each
17 subsequent violation;
18 35. Penalties under California Code of Regulations Title 8 § 11040 in the
19 amount of fifty dollars ($50) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial
20 violation, and one hundred dollars ($100) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each
21 subsequent violation;
22 36. Penalties under California Labor Code § 210 in addition to, and entirely
23 independent and apart from, any other penalty provided in the California Labor Code in the
24 amount of a hundred dollars ($100) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial
25 violation, and two hundred dollars ($200) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each
26 subsequent violation;
27 ///
28 ///
7
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES
1 37. Penalties uncler Labor Code $ 1197.1 in the amount of a hundred dollars
2 ($100) for each aggrieved employee pel pay period for the initial violation, and two hundred
J fifty dollars ($250) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each subsequent violation;
4 38. Any and all additional penalties as provided by the Labor Code and/or
5 other statutes; and
6 39. Attorneys' fees and costs pulsuant to Labor Code $$ 210, 1194, and
7 2699, and any other applicable statute.
8 PRAYER FOR RBLIEF
9 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on his own behalf as an individual and as a
10 representative of other curent and former aggrieved employees pursuant to PAGA, prays for
ll judgment as follows:
t2 1. Upon the Cause of Action, for civil penalties pursuant to statute as set forth in
13 Labor Code $ 2698 et,seq.,for Defendants'violations of Labor Code $$ 201,
l4 202, 203, 204, 210, 27 8.5, 221, 226(a), 226.3, 226 ;7, 246, 432.5, 5 1 0, 5 12(a),
15 558, 1 174(d), 1194, 1197, 119'7.1, 1 198, 2800 and 2802.
16 2. Upon the Cause of Action, for costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to Labor Code
17 $$ 210, 218.5,1 194, and 2699, and any other applicable statute; and
18 3. For such other and lurther reliel'the court may deem just and proper.
19
20 Dated: October 19,2022 J USTICE LAW CORPORATION
2t
22
By
23
Dor-rglas
Shur-rt Tatavos-Gharaj eh
24
Taliar Lux
25 f
A t t o r nqt ^s fbr Plaintif
26
27
28
8
COIVIPLAIN'I-FOR CIVIL P[]NN I, IIF-S
EXHIBIT 1
751 N. Fair Oaks Ave., Ste. 101, Pasadena, CA 91103 T: (818) 230-7502 F: (818) 230-7259 www.JusticeLawCorp.com
July 27, 2022
BY U.S. EMAIL/ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION
PAGAfilings@dir.ca.gov
State of California
Labor & Workforce Development Agency
800 Capitol Mall, MIC-55
Sacramento, California 95814
Re: DELTA STAR, INC.
Dear Representative:
We have been retained to represent Isaac Hernandez against Delta Star, Inc.
(including any and all affiliates, managers, members, subsidiaries, and parents, and their
shareholders, officers, directors, and employees), any individual, owner, officer and
managing agent, DOES 1-10 as an “Employer” or person acting on behalf of an “Employer”
pursuant to California Labor Code section 558.1, and DOES 11-201 for violations of California
wage-and-hour laws (hereinafter collectively referred to as “DELTA STAR”).
Mr. Hernandez is pursuing his California Labor Code section 2698, et seq., the Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) claim on a representative basis. Therefore, Mr.
Hernandez may seek penalties for violations of the Labor Code on behalf of the State of
California and aggrieved employees, which are recoverable under PAGA. This letter is sent in
compliance with the reporting requirements of California Labor Code section 2699.3.
Delta Star, Inc. is a Delaware corporation located at 3550 Mayflower Drive, Lynchburg,
Virginia 24501.
DELTA STAR employed Mr. Hernandez as an hourly-paid non-exempt Assembler
within one year of the data of this letter (until in or around June of 2022) in the State of
California. DELTA STAR directly controlled the wages, hours and/or working conditions of Mr.
Hernandez and other aggrieved employees’ employment, including direction, retention,
scheduling, supervision, and termination.
The “aggrieved employees” that Mr. Hernandez may seek penalties on behalf of are
all current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees (whether hired directly or
through a staffing agency) of DELTA STAR within the State of California.
1
Mr. Hernandez does not know the true names or capacities, whether individual, partner or corporate, of DOES 1 through
20, inclusive, and for that reason, said DOES are designated under such fictitious names. Mr. Hernandez will amend this
notice when the true names and capacities are known. Mr. Hernandez is informed and believes that each DOE was
responsible in some way for the matters alleged herein and proximately caused Mr. Hernandez and other current and
former aggrieved employees to be subject to the illegal employment practices, wrongs and injuries complained of herein.
LWDA
July 27, 2022
Page 2 of 7
DELTA STAR failed to properly pay its hourly-paid or non-exempt employees for all
hours worked, failed to properly provide or compensate minimum and overtime wages and
for meal and rest breaks, failed to issue compliant wage statements and failed to reimburse
for all necessary business-related costs and expenses, thus resulting in other Labor Code
violations as stated below.
Pursuant to Huff v. Securitas Security Services, 23 Cal. App. 5th 745, 751 (2018), an
employee who brings a representative action and was affected by at least one of the
violations alleged in the complaint has standing to pursue penalties on behalf of the state not
only for that violation, but for violations affecting other employees as well. Accordingly, Mr.
Hernandez has standing to pursue penalties on behalf of the state for violations affecting all
the aggrieved employees at DELTA STAR, regardless of their classification, job title, location,
or whether they were hired directly or through a staffing agency.
DELTA STAR has violated and/or continues to violate, among other provisions of the
California Labor Code and applicable wage law, California Labor Code sections 201, 202,
203, 204, 210, 218.5, 221, 226(a), 226.3, 226.7, 246, 432.5, 510, 512(a), 551, 552, 558,
1174(d), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2800 and 2802, and the IWC Wage Orders.
California Labor Code sections 510, 1194, and 1198 require employers to pay at least
minimum wage for all hours worked, pay time-and-a-half, or double-time overtime wages,
and make it unlawful to work employees for hours longer than eight hours in one day and/or
over forty hours in one week without paying the premium overtime rates. During the relevant
time period, Mr. Hernandez and other aggrieved employees routinely worked in excess of 8
hours in a day and 40 hours in a week. DELTA STAR failed to compensate Mr. Hernandez and
other aggrieved employees for all hours worked and performing off-the-clock work,
including pre- and post-shift, and during meal breaks. DELTA STAR also failed to include
non-discretionary bonuses and incentives in Mr. Hernandez and other aggrieved employees’
regular rate of pay for purposes of overtime compensation. Therefore, Mr. Hernandez and
aggrieved employees were entitled to receive certain wages for overtime compensation, but
they were not paid for all overtime hours worked.
///
///
///
LWDA
July 27, 2022
Page 3 of 7
California Labor Code section 246 requires that employers provide employees with
paid sick leave of not less than one hour per every 30 hours worked. California Labor Code
section 246(l) also requires that paid sick leave be paid at a non-exempt employee’s regular
rate of pay for the workweek in which the employee uses paid sick time or at a rate calculated
by dividing the employee’s total wages, not including overtime premium pay, by the
employee’s total hours worked in the full pay periods of the prior 90 days of employment.
During the relevant time period, DELTA STAR failed to pay Mr. Hernandez and other
aggrieved employees with paid sick leave that complied with California Labor Code section
246, by, for example, failing to pay paid sick leave at non-exempt employee’s regular rate of
pay or at a rate calculated by dividing the employee’s total wages, not including overtime
premium pay, by the employee’s total hours worked in the full pay periods of the prior 90
days of employment.
California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512 require employers to pay an employee
one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate for each workday that a meal or rest
break is not provided. During the relevant time period, DELTA STAR routinely required
aggrieved employees to work through, interrupt, cut short, and/or delay their meal and rest
breaks to comply with DELTA STAR’s policies and expectations. DELTA STAR failed to
provide coverage to aggrieved employees so they may be relieved of all work duties and
take legally mandated meal and rest breaks. Moreover, DELTA STAR also failed to authorize
and permit aggrieved employees to take the requisite number of meal and rest breaks,
including second meal breaks and third rest breaks, when working shifts exceeding 10 hours
in length. Despite these facts, DELTA STAR failed to compensate aggrieved employees all
the premium wages they were owed, including failing to pay premium wages at aggrieved
employees’ regular rate of pay.
California Labor Code section 551 states “[e]very person employed in any occupation
of labor is entitled to one day’s rest therefrom in seven.” Section 552 further states “[n]o
employer of labor shall cause his employees to work more than six days in seven.” DELTA
STAR required aggrieved employees to work seven days in a row or more without one day’s
rest.
California Labor Code section 432.5 states “[n]o employer, or agent, manager,
superintendent, or officer thereof, shall require any employee or applicant for employment to
agree, in writing, to any term or condition which is known by such employer, or agent,
manager, superintendent, or officer thereof to be prohibited by law.” DELTA STAR required
aggrieved employees to execute arbitration agreements as a condition of employment
despite knowing that such agreements are prohibited under Labor Code section 432.6.
///
///
LWDA
July 27, 2022
Page 4 of 7
California Labor Code section 201 requires that if an employer discharges an
employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge are due and payable
immediately. California Labor Code section 202 requires that if an employee not having a
written contract for a definite period quits his or her employment, his or her wages shall
become due and payable not later than 72 hours thereafter, unless the employee has given
72 hours previous notice of his or her intention to quit, in which case the employee is entitled
to his or her wages at the time of quitting. California Labor Code section 203 provides that if
an employer willfully fails to pay, without abatement or reduction, in accordance with Labor
Code sections 201 201.3, 201.5, 201.6, 201.8, 201.9, 202, and 205.5, any wages of an
employee who is discharged or who quits, the wages of the employee shall continue as a
penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or until an action therefor is
commenced; but the wages shall not continue for more than 30 days. During the relevant
time period, DELTA STAR failed to pay Mr. Hernandez and other aggrieved employees all
wages, including for uncompensated off-the-clock work, unpaid overtime premiums and
premium wages for failing to provide legally mandated meal and rest breaks, due to them
within any time period s
Preview
1 DOUGLAS HAN (SBN 232858) SHUNT TATAVOS-GHARAJEH (SBN 272164) 2 TALIA LUX (SBN 336074) JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 3 751 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101 4 Pasadena, California 91103 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 5 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 ISAAC HERNANDEZ, individually, and on Case No.: 22-CIV-04380 behalf of aggrieved employees pursuant to 11 the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”); Assigned for All Purposes to: Honorable Marie S. Weiner 12 Plaintiff, Department 2 13 v. DECLARATION OF TALIA LUX IN 14 SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF ISAAC DELTA STAR, INC.; a Delaware HERNANDEZ’S OPPOSITION TO corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, 15 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY inclusive; ACTION 16 Defendants. [Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Stay the 17 Action filed concurrently herewith] 18 Hearing Date: July 25, 2023 19 Hearing Time: 2:00 p.m. Hearing Place: Department 2 20 Complaint Filed: October 19, 2022 21 Removal Filed: November 21, 2022 22 Remanded on: February 2, 2023 Trial Date: None Set 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF TALIA LUX IN SUPPORT OF PLAINITFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY THE ACTION 1 DECLARATION OF TALIA LUX 2 I, Talia Lux, declare as follows: 3 I am an attorney duly licensed to practice before all courts of the State of California and I 4 am an attorney at Justice Law Corporation, attorneys of record for Plaintiff Isaac Hernandez 5 (“Plaintiff”) in this case. The facts set forth in this declaration are within my personal knowledge, 6 or based on information and belief, and, if called as a witness, I could and would competently 7 testify as follows. 8 1. On July 27, 2022, Plaintiff provided written notice to the Labor & Workforce 9 Development Agency (“LWDA”) and Defendant of the specific provisions of the Labor Code he 10 contends were violated and the theories supporting his contentions. The sixty-five day period for 11 the LWDA to take action or investigate the matter expired on or about September 30, 2022, with 12 the LWDA having taken no action. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s July 27, 2022 notice to 13 the LWDA is attached hereto as “EXHIBIT 1.” 14 2. On October 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed his complaint, alleging a single cause of action 15 under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), in the Superior Court of California, 16 County of San Mateo. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s PAGA Complaint is attached hereto 17 as “EXHIBIT 2.” 18 3. On November 21, 2022, Defendant Delta Star, Inc. (“Defendant”) filed its Notice 19 of Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1441, and 1446. A true and correct copy of 20 Defendant’s Notice of Removal is attached hereto as “EXHIBIT 3.” 21 4. On November 21, 2022, Defendant also filed its Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint. 22 A true and correct copy of Defendant’s Answer is attached hereto as “EXHIBIT 4.” 23 5. On December 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Remand. A true and correct 24 copy of Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is attached hereto as “EXHIBIT 5.” 25 6. On February 2, 2023, the United States District Court for the Northern District of 26 California issued an Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. A true and correct copy of the 27 District Court’s Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is attached hereto as “EXHIBIT 6.” 28 1 DECLARATION OF TALIA LUX IN SUPPORT OF PLAINITFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY THE ACTION 1 7. On September 16, 2021, Defendant filed its Answer to Plaintiff Max Wilson’s 2 Complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, Case No.: 21-CIV-04448. 3 A true and correct copy of Defendant’s Answer to Plaintiff Max Wilson’s Complaint is attached 4 hereto as “EXHIBIT 7.” 5 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 6 foregoing is true and correct. 7 Executed June 29, 2023 at Pasadena, California. 8 9 ______________________________________ 10 Talia Lux 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 DECLARATION OF TALIA LUX IN SUPPORT OF PLAINITFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY THE ACTION EXHIBIT 1 751 N. Fair Oaks Ave., Ste. 101, Pasadena, CA 91103 T: (818) 230-7502 F: (818) 230-7259 www.JusticeLawCorp.com July 27, 2022 BY U.S. EMAIL/ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION PAGAfilings@dir.ca.gov State of California Labor & Workforce Development Agency 800 Capitol Mall, MIC-55 Sacramento, California 95814 Re: DELTA STAR, INC. Dear Representative: We have been retained to represent Isaac Hernandez against Delta Star, Inc. (including any and all affiliates, managers, members, subsidiaries, and parents, and their shareholders, officers, directors, and employees), any individual, owner, officer and managing agent, DOES 1-10 as an “Employer” or person acting on behalf of an “Employer” pursuant to California Labor Code section 558.1, and DOES 11-201 for violations of California wage-and-hour laws (hereinafter collectively referred to as “DELTA STAR”). Mr. Hernandez is pursuing his California Labor Code section 2698, et seq., the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) claim on a representative basis. Therefore, Mr. Hernandez may seek penalties for violations of the Labor Code on behalf of the State of California and aggrieved employees, which are recoverable under PAGA. This letter is sent in compliance with the reporting requirements of California Labor Code section 2699.3. Delta Star, Inc. is a Delaware corporation located at 3550 Mayflower Drive, Lynchburg, Virginia 24501. DELTA STAR employed Mr. Hernandez as an hourly-paid non-exempt Assembler within one year of the data of this letter (until in or around June of 2022) in the State of California. DELTA STAR directly controlled the wages, hours and/or working conditions of Mr. Hernandez and other aggrieved employees’ employment, including direction, retention, scheduling, supervision, and termination. The “aggrieved employees” that Mr. Hernandez may seek penalties on behalf of are all current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees (whether hired directly or through a staffing agency) of DELTA STAR within the State of California. 1 Mr. Hernandez does not know the true names or capacities, whether individual, partner or corporate, of DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, and for that reason, said DOES are designated under such fictitious names. Mr. Hernandez will amend this notice when the true names and capacities are known. Mr. Hernandez is informed and believes that each DOE was responsible in some way for the matters alleged herein and proximately caused Mr. Hernandez and other current and former aggrieved employees to be subject to the illegal employment practices, wrongs and injuries complained of herein. LWDA July 27, 2022 Page 2 of 7 DELTA STAR failed to properly pay its hourly-paid or non-exempt employees for all hours worked, failed to properly provide or compensate minimum and overtime wages and for meal and rest breaks, failed to issue compliant wage statements and failed to reimburse for all necessary business-related costs and expenses, thus resulting in other Labor Code violations as stated below. Pursuant to Huff v. Securitas Security Services, 23 Cal. App. 5th 745, 751 (2018), an employee who brings a representative action and was affected by at least one of the violations alleged in the complaint has standing to pursue penalties on behalf of the state not only for that violation, but for violations affecting other employees as well. Accordingly, Mr. Hernandez has standing to pursue penalties on behalf of the state for violations affecting all the aggrieved employees at DELTA STAR, regardless of their classification, job title, location, or whether they were hired directly or through a staffing agency. DELTA STAR has violated and/or continues to violate, among other provisions of the California Labor Code and applicable wage law, California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 218.5, 221, 226(a), 226.3, 226.7, 246, 432.5, 510, 512(a), 551, 552, 558, 1174(d), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2800 and 2802, and the IWC Wage Orders. California Labor Code sections 510, 1194, and 1198 require employers to pay at least minimum wage for all hours worked, pay time-and-a-half, or double-time overtime wages, and make it unlawful to work employees for hours longer than eight hours in one day and/or over forty hours in one week without paying the premium overtime rates. During the relevant time period, Mr. Hernandez and other aggrieved employees routinely worked in excess of 8 hours in a day and 40 hours in a week. DELTA STAR failed to compensate Mr. Hernandez and other aggrieved employees for all hours worked and performing off-the-clock work, including pre- and post-shift, and during meal breaks. DELTA STAR also failed to include non-discretionary bonuses and incentives in Mr. Hernandez and other aggrieved employees’ regular rate of pay for purposes of overtime compensation. Therefore, Mr. Hernandez and aggrieved employees were entitled to receive certain wages for overtime compensation, but they were not paid for all overtime hours worked. /// /// /// LWDA July 27, 2022 Page 3 of 7 California Labor Code section 246 requires that employers provide employees with paid sick leave of not less than one hour per every 30 hours worked. California Labor Code section 246(l) also requires that paid sick leave be paid at a non-exempt employee’s regular rate of pay for the workweek in which the employee uses paid sick time or at a rate calculated by dividing the employee’s total wages, not including overtime premium pay, by the employee’s total hours worked in the full pay periods of the prior 90 days of employment. During the relevant time period, DELTA STAR failed to pay Mr. Hernandez and other aggrieved employees with paid sick leave that complied with California Labor Code section 246, by, for example, failing to pay paid sick leave at non-exempt employee’s regular rate of pay or at a rate calculated by dividing the employee’s total wages, not including overtime premium pay, by the employee’s total hours worked in the full pay periods of the prior 90 days of employment. California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512 require employers to pay an employee one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate for each workday that a meal or rest break is not provided. During the relevant time period, DELTA STAR routinely required aggrieved employees to work through, interrupt, cut short, and/or delay their meal and rest breaks to comply with DELTA STAR’s policies and expectations. DELTA STAR failed to provide coverage to aggrieved employees so they may be relieved of all work duties and take legally mandated meal and rest breaks. Moreover, DELTA STAR also failed to authorize and permit aggrieved employees to take the requisite number of meal and rest breaks, including second meal breaks and third rest breaks, when working shifts exceeding 10 hours in length. Despite these facts, DELTA STAR failed to compensate aggrieved employees all the premium wages they were owed, including failing to pay premium wages at aggrieved employees’ regular rate of pay. California Labor Code section 551 states “[e]very person employed in any occupation of labor is entitled to one day’s rest therefrom in seven.” Section 552 further states “[n]o employer of labor shall cause his employees to work more than six days in seven.” DELTA STAR required aggrieved employees to work seven days in a row or more without one day’s rest. California Labor Code section 432.5 states “[n]o employer, or agent, manager, superintendent, or officer thereof, shall require any employee or applicant for employment to agree, in writing, to any term or condition which is known by such employer, or agent, manager, superintendent, or officer thereof to be prohibited by law.” DELTA STAR required aggrieved employees to execute arbitration agreements as a condition of employment despite knowing that such agreements are prohibited under Labor Code section 432.6. /// /// LWDA July 27, 2022 Page 4 of 7 California Labor Code section 201 requires that if an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge are due and payable immediately. California Labor Code section 202 requires that if an employee not having a written contract for a definite period quits his or her employment, his or her wages shall become due and payable not later than 72 hours thereafter, unless the employee has given 72 hours previous notice of his or her intention to quit, in which case the employee is entitled to his or her wages at the time of quitting. California Labor Code section 203 provides that if an employer willfully fails to pay, without abatement or reduction, in accordance with Labor Code sections 201 201.3, 201.5, 201.6, 201.8, 201.9, 202, and 205.5, any wages of an employee who is discharged or who quits, the wages of the employee shall continue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or until an action therefor is commenced; but the wages shall not continue for more than 30 days. During the relevant time period, DELTA STAR failed to pay Mr. Hernandez and other aggrieved employees all wages, including for uncompensated off-the-clock work, unpaid overtime premiums and premium wages for failing to provide legally mandated meal and rest breaks, due to them within any time period specified by California Labor Code sections 201 and 203 and therefore is liable under California Labor Code section 203. California Labor Code section 204 requires that all wages earned by any person in any employment between the 1st and the 15th days, inclusive, of any calendar month, other than those wages due upon termination of an employee, are due and payable between the 16th and the 26th day of the month during which the labor was performed, and that all wages earned by any person in any employment between the 16th and the last day, inclusive, of any calendar month, other than those wages due upon termination of an employee, are due and payable between the 1st and the 10th day of the following month. California Labor Code section 204 also requires that all wages earned for labor in excess of the normal work period shall be paid no later than the payday for the next regular payroll period. During the relevant time period, DELTA STAR failed to pay Mr. Hernandez and other aggrieved employees all wages due to them, including for uncompensated off-the-clock work, unpaid overtime premiums and premium wages for failing to provide legally mandated meal and rest breaks within any time period specified by California Labor Code section 204. /// /// /// LWDA July 27, 2022 Page 5 of 7 California Labor Code section 226 requires employers to make, keep and provide complete and accurate itemized wage statements to their employees. During the relevant time period, DELTA STAR did not provide Mr. Hernandez and other aggrieved employees with complete and accurate itemized wage statements. The wage statements they received from DELTA STAR were in violation of California Labor Code section 226(a). The violations include, but are not limited to, the failure to include (1) gross wages earned by Mr. Hernandez and other aggrieved employees, (2) total hours worked by Mr. Hernandez and other aggrieved employees, (3) the number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece rate by Mr. Hernandez and other aggrieved employees (4) all deductions for Mr. Hernandez and other aggrieved employees, (5) net wages earned by Mr. Hernandez and other aggrieved employees, (6) the inclusive dates of the period for which Mr. Hernandez and other aggrieved employees are paid, (7) the name of the aggrieved 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 Mr. Hernandez and other aggrieved employees. California Labor Code section 558 allows recovery of penalties. (a) 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 shall be subject to a civil penalty as follows: (1) For any initial 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. Mr. Hernandez and other aggrieved employees have been denied their wages and premium wages and, therefore, are entitled to penalties. California Labor Code sections 1174(d) requires an employer to keep, at a central location in the state or at the plants or establishments at which employees are employed, payroll records showing the hours worked daily by and the wages paid to, and the number of piece-rate units earned by and any applicable piece rate paid to, employees employed at the respective plants or establishments. These records shall be kept with rules established for this purpose by the commission, but in any case, shall be kept on file for not less than two years. During the relevant time period, DELTA STAR failed to keep accurate and complete payroll records showing the hours worked daily and the wages paid, to Mr. Hernandez and other aggrieved employees. /// LWDA July 27, 2022 Page 6 of 7 California Labor Code sections 1194, 1197 and 1197.1 provide the minimum wage to be paid to employees, and the payment of a lesser wage than the minimum so fixed is unlawful. During the relevant time period, DELTA STAR did not provide Mr. Hernandez and other aggrieved employees with the minimum wages to which they were entitled despite constructive and actual knowledge of off-the-clock work, including pre- and post-shift, and during meal breaks. California Labor Code sections 2800 and 2802 require an employer to reimburse its employee for all necessary expenditures incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her job duties or in direct consequence of his or her obedience to the directions of the employer. During their employment, Mr. Hernandez and other aggrieved employees incurred necessary business-related expenses and costs that were not fully reimbursed by DELTA STAR, including for purchasing tools and equipment they were required to use while working. We believe that Mr. Hernandez and other current and former California-based hourly- paid or non-exempt employees are entitled to penalties as allowed under California Labor Code section 2698, et seq. for violations of Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 218.5, 221, 226(a), 226.3, 226.7, 246, 432.5, 510, 512(a), 551, 552, 558, 1174(d), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2800 and 2802, and the IWC Wage Orders. California Labor Code section 2699.3 requires that a claimant send a certified letter to the employer in questions and the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency setting forth the claims, and the basis for the claims, thereby giving the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency an opportunity to investigate the claims and/or take any action it deems appropriate. The purpose of this letter is to satisfy the requirement created by California Labor code section 2699 prior to seeking penalties allowed by law for the aforementioned statutory violations. We look forward to determining whether California Labor & Workforce Development Agency intends to take any action in reference to these claims. We kindly request that you respond to this notice according to the time frame contemplated by the California Labor Code. Mr. Hernandez will seek these penalties on his own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated California-based hourly-paid or non-exempt employees of DELTA STAR within one year of the date of this letter, as allowed by law. /// /// LWDA July 27, 2022 Page 7 of 7 If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Thank you for your attention to this matter and the noble cause you advance each and every day. Very truly yours, JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION Douglas Han, Esq. CC: (By Certified U.S. Mail Only): Delta Star, Inc. c/o CSC – Lawyers Incorporating Service 2710 Gateway Oaks Dr. Ste. 150N Sacramento, California 95833 Agent for Service of Process for Delta Star, Inc. EXHIBIT 2 1 DOUGLAS HAN (SBN 232858) SHUNT TATAVOS-GHARAJEH (SBN 272164) 2 TALIA E. LUX (SBN 336074) JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 3 751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101 4 Pasadena, California 91103 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 5 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 10/19/2022 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 22-CIV-04380 ISAAC HERNANDEZ, individually, and on Case No.: 11 behalf of aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL 12 (“PAGA”); PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 2698 et seq. 13 Plaintiff, (PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004) 14 v. 15 DELTA STAR, INC., a Delaware 16 corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive; 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES 1 Plaintiff ISAAC HERNANDEZ (“Plaintiff”) hereby submits his Complaint against 2 Defendant DELTA STAR, INC. and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive; (collectively, 3 “Defendants”), on behalf of himself and other current and former aggrieved employees of 4 Defendants for penalties as follows: 5 INTRODUCTION 6 1. This representative action brought pursuant to Labor Code § 2698 et seq. 7 (the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”)) for Defendants’ violations of Labor 8 Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 218.5, 221, 226(a), 226.3, 226.7, 246, 432.5, 510, 512(a), 9 558, 1174(d), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2800 and 2802. 10 2. This Complaint challenges Defendants’ systemic illegal employment 11 practices resulting in violations of the stated provisions of the Labor Code against the 12 identified group of employees. 13 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants 14 jointly and severally acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious 15 disregard to the rights of all employees in (1) failing to pay all meal period wages and rest 16 break wages, (2) failing to properly calculate and pay all minimum and overtime wages, (3) 17 failing to provide accurate wage statements, (4) failing to pay all wages due and owing during 18 employment and upon termination of employment, and (5) failing to reimburse all necessary 19 business expenses. 20 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 21 4. This action is brought pursuant to PAGA. The civil penalties sought by 22 Plaintiff exceed the minimal jurisdiction limits of the Superior Court and will be established 23 according to proof at trial. 24 5. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to California 25 Constitution, Article VI, Section 10, which grants the Superior Court original jurisdiction in all 26 causes except those given by statute to other courts. The statutes under which this action is 27 brought do not specify any other basis for jurisdiction. 28 /// 2 COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES 1 6. This Court has jurisdiction over the violations of PAGA and Labor Code 2 §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 218.5, 221, 226(a), 226.3, 226.7, 246, 432.5, 510, 512(a), 558, 3 1174(d), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2800 and 2802. 4 7. This Court has jurisdiction over all Defendants because, upon 5 information and belief, each party has sufficient minimum contacts in California, or otherwise 6 intentionally avails itself of California law so as to render the exercise of jurisdiction over it by 7 the California courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 8 8. Venue is proper in this Court because, upon information and belief, the 9 named Defendants transact business and/or have offices in this county, and the acts and 10 omissions alleged herein took place in this county. Moreover, this action is brought on behalf 11 of the State of California as a private attorney general and has jurisdiction in this venue. 12 PARTIES 13 9. Plaintiff ISAAC HERNANDEZ is an individual residing in the State of 14 California. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants within the statutory time period. 15 10. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants 16 are licensed to do business and actually doing business in the State of California, including the 17 County of San Mateo. 18 11. Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities, whether individual, 19 partner or corporate, of Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and for that 20 reason, said Defendants are sued under such fictitious names, and Plaintiff prays for leave to 21 amend the complaint when the true names and capacities are known. Plaintiff is informed and 22 believes and thereon alleges that each of Defendants designated as a DOE was responsible in 23 some way for the matters alleged herein and proximately caused Plaintiff and other current and 24 former aggrieved employees to be subject to the illegal employment practices, wrongs and 25 injuries complained of herein. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 3 COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES 1 12. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, were 2 agents, partners, joint venturers, representatives, servants, employees, successors-in-interest, 3 co-conspirators and assigns, each of the other, and at all times relevant hereto were acting 4 within the course and scope of their authority as such agents, partners, joint venturers, 5 representatives, servants, employees, successors, co-conspirators and assigns, and that all acts 6 or omissions alleged herein were duly committed with ratification, knowledge, permission, 7 encouragement, authorization and consent of each Defendant designated herein. 8 13. As such, and based upon all the facts and circumstances incident to 9 Defendants’ business in California, Defendants are subject to PAGA and Labor Code §§ 201, 10 202, 203, 204, 210, 218.5, 221, 226(a), 226.3, 226.7, 246, 432.5, 510, 512(a), 558, 1174(d), 11 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2800 and 2802. 12 CAUSE OF ACTION 13 VIOLATION OF PAGA 14 (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS BY PLAINTIFF) 15 14. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 16 13 as though fully set forth herein. 17 15. PAGA expressly establishes that any provision of the California Labor 18 Code which provides for a civil penalty to be assessed and collected by the LWDA, or any of 19 its departments, divisions, commissions, boards, agencies or employees for a violation of the 20 California Labor Code, may be recovered through a civil action brought by an aggrieved 21 employee on behalf of himself or herself, and other current or former employees. 22 16. On July 27, 2022, Plaintiff Hernandez provided written notice to the 23 LWDA and Defendants of the specific provisions of the Labor Code he contends were 24 violated, and the theories supporting his contentions. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and 25 incorporated by reference is a copy of the written notice to the LWDA. Plaintiff believes that 26 on or about September 30, 2022, the sixty-five (65) day notice period expired, and the LWDA 27 did not take any action to investigate or prosecute this matter. Therefore, Plaintiff has 28 exhausted his administrative remedies. 4 COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES 1 17. Plaintiff and the other hourly-paid or non-exempt employees are 2 “aggrieved employees” as defined by California Labor Code § 2699(c) in that they are all 3 current or former employees of Defendants who worked for Defendants at any time during the 4 period from July 27, 2021 to the present, and one or more of the alleged violations was 5 committed against them. 6 Failure to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages 7 18. At all times relevant herein, Defendants were required to compensate 8 their non-exempt employees minimum wages for all hours worked and overtime wages for all 9 hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a day or forty (40) hours in a workweek, pursuant 10 to the mandate of Labor Code §§ 510, 1194, 1197, and 1198. 11 19. As a pattern and practice, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and 12 other aggrieved current and former employees for all hours worked, resulting in a failure to pay 13 all minimum wages and overtime wages, where applicable. 14 20. As a pattern and practice, Defendants failed to include non-discretionary 15 bonuses and incentives in aggrieved employees’ regular rate for purposes of overtime 16 compensation. 17 Failure to Provide Meal Periods and Rest Breaks 18 21. In accordance with the mandates of Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512, 19 Defendants were required to authorize and permit their non-exempt employees to take a 10- 20 minute rest break for every four (4) hours worked or major fraction thereof, and were further 21 required to provide their non-exempt employees with a 30-minute meal period for every five 22 (5) hours worked. 23 22. As a pattern and practice, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and 24 other aggrieved current and former employees with legally-mandated meal periods and rest 25 breaks and failed to pay proper compensation for this failure. 26 Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment 27 23. At all times relevant herein, Defendants were required to pay their 28 employees within a specified time period pursuant to the mandate of Labor Code § 204. 5 COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES 1 24. As a pattern and practice, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other 2 aggrieved current and former employees all wages due and owing them within the required 3 time period. 4 Failure to Timely Pay Wages Upon Termination 5 25. At all times relevant herein, Defendants were required to pay their 6 employees all wages owed in a timely fashion at the end of employment pursuant to California 7 Labor Code §§ 201 to 204. 8 26. As a result of Defendants’ Labor Code violations alleged above, 9 Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the other aggrieved former employees their final wages 10 pursuant to Labor Code §§ 201 to 204 and accordingly owe waiting time penalties pursuant to 11 Labor Code § 203. 12 Failure to Provide Complete and Accurate Wage Statements 13 27. At all times relevant herein, Defendants were required to keep accurate 14 records regarding their California employees pursuant to the mandate of Labor Code §§ 226 15 and 1174. 16 28. As a result of Defendants’ various Labor Code violations, Defendants 17 failed to keep accurate records regarding Plaintiff and other aggrieved current and former 18 employees. For example, Defendants failed in their affirmative obligation to keep accurate 19 records regarding Plaintiff and other aggrieved current and former employees’ gross wages 20 earned, total hours worked, all deductions, net wages earned, and all applicable hourly rates 21 and the number of hours worked at each hourly rate. 22 Failure to Provide Paid Sick Days 23 29. At all times relevant herein, Defendants were required to provide their 24 employees with paid sick days pursuant to Labor Code § 246. 25 30. As a policy and practice, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and other 26 aggrieved current and former employees with paid sick days pursuant to Labor Code § 246 27 /// 28 /// 6 COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES 1 Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses 2 31. At all times relevant herein, Defendants were required to reimburse their 3 employees for any and all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employees in direct 4 consequences of the discharge or their duties pursuant to the mandate of Labor Code §§ 2800 5 and 2802. 6 32. As a pattern and practice, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other 7 aggrieved current and former employees all business expenses incurred and owing them within 8 the required time period. 9 Penalties 10 33. Pursuant to California Labor Code § 2699, Plaintiff, individually, and on 11 behalf of other current and former aggrieved employees, requests and is entitled to recover 12 from Defendants, and each of them, civil penalties, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant, 13 including but not limited to: 14 34. Penalties under California Labor Code § 2699 in the amount of a 15 hundred dollars ($100) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial violation, 16 and two hundred dollars ($200) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each 17 subsequent violation; 18 35. Penalties under California Code of Regulations Title 8 § 11040 in the 19 amount of fifty dollars ($50) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial 20 violation, and one hundred dollars ($100) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each 21 subsequent violation; 22 36. Penalties under California Labor Code § 210 in addition to, and entirely 23 independent and apart from, any other penalty provided in the California Labor Code in the 24 amount of a hundred dollars ($100) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial 25 violation, and two hundred dollars ($200) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each 26 subsequent violation; 27 /// 28 /// 7 COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES 1 37. Penalties uncler Labor Code $ 1197.1 in the amount of a hundred dollars 2 ($100) for each aggrieved employee pel pay period for the initial violation, and two hundred J fifty dollars ($250) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each subsequent violation; 4 38. Any and all additional penalties as provided by the Labor Code and/or 5 other statutes; and 6 39. Attorneys' fees and costs pulsuant to Labor Code $$ 210, 1194, and 7 2699, and any other applicable statute. 8 PRAYER FOR RBLIEF 9 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on his own behalf as an individual and as a 10 representative of other curent and former aggrieved employees pursuant to PAGA, prays for ll judgment as follows: t2 1. Upon the Cause of Action, for civil penalties pursuant to statute as set forth in 13 Labor Code $ 2698 et,seq.,for Defendants'violations of Labor Code $$ 201, l4 202, 203, 204, 210, 27 8.5, 221, 226(a), 226.3, 226 ;7, 246, 432.5, 5 1 0, 5 12(a), 15 558, 1 174(d), 1194, 1197, 119'7.1, 1 198, 2800 and 2802. 16 2. Upon the Cause of Action, for costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to Labor Code 17 $$ 210, 218.5,1 194, and 2699, and any other applicable statute; and 18 3. For such other and lurther reliel'the court may deem just and proper. 19 20 Dated: October 19,2022 J USTICE LAW CORPORATION 2t 22 By 23 Dor-rglas Shur-rt Tatavos-Gharaj eh 24 Taliar Lux 25 f A t t o r nqt ^s fbr Plaintif 26 27 28 8 COIVIPLAIN'I-FOR CIVIL P[]NN I, IIF-S EXHIBIT 1 751 N. Fair Oaks Ave., Ste. 101, Pasadena, CA 91103 T: (818) 230-7502 F: (818) 230-7259 www.JusticeLawCorp.com July 27, 2022 BY U.S. EMAIL/ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION PAGAfilings@dir.ca.gov State of California Labor & Workforce Development Agency 800 Capitol Mall, MIC-55 Sacramento, California 95814 Re: DELTA STAR, INC. Dear Representative: We have been retained to represent Isaac Hernandez against Delta Star, Inc. (including any and all affiliates, managers, members, subsidiaries, and parents, and their shareholders, officers, directors, and employees), any individual, owner, officer and managing agent, DOES 1-10 as an “Employer” or person acting on behalf of an “Employer” pursuant to California Labor Code section 558.1, and DOES 11-201 for violations of California wage-and-hour laws (hereinafter collectively referred to as “DELTA STAR”). Mr. Hernandez is pursuing his California Labor Code section 2698, et seq., the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) claim on a representative basis. Therefore, Mr. Hernandez may seek penalties for violations of the Labor Code on behalf of the State of California and aggrieved employees, which are recoverable under PAGA. This letter is sent in compliance with the reporting requirements of California Labor Code section 2699.3. Delta Star, Inc. is a Delaware corporation located at 3550 Mayflower Drive, Lynchburg, Virginia 24501. DELTA STAR employed Mr. Hernandez as an hourly-paid non-exempt Assembler within one year of the data of this letter (until in or around June of 2022) in the State of California. DELTA STAR directly controlled the wages, hours and/or working conditions of Mr. Hernandez and other aggrieved employees’ employment, including direction, retention, scheduling, supervision, and termination. The “aggrieved employees” that Mr. Hernandez may seek penalties on behalf of are all current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees (whether hired directly or through a staffing agency) of DELTA STAR within the State of California. 1 Mr. Hernandez does not know the true names or capacities, whether individual, partner or corporate, of DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, and for that reason, said DOES are designated under such fictitious names. Mr. Hernandez will amend this notice when the true names and capacities are known. Mr. Hernandez is informed and believes that each DOE was responsible in some way for the matters alleged herein and proximately caused Mr. Hernandez and other current and former aggrieved employees to be subject to the illegal employment practices, wrongs and injuries complained of herein. LWDA July 27, 2022 Page 2 of 7 DELTA STAR failed to properly pay its hourly-paid or non-exempt employees for all hours worked, failed to properly provide or compensate minimum and overtime wages and for meal and rest breaks, failed to issue compliant wage statements and failed to reimburse for all necessary business-related costs and expenses, thus resulting in other Labor Code violations as stated below. Pursuant to Huff v. Securitas Security Services, 23 Cal. App. 5th 745, 751 (2018), an employee who brings a representative action and was affected by at least one of the violations alleged in the complaint has standing to pursue penalties on behalf of the state not only for that violation, but for violations affecting other employees as well. Accordingly, Mr. Hernandez has standing to pursue penalties on behalf of the state for violations affecting all the aggrieved employees at DELTA STAR, regardless of their classification, job title, location, or whether they were hired directly or through a staffing agency. DELTA STAR has violated and/or continues to violate, among other provisions of the California Labor Code and applicable wage law, California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 218.5, 221, 226(a), 226.3, 226.7, 246, 432.5, 510, 512(a), 551, 552, 558, 1174(d), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2800 and 2802, and the IWC Wage Orders. California Labor Code sections 510, 1194, and 1198 require employers to pay at least minimum wage for all hours worked, pay time-and-a-half, or double-time overtime wages, and make it unlawful to work employees for hours longer than eight hours in one day and/or over forty hours in one week without paying the premium overtime rates. During the relevant time period, Mr. Hernandez and other aggrieved employees routinely worked in excess of 8 hours in a day and 40 hours in a week. DELTA STAR failed to compensate Mr. Hernandez and other aggrieved employees for all hours worked and performing off-the-clock work, including pre- and post-shift, and during meal breaks. DELTA STAR also failed to include non-discretionary bonuses and incentives in Mr. Hernandez and other aggrieved employees’ regular rate of pay for purposes of overtime compensation. Therefore, Mr. Hernandez and aggrieved employees were entitled to receive certain wages for overtime compensation, but they were not paid for all overtime hours worked. /// /// /// LWDA July 27, 2022 Page 3 of 7 California Labor Code section 246 requires that employers provide employees with paid sick leave of not less than one hour per every 30 hours worked. California Labor Code section 246(l) also requires that paid sick leave be paid at a non-exempt employee’s regular rate of pay for the workweek in which the employee uses paid sick time or at a rate calculated by dividing the employee’s total wages, not including overtime premium pay, by the employee’s total hours worked in the full pay periods of the prior 90 days of employment. During the relevant time period, DELTA STAR failed to pay Mr. Hernandez and other aggrieved employees with paid sick leave that complied with California Labor Code section 246, by, for example, failing to pay paid sick leave at non-exempt employee’s regular rate of pay or at a rate calculated by dividing the employee’s total wages, not including overtime premium pay, by the employee’s total hours worked in the full pay periods of the prior 90 days of employment. California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512 require employers to pay an employee one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate for each workday that a meal or rest break is not provided. During the relevant time period, DELTA STAR routinely required aggrieved employees to work through, interrupt, cut short, and/or delay their meal and rest breaks to comply with DELTA STAR’s policies and expectations. DELTA STAR failed to provide coverage to aggrieved employees so they may be relieved of all work duties and take legally mandated meal and rest breaks. Moreover, DELTA STAR also failed to authorize and permit aggrieved employees to take the requisite number of meal and rest breaks, including second meal breaks and third rest breaks, when working shifts exceeding 10 hours in length. Despite these facts, DELTA STAR failed to compensate aggrieved employees all the premium wages they were owed, including failing to pay premium wages at aggrieved employees’ regular rate of pay. California Labor Code section 551 states “[e]very person employed in any occupation of labor is entitled to one day’s rest therefrom in seven.” Section 552 further states “[n]o employer of labor shall cause his employees to work more than six days in seven.” DELTA STAR required aggrieved employees to work seven days in a row or more without one day’s rest. California Labor Code section 432.5 states “[n]o employer, or agent, manager, superintendent, or officer thereof, shall require any employee or applicant for employment to agree, in writing, to any term or condition which is known by such employer, or agent, manager, superintendent, or officer thereof to be prohibited by law.” DELTA STAR required aggrieved employees to execute arbitration agreements as a condition of employment despite knowing that such agreements are prohibited under Labor Code section 432.6. /// /// LWDA July 27, 2022 Page 4 of 7 California Labor Code section 201 requires that if an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge are due and payable immediately. California Labor Code section 202 requires that if an employee not having a written contract for a definite period quits his or her employment, his or her wages shall become due and payable not later than 72 hours thereafter, unless the employee has given 72 hours previous notice of his or her intention to quit, in which case the employee is entitled to his or her wages at the time of quitting. California Labor Code section 203 provides that if an employer willfully fails to pay, without abatement or reduction, in accordance with Labor Code sections 201 201.3, 201.5, 201.6, 201.8, 201.9, 202, and 205.5, any wages of an employee who is discharged or who quits, the wages of the employee shall continue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or until an action therefor is commenced; but the wages shall not continue for more than 30 days. During the relevant time period, DELTA STAR failed to pay Mr. Hernandez and other aggrieved employees all wages, including for uncompensated off-the-clock work, unpaid overtime premiums and premium wages for failing to provide legally mandated meal and rest breaks, due to them within any time period s