Preview
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
1 David D. Bibiyan (Cal. Bar No. 287811)
2 david@tomorrowlaw.com
Jeffrey D. Klein (Cal. Bar No. 297296)
3 jeff@tomorrowlaw.com
Bijan Mohseni (Cal. Bar No. 338276)
4 bijan@tomorrowlaw.com
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
5
Beverly Hills, California 90211
6 Tel: (310) 438-5555; Fax: (310) 300-1705
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff, ANA MARGARITA
MURILLOS MAGANA an individual, and on
8 behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
11
ANA MARGARITA MURILLOS MAGANA, CASE NO.:
12 an individual and on behalf of all others
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR:
13 similarly situated,
Plaintiff, 1. FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES;
14 v.
2. FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES;
15 NICKER-MANCHESTER, INC., a California
corporation; NICKER-SLAUSON INC., a 3. FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL
16 California corporation; NICKER-18TH, INC., PERIODS;
a California corporation; NICKER-
17 WESTERN, INC., a California corporation; 4. FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST PERIODS;
NICKER-CENTRAL, INC., a California
18 corporation; NICKER-FIGUEROA, INC., a 5. WAITING TIME PENALTIES;
California corporation; NICKER-MLK, INC., a
19 California corporation; NICKER-COMPTON, 6. WAGE STATEMENT VIOLATIONS;
INC., a California corporation; NICKER-
20 IMPERIAL, INC., a California corporation; 7. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY WAGES;
NICKER-ROSECRANS, INC., a California
21 corporation; NICKER-CARSON, INC., a 8. FAILURE TO INDEMNIFY;
California corporation; NICKER-AVALON,
22 INC., a California corporation; NICKER- 9. FAILURE TO PAY INTEREST ON
CRENSHAW, INC., a California corporation; DEPOSITS:
23 NICKER MANAGEMENT I, INC., a
California corporation; NICKER-ALAMEDA, 10. UNFAIR COMPETITION.
24 INC., a California corporation; NICKER-
PENDLETON, INC., a California corporation;
25 NICKER-LONG BEACH, INC., a California DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
corporation; NICKER-FLORENCE, INC., a
26 California corporation; and DOES 1 through [Amount in Controversy Exceeds $25,000.00]
100, inclusive,
27 Defendants.
28
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiff ANA MARGARITA MURILLOS MAGANA, an individual and on behalf of
2 Plaintiff and all others similarly situated, alleges as follows:
3 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
4 INTRODUCTION
5 1. This is a Class Action, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 382, against
6 NICKER-MANCHESTER, INC., and any of its respective subsidiaries or affiliated companies
7 within the State of California (“Nicker-Manchester”); NICKER-SLAUSON INC., and any of its
8 respective subsidiaries or affiliated companies within the State of California (“Nicker-Slauson”);
9 NICKER-18TH, INC., and any of its respective subsidiaries or affiliated companies within the State
10 of California (“Nicker-18th”); NICKER-WESTERN, INC., and any of its respective subsidiaries or
11 affiliated companies within the State of California (“Nicker-Western”); NICKER-CENTRAL, INC.,
12 and any of its respective subsidiaries or affiliated companies within the State of California (“Nicker-
13 Central”); NICKER-FIGUEROA, INC., and any of its respective subsidiaries or affiliated
14 companies within the State of California (“Nicker-Figueroa”); NICKER-MLK, INC., and any of its
15 respective subsidiaries or affiliated companies within the State of California (“Nicker-MLK”);
16 NICKER-COMPTON, INC., and any of its respective subsidiaries or affiliated companies within
17 the State of California (“Nicker-Compton”); NICKER-IMPERIAL, INC., and any of its respective
18 subsidiaries or affiliated companies within the State of California (“Nicker-Imperial”); NICKER-
19 ROSECRANS, INC., and any of its respective subsidiaries or affiliated companies within the State
20 of California (“Nicker-Rosecrans”); NICKER-CARSON, INC., and any of its respective
21 subsidiaries or affiliated companies within the State of California (“Nicker-Carson”); NICKER-
22 AVALON, INC., and any of its respective subsidiaries or affiliated companies within the State of
23 California (“Nicker-Avalon”); NICKER-CRENSHAW, INC., and any of its respective subsidiaries
24 or affiliated companies within the State of California (“Nicker-Crenshaw”); NICKER
25 MANAGEMENT I, INC., and any of its respective subsidiaries or affiliated companies within the
26 State of California (“Nicker Management I”); NICKER-ALAMEDA, INC., and any of its respective
27 subsidiaries or affiliated companies within the State of California (“Nicker-Alameda”); NICKER-
28 PENDLETON, INC., and any of its respective subsidiaries or affiliated companies within the State
2
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 of California (“Nicker-Pendleton”); NICKER-LONG BEACH, INC., and any of its respective
2 subsidiaries or affiliated companies within the State of California (“Nicker-Long Beach”);
3 NICKER-FLORENCE, INC., and any of its respective subsidiaries or affiliated companies within
4 the State of California (“Nicker-Florence”) (“NICKER-MANCHESTER” and collectively, with
5 NICKER-18TH, NICKER-WESTERN, NICKER-CENTRAL, NICKER-FIGUEROA, NICKER-
6 MLK, NICKER-COMPTON, NICKER-IMPERIAL, NICKER-ROSECRANS, NICKER-
7 CARSON, NICKER-AVALON, NICKER-CRENSHAW, NICKER MANAGEMENT I, NICKER-
8 ALAMEDA, NICKER-PENDLETON, NICKER-LONG BEACH, NICKER-FLORENCE, and
9 DOES 1 through 100, as further defined below, “Defendants”) on behalf of Plaintiff and all other
10 current and former non-exempt California employees employed by or formerly employed by
11 Defendants (“Class Members”).
12 PARTIES
13 A. Plaintiff
14 2. Plaintiff ANA MARGARITA MURILLOS MAGANA is a resident of the State of
15 California. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges,
16 that Defendants employed Plaintiff as a non-exempt employee, with duties that included, but were
17 not limited to, preparing hamburgers and cleaning the area and dishes. Plaintiff is informed and
18 believes, and based thereon alleges, that Plaintiff ANA MARGARITA MURILLOS MAGANA
19 worked for Defendants from approximately May 2, 2021 through approximately the present.
20 B. Defendants
21 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant NICKER-
22 MANCHESTER is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under
23 and by virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los Angeles,
24 State of California.
25 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant NICKER-
26 18TH is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under and by
27 virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State
28 of California.
3
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant NICKER-
2 WESTERN is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under and
3 by virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los Angeles,
4 State of California.
5 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant NICKER-
6 CENTRAL is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under and
7 by virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los Angeles,
8 State of California.
9 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant NICKER-
10 FIGUEROA is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under and
11 by virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los Angeles,
12 State of California.
13 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant NICKER-
14 MLK is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under and by
15 virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State
16 of California.
17 9. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant NICKER-
18 COMPTON is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under and
19 by virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los Angeles,
20 State of California.
21 10. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant NICKER-
22 IMPERIAL is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under and
23 by virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los Angeles,
24 State of California.
25 11. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant NICKER-
26 ROSECRANS is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under
27 and by virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los Angeles,
28 State of California.
4
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 12. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant NICKER-
2 CARSON is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under and
3 by virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los Angeles,
4 State of California.
5 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant NICKER-
6 AVALON is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under and
7 by virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los Angeles,
8 State of California.
9 14. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant NICKER-
10 CRENSHAW is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under
11 and by virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los Angeles,
12 State of California.
13 15. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant NICKER
14 MANAGEMENT I is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing
15 under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los
16 Angeles, State of California.
17 16. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant NICKER-
18 ALAMEDA is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under and
19 by virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los Angeles,
20 State of California.
21 17. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant NICKER-
22 PENDLETON is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under
23 and by virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los Angeles,
24 State of California.
25 18. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant NICKER-
26 LONG BEACH is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under
27 and by virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los Angeles,
28 State of California.
5
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 19. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant NICKER-
2 FLORENCE is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under and
3 by virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los Angeles,
4 State of California.
5 20. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise,
6 of defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are currently unknown to Plaintiff,
7 who therefore sues defendants by such fictitious names under Code of Civil Procedure section 474.
8 Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that each of the defendants designated
9 herein as DOE is legally responsible in some manner for the unlawful acts referred to herein.
10 Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to reflect the true names and capacities of
11 the defendants designated hereinafter as DOES when such identities become known. Plaintiff is
12 informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each defendant acted in all respects pertinent
13 to this action, as the agent of the other defendant(s), carried out a joint scheme, business plan or
14 policy in all respects pertinent hereto, and the acts of each defendant are legally attributable to the
15 other defendants. Whenever, heretofore or hereinafter, reference is made to “Defendants,” it shall
16 include NICKER-MANCHESTER, NICKER-18TH, NICKER-WESTERN, NICKER-CENTRAL,
17 NICKER-FIGUEROA, NICKER-MLK, NICKER-COMPTON, NICKER-IMPERIAL, NICKER-
18 ROSECRANS, NICKER-CARSON, NICKER-AVALON, NICKER-CRENSHAW, NICKER
19 MANAGEMENT I, NICKER-ALAMEDA, NICKER-PENDLETON, NICKER-LONG BEACH,
20 NICKER-FLORENCE, and any of their parent, subsidiary, or affiliated companies within the State
21 of California, and DOES 1 through 100 identified herein.
22 JOINT LIABILITY ALLEGATIONS
23 21. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that all the times
24 mentioned herein, each of the Defendants was the agent, principal, employee, employer,
25 representative, joint venture or co-conspirator of each of the other defendants, either actually or
26 ostensibly, and in doing the things alleged herein acted within the course and scope of such agency,
27 employment, joint venture, and conspiracy.
28 22. All of the acts and conduct described herein of each and every corporate defendant
6
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 was duly authorized, ordered, and directed by the respective and collective defendant corporate
2 employers, and the officers and management-level employees of said corporate employers. In
3 addition thereto, said corporate employers participated in the aforementioned acts and conduct of
4 their said employees, agents, and representatives, and each of them; and upon completion of the
5 aforesaid acts and conduct of said corporate employees, agents, and representatives, the defendant
6 corporation respectively and collectively ratified, accepted the benefits of, condoned, lauded,
7 acquiesced, authorized, and otherwise approved of each and all of the said acts and conduct of the
8 aforementioned corporate employees, agents and representatives.
9 23. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and based thereon alleges that DOES 51
10 through 100 violated, or caused to be violated, the above-referenced and below-referenced Labor
11 Code provisions in violation of Labor Code section 558.1.
12 24. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon allege, that there exists such a
13 unity of interest and ownership between Defendants, and each of them, that their individuality and
14 separateness have ceased to exist.
15 25. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that despite the
16 formation of the purported corporate existence of NICKER-MANCHESTER, NICKER-18TH,
17 NICKER-WESTERN, NICKER-CENTRAL, NICKER-FIGUEROA, NICKER-MLK, NICKER-
18 COMPTON, NICKER-IMPERIAL, NICKER-ROSECRANS, NICKER-CARSON, NICKER-
19 AVALON, NICKER-CRENSHAW, NICKER MANAGEMENT I, NICKER-ALAMEDA,
20 NICKER-PENDLETON, NICKER-LONG BEACH, NICKER-FLORENCE,, and DOES 1 through
21 50, inclusive (the “Alter Ego Defendants”), they, and each of them, are one and the same with DOES
22 51 through 100 (“Individual Defendants”), and each of them, due to, but not limited to, the following
23 reasons:
24 A. The Alter Ego Defendants are completely dominated and controlled by the Individual
25 Defendants who personally committed the wrongful and illegal acts and violated the
26 laws as set forth in this Complaint, and who has hidden and currently hide behind the
27 Alter Ego Defendants to perpetrate frauds, circumvent statutes, or accomplish some
28 other wrongful or inequitable purpose;
7
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 B. The Individual Defendants derive actual and significant monetary benefits by and
2 through the Alter Ego Defendants’ unlawful conduct, and by using the Alter Ego
3 Defendants as the funding source for the Individual Defendants’ own personal
4 expenditures;
5 C. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Individual Defendants
6 and the Alter Ego Defendants, while really one and the same, were segregated to
7 appear as though separate and distinct for purposes of perpetrating a fraud,
8 circumventing a statute, or accomplishing some other wrongful or inequitable
9 purpose;
10 D. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the business affairs of the
11 Individual Defendants and the Alter Ego Defendants are, and at all relevant times
12 mentioned herein were, so mixed and intermingled that the same cannot reasonably
13 be segregated, and the same are inextricable confusion. The Alter Ego Defendants
14 are, and at all relevant times mentioned herein were, used by the Individual
15 Defendants as mere shells and conduits for the conduct of certain of their, and each
16 of their affairs. The Alter Ego Defendants are, and at all relevant times mentioned
17 herein were, the alter egos of the Individual Defendants;
18 E. The recognition of the separate existence of the Individual Defendants and the Alter
19 Ego Defendants would promote injustice insofar that it would permit defendants to
20 insulate themselves from liability to Plaintiff for violations of the Civil Code, Labor
21 Code, and other statutory violations. The corporate existence of these defendants
22 should thus be disregarded in equity and for the ends of justice because such
23 disregard is necessary to avoid fraud and injustice to Plaintiff herein;
24 F. Accordingly, the Alter Ego Defendants constitute the alter ego of the Individual
25 Defendants (and vice versa), and the fiction of their separate corporate existence
26 must be disregarded;
27 26. As a result of the aforementioned facts, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based
28 thereon alleges that Defendants, and each of them, are joint employers.
8
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 JURISDICTION
2 27. Jurisdiction exists in the Superior Court of the State of California pursuant to Code
3 of Civil Procedure section 410.10.
4 28. Venue is proper in Los Angeles County, California pursuant to Code of Civil
5 Procedure sections 392, et seq. because, among other things, Los Angeles County is where the
6 causes of action complained of herein arose; the county in which the employment relationship
7 began; the county in which performance of the employment contract, or part of it, between Plaintiff
8 and Defendants was due to be performed; the county in which the employment contract, or part of
9 it, between Plaintiff and Defendants was actually performed; and the county in which Defendants,
10 or some of them, reside. Moreover, the unlawful acts alleged herein have a direct effect on Plaintiff
11 and Class Members in Los Angeles County, and because Defendants employ numerous Class
12 Members in Los Angeles County.
13 FACTUAL BACKGROUND
14 29. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the
15 present, Defendants have, at times, failed to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and Class Members, or
16 some of them, in violation of California state wage and hour laws as a result of, without limitation,
17 Plaintiff and Class Members working over eight (8) hours per day, forty (40) hours per week, and
18 seven consecutive work days in a work week without being properly compensated for hours worked
19 in excess of (8) hours per day in a work day, forty (40) hours per week in a work week, and/or hours
20 worked on the seventh consecutive work day in a work week by, among other things, failing to
21 accurately track and/or pay for all minutes actually worked at the proper overtime rate of pay ;
22 engaging, suffering, or permitting employees to work off the clock, including, without limitation,
23 by requiring Plaintiff and Class Members: to come early to work and leave late work without being
24 able to clock in for all that time, to suffer under Defendants’ control due to long lines for clocking
25 in, to complete pre-shift tasks before clocking in and post-shift tasks after clocking out, to clock out
26 for meal periods and continue working, to clock out for rest periods, to don and doff uniforms and/or
27 safety equipment off the clock, to attend company meetings off the clock; failing to include all forms
28 of remuneration, including non-discretionary bonuses, incentive pay, meal allowances, mask
9
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 allowances, gift cards and other forms of remuneration into the regular rate of pay for the pay periods
2 where overtime was worked and the additional compensation was earned for the purpose of
3 calculating the overtime rate of pay; detrimental rounding of employee time entries, editing and/or
4 manipulation of time entries; and by attempting but failing to properly implement an alternative
5 workweek schedule (“AWS”) (including, without limitation, by failing to implement a written
6 agreement designating the regularly scheduled alternative workweek in which the specified number
7 of work days and work hours are regularly recurring; failing to adopt the AWS in a secret ballot
8 election, before the performance of work, by at least a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the affected
9 employees in the work unit; failing to follow the notice/disclosures procedures prior to any AWS
10 election; and/or failing to register an AWS election with the State of California, as required by Labor
11 Code section 511 and applicable Wage Orders)to the detriment of Plaintiff and Class Members.
12 30. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this Action and continuing to the
13 present, Defendants have, at times, failed to pay minimum wages to Plaintiff and Class Members,
14 or some of them, in violation of California state wage and hour laws as a result of, among other
15 things, at times, failing to accurately track and/or pay for all hours actually worked at their regular
16 rate of pay that is above the minimum wage; engaging, suffering, or permitting employees to work
17 off the clock, including, without limitation, by requiring Plaintiff and Class Members: to come early
18 to work and leave late work without being able to clock in for all that time, to suffer under
19 Defendants’ control due to long lines for clocking in, to complete pre-shift tasks before clocking in
20 and post-shift tasks after clocking out, to clock out for meal periods and continue working, to clock
21 out for rest periods, to don and doff uniforms and/or safety equipment off the clock, to attend
22 company meetings off the clock, detrimental rounding of employee time entries; editing and/or
23 manipulation of time entries to show less hours than actually worked; failing to pay split shift
24 premiums; and failing to pay reporting time pay to the detriment of Plaintiff and Class Members.
25 31. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this Action and continuing to the
26 present, Defendants have, at times, failed to provide Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of them,
27 full, timely thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal period for days on which they worked more than
28 five (5) hours in a work day and a second thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal period for days on
10
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 which they worked in excess of ten (10) hours in a work day, and failing to provide compensation
2 for such unprovided meal periods as required by California wage and hour laws.
3 32. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the
4 present, Defendants have, at times, failed to authorize and permit Plaintiff and Class Members, or
5 some of them, to take rest periods of at least ten (10) minutes per four (4) hours worked or major
6 fraction thereof and failed to provide compensation for such unprovided rest periods as required by
7 California wage and hour laws.
8 33. For at least one (1) year prior to the filing of this Action and continuing to the present,
9 Defendants have, at times, failed to furnish Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of them, with
10 itemized wage statements that accurately reflect gross wages earned; total hours worked; net wages
11 earned; all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of
12 hours worked at each hourly rate; and other such information as required by Labor Code section
13 226, subdivision (a). As a result thereof, Defendants have further failed to furnish employees with
14 an accurate calculation of gross and gross wages earned, as well as gross and net wages paid.
15 34. For at least one (1) year prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the present,
16 Defendants have, at times, failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of them, the full
17 amount of their wages for labor performed in a timely fashion as required under Labor Code section
18 204.
19 35. For at least three (3) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the
20 present, Defendants have, at times, failed to indemnify Class Members, or some of them, for the
21 costs incurred in laundering mandatory work uniforms;.
22 36. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the
23 present, Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to provide Plaintiffs and similarly
24 situated employees or former employees within the State of California with the rights provided to
25 them under the Healthy Workplace Heathy Families Act of 2014, codified at Labor Code section
26 245, et seq.
27 37. Plaintiff, on their own behalf and on behalf of Class Members, brings this action
28 pursuant to, including but not limited to, Labor Code sections 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7,
11
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 227.3, 245, et seq., 404, 510, 512, 558.1, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 2802, and California Code of
2 Regulations, Title 8, section 11040, seeking overtime wages, minimum wages, payment of premium
3 wages for missed meal and rest periods, failure to pay timely wages, waiting time penalties, wage
4 statement penalties, failure to indemnify work-related expenses, , other such provisions of California
5 law, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
6 38. Plaintiff, on Plaintiff’s own behalf and on behalf of Class Members, pursuant to
7 Business and Professions Code sections 17200 through 17208, also seeks (an) injunction(s)
8 prohibiting Defendants from further violating the Labor Code and requiring the establishment of
9 appropriate and effective means to prevent further violations, as well as all monies owed but
10 withheld and retained by Defendants to which Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled, as well as
11 restitution of amounts owed.
12 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
13 39. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of Plaintiff and Class Members as a class action
14 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 382. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all current
15 and former non-exempt employees of Defendants within the State of California at any time
16 commencing four (4) years preceding the filing of Plaintiff’s complaint up until the time that notice
17 of the class action is provided to the class (collectively referred to as “Class Members”).
18 40. Plaintiff reserves the right under California Rule of Court rule 3.765, subdivision (b)
19 to amend or modify the class description with greater specificity, further divide the defined class
20 into subclasses, and to further specify or limit the issues for which certification is sought.
21 41. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action under
22 the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 382 because there is a well-defined community
23 of interest in the litigation and the proposed Class is easily ascertainable.
24 A. Numerosity
25 42. The potential Class Members as defined are so numerous that joinder of all the
26 members of the Class is impracticable. While the precise number of Class Members has not been
27 determined yet, Plaintiff is informed and believes that there are over seventy-five (75) Class
28 Members employed by Defendants within the State of California.
12
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 43. Accounting for employee turnover during the relevant periods necessarily increases
2 this number. Plaintiff alleges Defendants’ employment records would provide information as to the
3 number and location of all Class Members. Joinder of all members of the proposed Class is not
4 practicable.
5 B. Commonality
6 44. There are questions of law and fact common to Class Members. These common
7 questions include, but are not limited to:
8 A. Did Defendants violate Labor Code sections 510 and 1194 by failing to pay all hours
9 worked at a proper overtime rate of pay?
10 B. Did Defendants violate Labor Code sections 510, 1194 and 1197 by failing to pay
11 for all other time worked at the employee’s regular rate of pay and a rate of pay that
12 is greater than the applicable minimum wage?
13 C. Did Defendants violate Labor Code section 512 by not authorizing or permitting
14 Class Members to take compliant meal periods?
15 D. Did Defendants violate Labor Code section 226.7 by not providing Class Members
16 with additional wages for missed or interrupted meal periods?
17 E. Did Defendants violate applicable Wage Orders by not authorizing or permitting
18 Class Members to take compliant rest periods?
19 F. Did Defendants violate Labor Code section 226.7 by not providing Class Members
20 with additional wages for missed rest periods?
21 G. Did Defendants violate Labor Code sections 201 and 202 by failing to pay Class
22 Members upon termination or resignation all wages earned?
23 H. Are Defendants liable to Class Members for waiting time penalties under Labor Code
24 section 203?
25 I. Did Defendants violate Labor Code section 226, subdivision (a) by not furnishing
26 Class Members with accurate wage statements?
27 J. Did Defendants fail to pay Class Members in a timely fashion as required under
28 Labor Code section 204?
13
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 K. Did Defendants fail to indemnify Class Members for all necessary expenditures or
2 losses incurred in direct consequence of the discharge of their duties or by obedience
3 to the directions of Defendants as required under Labor Code section 2802?
4 L. Did Defendants fail to return deposits made by Class Members with accrued interest
5 thereon as required under Labor Code section 404?
6 M. Did Defendants violate the Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code
7 section 17200, et seq., by their unlawful practices as alleged herein?
8 N. Are Class Members entitled to restitution of wages under Business and Professions
9 Code section 17203?
10 O. Are Class Members entitled to costs and attorneys’ fees?
11 P. Are Class Members entitled to interest?
12 C. Typicality
13 45. The claims of Plaintiff herein alleged are typical of those claims which could be
14 alleged by any Class Members, and the relief sought is typical of the relief which would be sought
15 by each Class Member in separate actions. Plaintiff and Class Members sustained injuries and
16 damages arising out of and caused by Defendants’ common course of conduct in violation of laws
17 and regulations that have the force and effect of law and statutes as alleged herein.
18 D. Adequacy of Representation
19 46. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interest of Class
20 Members. Counsel who represents Plaintiff is competent and experienced in litigating wage and
21 hour class actions.
22 E. Superiority of Class Action
23 47. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient
24 adjudication of this controversy. Individual joinder of all Class Members is not practicable, and
25 questions of law and fact common to Class Members predominate over any questions affecting only
26 individual Class Members. Class Members, as further described therein, have been damaged and
27 are entitled to recovery by reason of Defendants’ policies and/or practices that have resulted in the
28 violation of the Labor Code at times, as set out herein.
14
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 48. Class action treatment will allow Class Members to litigate their claims in a manner
2 that is most efficient and economical for the parties and the judicial system. Plaintiff is unaware of
3 any difficulties that are likely to be encountered in the management of this action that would
4 preclude its maintenance as a class action.
5 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
6 (Failure to Pay Overtime Wages – Against All Defendants)
7 49. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in
8 the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.
9 50. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class Members were employees or former
10 employees of Defendants covered by Labor Code sections 510, 1194 and 1199, as well as applicable
11 Wage Orders.
12 51. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Labor Code section 510 was in effect and
13 provided: “(a) Eight hours of labor constitutes a day’s work. Any work in excess of eight hours in
14 one workday and any work in excess of forty hours in any one workweek . . . shall be compensated
15 at the rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for an employee.”
16 52. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Labor Code section 510 further provided that
17 “[a]ny work in excess of 12 hours in one day shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice
18 the regular rate of pay for an employee. In addition, any work in excess of eight hours on any
19 seventh day of a workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of
20 pay.”
21 53. Four (4) years prior to the filing of the Complaint in this Action through the present,
22 Plaintiff and Class Members, at times, worked for Defendants during shifts that consisted of more
23 than eight (8) hours in a workday and/or more than forty hours in a workweek, and/or seven (7)
24 consecutive workdays in a workweek, without being paid overtime wages for all hours worked as a
25 result of, including but not limited to, Defendants failing to accurately track and/or pay for all hours
26 actually worked at the proper overtime rate of pay; engaging, suffering, or permitting employees to
27 work off the clock, including, without limitation, by requiring Plaintiff and Class Members: to come
28 early to work and leave late work without being able to clock in for all that time, to suffer under
15
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Defendants’ control due to long lines for clocking in, to complete pre-shift tasks before clocking in
2 and post-shift tasks after clocking out, to clock out for meal periods and continue working, to clock
3 out for rest periods, to don and doff uniforms and/or safety equipment off the clock, to attend
4 company meetings off the clock, failing to include all forms of remuneration, including non-
5 discretionary bonuses, incentive pay, meal allowances, mask allowances, gift cards and other forms
6 of remuneration into the regular rate of pay for the pay periods where overtime was worked and the
7 additional compensation was earned for the purpose of calculating the overtime rate of pay;
8 detrimental rounding of employee time entries, editing and/or manipulation of time entries; and by
9 attempting but failing to properly implement an alternative workweek schedule (“AWS”)
10 (including, without limitation, by failing to implement a written agreement designating the regularly
11 scheduled alternative workweek in which the specified number of work days and work hours are
12 regularly recurring; failing to adopt the AWS in a secret ballot election, before the performance of
13 work, by at least a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the affected employees in the work unit; failing to follow
14 the notice/disclosures procedures prior to any AWS election; and/or failing to register an AWS
15 election with the State of California, as required by Labor Code section 511 and applicable Wage
16 Orders) to the detriment of Plaintiff and Class Members.
17 54. Accordingly, by requiring Plaintiff and Class Members to, at times, work greater
18 than eight (8) hours per workday, forty (40) hours per workweek, and/or seven (7) straight workdays
19 without properly compensating overtime wages at the proper overtime rate of pay, Defendants, on
20 occasion, willfully violated the provisions of the Labor Code, among others, sections 510, 1194, and
21 applicable IWC Wage Orders, and California law.
22 55. As a result of the unlawful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff and Class Members have
23 been deprived of overtime wages in amounts to be determined at trial, and are entitled to recovery,
24 plus interest and penalties thereon, attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to Labor Code section 1194
25 and 1199, Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 and 1032, and Civil Code section 3287.
26 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
27 (Failure to Pay Minimum Wages – Against All Defendants)
28 56. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in
16
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.
2 57. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class Members were employees or former
3 employees of Defendants covered by Labor Code sections 1197, 1199 and applicable Wage Orders.
4 58. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1197 and applicable Wage Orders, Plaintiff and
5 Class Members were entitled to receive minimum wages for all hours worked or otherwise under
6 Defendants’ control.
7 59. For four (4) years prior to the filing of the Complaint in this Action through the
8 present, Defendants failed, at times, to accurately track and/or pay for all hours actually worked at
9 their regular rate of pay that is above the minimum wage ; engaged, suffered, or permitted
10 employees to work off the clock, including, without limitation, by requiring Plaintiff and Class
11 Members: to come early to work and leave late work without being able to clock in for all that time,
12 to suffer under Defendants’ control due to long lines for clocking in, to complete pre-shift tasks
13 before clocking in and post-shift tasks after clocking out, to clock out for meal periods and continue
14 working, to clock out for rest periods, to don and doff uniforms and/or safety equipment off the
15 clock, to attend company meetings off the clock, detrimental rounding of employee time entries;
16 editing and/or manipulation of time entries to show less hours than actually worked; failing to pay
17 split shift premiums; and failing to pay reporting time pay to the detriment of Plaintiff and Class
18 Members.
19 60. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have
20 suffered damages in an amount, subject to proof, to the extent they were not paid minimum wages
21 for all hours worked or otherwise due.
22 61. Pursuant to Labor Code sections 218.6, 1194, 1194.2, Code of Civil Procedure
23 sections 1021.5 and 1032, and Civil Code section 3287, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to
24 recover the full amount of unpaid minimum wages, interest and penalties thereon, liquidated
25 damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.
26 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
27 (Failure to Provide Meal Periods – Against All Defendants)
28 62. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in
17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.
2 63. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class Members were employees or former
3 employees of Defendants covered by Labor Code section 512 and applicable Wage Orders.
4 64. Pursuant to Labor Code section 512 and applicable Wage Orders, no employer shall
5 employ an employee for a work period of more than five (5) hours without a timely meal break of
6 not less than thirty (30) minutes in which the employee is relieved of all of his or her duties.
7 Furthermore, no employer shall employ an employee for a work period of more than ten (10) hours
8 per day without providing the employee with a second timely meal period of not less than thirty (30)
9 minutes in which the employee is relieved of all of his or her duties.
10 65. Pursuant to Labor Code section 226.7, if an employer fails to provide an employee
11 with a meal period as provided in the applicable Wage Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission,
12 the employer shall pay the employee one (1) additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate
13 of compensation for each workday that the meal period is not provided.
14 66. For four (4) years prior to the filing of the Complaint in this Action through the
15 present, Plaintiff and Class Members were, at times, not provided complete, timely 30-minute, duty-
16 free uninterrupted meal periods every five hours of work without waiving the right to take them, as
17 permitted. Moreover, at times, Defendants failed to provide one (1) additional hour of pay at the
18 Class Member’s regular rate of compensation on the occasions that Class Members were not
19 provided compliant meal periods.
20 67. By their failure to provide Plaintiff and Class Members compliant meal periods as
21 contemplated by Labor Code section 512, among other California authorities, and failing, at times,
22 to provide compensation for such unprovided meal periods, as alleged above, Defendants willfully
23 violated the provisions of Labor Code section 512 and applicable Wage Orders.
24 68. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have
25 suffered damages in an amount, subject to proof, to the extent they were not paid additional pay
26 owed for missed, untimely, interrupted, incomplete and/or on-duty meal periods.
27 69. Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to recover the full amount of their unpaid
28 additional pay for unprovided compliant meal periods, in amounts to be determined at trial, plus
18
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 interest and penalties thereon, attorneys’ fees, and costs, under Labor Code sections 226 and 226.7,
2 Code of Civil Procedure sections 1021.5 and 1032, and Civil Code section 3287.
3 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
4 (Failure to Provide Rest Periods – Against All Defendants)
5 70. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in
6 the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.
7 71. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class Members were employees or former
8 employees of Defendants covered by applicable Wage Orders.
9 72. California law and applicable Wage Orders require that employers “authorize and
10 permit” employees to take ten (10) minute rest periods in about the middle of each four (4) hour
11 work period “or major fraction thereof.” Accordingly, employees who work shifts of three and-a-
12 half (3 ½) to six (6) hours must be provided ten (10) minutes of paid rest period, employees who
13 work shifts of more than six (6) and up to ten (10) hours must be provided with twenty (20) minutes
14 of paid rest period, and employees who work shifts of more than ten (10) hours must be provided
15 thirty (30) minutes of paid rest period.
16 73. Pursuant to Labor Code section 226.7, if an employer fails to provide an employee
17 with a meal period or rest period as provided in the applicable Wage Order of the Industrial Welfare
18 Commission, the employer shall pay the employee one (1) additional hour of pay at the employee’s
19 regular rate of compensation for each work day that the rest period is not provided.
20 74. For four (4) years prior to the filing of the Complaint in this Action through the
21 present, Plaintiff and Class Members were, at times, not authorized or permitted to take complete,
22 timely 10-minute, duty-free uninterrupted rest periods every four (4) hours of work or major fraction
23 thereof. Moreover, at times, Defendants failed to provide one (1) additional hour of pay at the Class
24 Member’s regular rate of compensation on the occasions that Class Members were not authorized
25 or permitted to take compliant rest periods.
26 75. By their failure, at times, to authorize and permit Plaintiff and Class Members to take
27 rest periods contemplated by California law, and one (1) additional hour of pay at the employee’s
28 regular rate of compensation for such unprovided rest periods, as alleged above, Defendants
19
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 willfully violated the provisions of Labor Code section 226.7 and applicable Wage Orders.
2 76. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have
3 suffered damages in an amou
Preview
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1 David D. Bibiyan (Cal. Bar No. 287811) 2 david@tomorrowlaw.com Jeffrey D. Klein (Cal. Bar No. 297296) 3 jeff@tomorrowlaw.com Bijan Mohseni (Cal. Bar No. 338276) 4 bijan@tomorrowlaw.com 8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500 5 Beverly Hills, California 90211 6 Tel: (310) 438-5555; Fax: (310) 300-1705 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff, ANA MARGARITA MURILLOS MAGANA an individual, and on 8 behalf of herself and all others similarly situated 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 11 ANA MARGARITA MURILLOS MAGANA, CASE NO.: 12 an individual and on behalf of all others CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR: 13 similarly situated, Plaintiff, 1. FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES; 14 v. 2. FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES; 15 NICKER-MANCHESTER, INC., a California corporation; NICKER-SLAUSON INC., a 3. FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL 16 California corporation; NICKER-18TH, INC., PERIODS; a California corporation; NICKER- 17 WESTERN, INC., a California corporation; 4. FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST PERIODS; NICKER-CENTRAL, INC., a California 18 corporation; NICKER-FIGUEROA, INC., a 5. WAITING TIME PENALTIES; California corporation; NICKER-MLK, INC., a 19 California corporation; NICKER-COMPTON, 6. WAGE STATEMENT VIOLATIONS; INC., a California corporation; NICKER- 20 IMPERIAL, INC., a California corporation; 7. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY WAGES; NICKER-ROSECRANS, INC., a California 21 corporation; NICKER-CARSON, INC., a 8. FAILURE TO INDEMNIFY; California corporation; NICKER-AVALON, 22 INC., a California corporation; NICKER- 9. FAILURE TO PAY INTEREST ON CRENSHAW, INC., a California corporation; DEPOSITS: 23 NICKER MANAGEMENT I, INC., a California corporation; NICKER-ALAMEDA, 10. UNFAIR COMPETITION. 24 INC., a California corporation; NICKER- PENDLETON, INC., a California corporation; 25 NICKER-LONG BEACH, INC., a California DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL corporation; NICKER-FLORENCE, INC., a 26 California corporation; and DOES 1 through [Amount in Controversy Exceeds $25,000.00] 100, inclusive, 27 Defendants. 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 Plaintiff ANA MARGARITA MURILLOS MAGANA, an individual and on behalf of 2 Plaintiff and all others similarly situated, alleges as follows: 3 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 4 INTRODUCTION 5 1. This is a Class Action, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 382, against 6 NICKER-MANCHESTER, INC., and any of its respective subsidiaries or affiliated companies 7 within the State of California (“Nicker-Manchester”); NICKER-SLAUSON INC., and any of its 8 respective subsidiaries or affiliated companies within the State of California (“Nicker-Slauson”); 9 NICKER-18TH, INC., and any of its respective subsidiaries or affiliated companies within the State 10 of California (“Nicker-18th”); NICKER-WESTERN, INC., and any of its respective subsidiaries or 11 affiliated companies within the State of California (“Nicker-Western”); NICKER-CENTRAL, INC., 12 and any of its respective subsidiaries or affiliated companies within the State of California (“Nicker- 13 Central”); NICKER-FIGUEROA, INC., and any of its respective subsidiaries or affiliated 14 companies within the State of California (“Nicker-Figueroa”); NICKER-MLK, INC., and any of its 15 respective subsidiaries or affiliated companies within the State of California (“Nicker-MLK”); 16 NICKER-COMPTON, INC., and any of its respective subsidiaries or affiliated companies within 17 the State of California (“Nicker-Compton”); NICKER-IMPERIAL, INC., and any of its respective 18 subsidiaries or affiliated companies within the State of California (“Nicker-Imperial”); NICKER- 19 ROSECRANS, INC., and any of its respective subsidiaries or affiliated companies within the State 20 of California (“Nicker-Rosecrans”); NICKER-CARSON, INC., and any of its respective 21 subsidiaries or affiliated companies within the State of California (“Nicker-Carson”); NICKER- 22 AVALON, INC., and any of its respective subsidiaries or affiliated companies within the State of 23 California (“Nicker-Avalon”); NICKER-CRENSHAW, INC., and any of its respective subsidiaries 24 or affiliated companies within the State of California (“Nicker-Crenshaw”); NICKER 25 MANAGEMENT I, INC., and any of its respective subsidiaries or affiliated companies within the 26 State of California (“Nicker Management I”); NICKER-ALAMEDA, INC., and any of its respective 27 subsidiaries or affiliated companies within the State of California (“Nicker-Alameda”); NICKER- 28 PENDLETON, INC., and any of its respective subsidiaries or affiliated companies within the State 2 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 of California (“Nicker-Pendleton”); NICKER-LONG BEACH, INC., and any of its respective 2 subsidiaries or affiliated companies within the State of California (“Nicker-Long Beach”); 3 NICKER-FLORENCE, INC., and any of its respective subsidiaries or affiliated companies within 4 the State of California (“Nicker-Florence”) (“NICKER-MANCHESTER” and collectively, with 5 NICKER-18TH, NICKER-WESTERN, NICKER-CENTRAL, NICKER-FIGUEROA, NICKER- 6 MLK, NICKER-COMPTON, NICKER-IMPERIAL, NICKER-ROSECRANS, NICKER- 7 CARSON, NICKER-AVALON, NICKER-CRENSHAW, NICKER MANAGEMENT I, NICKER- 8 ALAMEDA, NICKER-PENDLETON, NICKER-LONG BEACH, NICKER-FLORENCE, and 9 DOES 1 through 100, as further defined below, “Defendants”) on behalf of Plaintiff and all other 10 current and former non-exempt California employees employed by or formerly employed by 11 Defendants (“Class Members”). 12 PARTIES 13 A. Plaintiff 14 2. Plaintiff ANA MARGARITA MURILLOS MAGANA is a resident of the State of 15 California. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, 16 that Defendants employed Plaintiff as a non-exempt employee, with duties that included, but were 17 not limited to, preparing hamburgers and cleaning the area and dishes. Plaintiff is informed and 18 believes, and based thereon alleges, that Plaintiff ANA MARGARITA MURILLOS MAGANA 19 worked for Defendants from approximately May 2, 2021 through approximately the present. 20 B. Defendants 21 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant NICKER- 22 MANCHESTER is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under 23 and by virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los Angeles, 24 State of California. 25 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant NICKER- 26 18TH is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under and by 27 virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State 28 of California. 3 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant NICKER- 2 WESTERN is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under and 3 by virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los Angeles, 4 State of California. 5 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant NICKER- 6 CENTRAL is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under and 7 by virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los Angeles, 8 State of California. 9 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant NICKER- 10 FIGUEROA is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under and 11 by virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los Angeles, 12 State of California. 13 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant NICKER- 14 MLK is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under and by 15 virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State 16 of California. 17 9. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant NICKER- 18 COMPTON is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under and 19 by virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los Angeles, 20 State of California. 21 10. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant NICKER- 22 IMPERIAL is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under and 23 by virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los Angeles, 24 State of California. 25 11. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant NICKER- 26 ROSECRANS is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under 27 and by virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los Angeles, 28 State of California. 4 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 12. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant NICKER- 2 CARSON is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under and 3 by virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los Angeles, 4 State of California. 5 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant NICKER- 6 AVALON is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under and 7 by virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los Angeles, 8 State of California. 9 14. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant NICKER- 10 CRENSHAW is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under 11 and by virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los Angeles, 12 State of California. 13 15. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant NICKER 14 MANAGEMENT I is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing 15 under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los 16 Angeles, State of California. 17 16. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant NICKER- 18 ALAMEDA is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under and 19 by virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los Angeles, 20 State of California. 21 17. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant NICKER- 22 PENDLETON is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under 23 and by virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los Angeles, 24 State of California. 25 18. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant NICKER- 26 LONG BEACH is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under 27 and by virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los Angeles, 28 State of California. 5 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 19. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant NICKER- 2 FLORENCE is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under and 3 by virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los Angeles, 4 State of California. 5 20. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, 6 of defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are currently unknown to Plaintiff, 7 who therefore sues defendants by such fictitious names under Code of Civil Procedure section 474. 8 Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that each of the defendants designated 9 herein as DOE is legally responsible in some manner for the unlawful acts referred to herein. 10 Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to reflect the true names and capacities of 11 the defendants designated hereinafter as DOES when such identities become known. Plaintiff is 12 informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each defendant acted in all respects pertinent 13 to this action, as the agent of the other defendant(s), carried out a joint scheme, business plan or 14 policy in all respects pertinent hereto, and the acts of each defendant are legally attributable to the 15 other defendants. Whenever, heretofore or hereinafter, reference is made to “Defendants,” it shall 16 include NICKER-MANCHESTER, NICKER-18TH, NICKER-WESTERN, NICKER-CENTRAL, 17 NICKER-FIGUEROA, NICKER-MLK, NICKER-COMPTON, NICKER-IMPERIAL, NICKER- 18 ROSECRANS, NICKER-CARSON, NICKER-AVALON, NICKER-CRENSHAW, NICKER 19 MANAGEMENT I, NICKER-ALAMEDA, NICKER-PENDLETON, NICKER-LONG BEACH, 20 NICKER-FLORENCE, and any of their parent, subsidiary, or affiliated companies within the State 21 of California, and DOES 1 through 100 identified herein. 22 JOINT LIABILITY ALLEGATIONS 23 21. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that all the times 24 mentioned herein, each of the Defendants was the agent, principal, employee, employer, 25 representative, joint venture or co-conspirator of each of the other defendants, either actually or 26 ostensibly, and in doing the things alleged herein acted within the course and scope of such agency, 27 employment, joint venture, and conspiracy. 28 22. All of the acts and conduct described herein of each and every corporate defendant 6 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 was duly authorized, ordered, and directed by the respective and collective defendant corporate 2 employers, and the officers and management-level employees of said corporate employers. In 3 addition thereto, said corporate employers participated in the aforementioned acts and conduct of 4 their said employees, agents, and representatives, and each of them; and upon completion of the 5 aforesaid acts and conduct of said corporate employees, agents, and representatives, the defendant 6 corporation respectively and collectively ratified, accepted the benefits of, condoned, lauded, 7 acquiesced, authorized, and otherwise approved of each and all of the said acts and conduct of the 8 aforementioned corporate employees, agents and representatives. 9 23. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and based thereon alleges that DOES 51 10 through 100 violated, or caused to be violated, the above-referenced and below-referenced Labor 11 Code provisions in violation of Labor Code section 558.1. 12 24. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon allege, that there exists such a 13 unity of interest and ownership between Defendants, and each of them, that their individuality and 14 separateness have ceased to exist. 15 25. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that despite the 16 formation of the purported corporate existence of NICKER-MANCHESTER, NICKER-18TH, 17 NICKER-WESTERN, NICKER-CENTRAL, NICKER-FIGUEROA, NICKER-MLK, NICKER- 18 COMPTON, NICKER-IMPERIAL, NICKER-ROSECRANS, NICKER-CARSON, NICKER- 19 AVALON, NICKER-CRENSHAW, NICKER MANAGEMENT I, NICKER-ALAMEDA, 20 NICKER-PENDLETON, NICKER-LONG BEACH, NICKER-FLORENCE,, and DOES 1 through 21 50, inclusive (the “Alter Ego Defendants”), they, and each of them, are one and the same with DOES 22 51 through 100 (“Individual Defendants”), and each of them, due to, but not limited to, the following 23 reasons: 24 A. The Alter Ego Defendants are completely dominated and controlled by the Individual 25 Defendants who personally committed the wrongful and illegal acts and violated the 26 laws as set forth in this Complaint, and who has hidden and currently hide behind the 27 Alter Ego Defendants to perpetrate frauds, circumvent statutes, or accomplish some 28 other wrongful or inequitable purpose; 7 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 B. The Individual Defendants derive actual and significant monetary benefits by and 2 through the Alter Ego Defendants’ unlawful conduct, and by using the Alter Ego 3 Defendants as the funding source for the Individual Defendants’ own personal 4 expenditures; 5 C. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Individual Defendants 6 and the Alter Ego Defendants, while really one and the same, were segregated to 7 appear as though separate and distinct for purposes of perpetrating a fraud, 8 circumventing a statute, or accomplishing some other wrongful or inequitable 9 purpose; 10 D. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the business affairs of the 11 Individual Defendants and the Alter Ego Defendants are, and at all relevant times 12 mentioned herein were, so mixed and intermingled that the same cannot reasonably 13 be segregated, and the same are inextricable confusion. The Alter Ego Defendants 14 are, and at all relevant times mentioned herein were, used by the Individual 15 Defendants as mere shells and conduits for the conduct of certain of their, and each 16 of their affairs. The Alter Ego Defendants are, and at all relevant times mentioned 17 herein were, the alter egos of the Individual Defendants; 18 E. The recognition of the separate existence of the Individual Defendants and the Alter 19 Ego Defendants would promote injustice insofar that it would permit defendants to 20 insulate themselves from liability to Plaintiff for violations of the Civil Code, Labor 21 Code, and other statutory violations. The corporate existence of these defendants 22 should thus be disregarded in equity and for the ends of justice because such 23 disregard is necessary to avoid fraud and injustice to Plaintiff herein; 24 F. Accordingly, the Alter Ego Defendants constitute the alter ego of the Individual 25 Defendants (and vice versa), and the fiction of their separate corporate existence 26 must be disregarded; 27 26. As a result of the aforementioned facts, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based 28 thereon alleges that Defendants, and each of them, are joint employers. 8 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 JURISDICTION 2 27. Jurisdiction exists in the Superior Court of the State of California pursuant to Code 3 of Civil Procedure section 410.10. 4 28. Venue is proper in Los Angeles County, California pursuant to Code of Civil 5 Procedure sections 392, et seq. because, among other things, Los Angeles County is where the 6 causes of action complained of herein arose; the county in which the employment relationship 7 began; the county in which performance of the employment contract, or part of it, between Plaintiff 8 and Defendants was due to be performed; the county in which the employment contract, or part of 9 it, between Plaintiff and Defendants was actually performed; and the county in which Defendants, 10 or some of them, reside. Moreover, the unlawful acts alleged herein have a direct effect on Plaintiff 11 and Class Members in Los Angeles County, and because Defendants employ numerous Class 12 Members in Los Angeles County. 13 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 14 29. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the 15 present, Defendants have, at times, failed to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and Class Members, or 16 some of them, in violation of California state wage and hour laws as a result of, without limitation, 17 Plaintiff and Class Members working over eight (8) hours per day, forty (40) hours per week, and 18 seven consecutive work days in a work week without being properly compensated for hours worked 19 in excess of (8) hours per day in a work day, forty (40) hours per week in a work week, and/or hours 20 worked on the seventh consecutive work day in a work week by, among other things, failing to 21 accurately track and/or pay for all minutes actually worked at the proper overtime rate of pay ; 22 engaging, suffering, or permitting employees to work off the clock, including, without limitation, 23 by requiring Plaintiff and Class Members: to come early to work and leave late work without being 24 able to clock in for all that time, to suffer under Defendants’ control due to long lines for clocking 25 in, to complete pre-shift tasks before clocking in and post-shift tasks after clocking out, to clock out 26 for meal periods and continue working, to clock out for rest periods, to don and doff uniforms and/or 27 safety equipment off the clock, to attend company meetings off the clock; failing to include all forms 28 of remuneration, including non-discretionary bonuses, incentive pay, meal allowances, mask 9 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 allowances, gift cards and other forms of remuneration into the regular rate of pay for the pay periods 2 where overtime was worked and the additional compensation was earned for the purpose of 3 calculating the overtime rate of pay; detrimental rounding of employee time entries, editing and/or 4 manipulation of time entries; and by attempting but failing to properly implement an alternative 5 workweek schedule (“AWS”) (including, without limitation, by failing to implement a written 6 agreement designating the regularly scheduled alternative workweek in which the specified number 7 of work days and work hours are regularly recurring; failing to adopt the AWS in a secret ballot 8 election, before the performance of work, by at least a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the affected 9 employees in the work unit; failing to follow the notice/disclosures procedures prior to any AWS 10 election; and/or failing to register an AWS election with the State of California, as required by Labor 11 Code section 511 and applicable Wage Orders)to the detriment of Plaintiff and Class Members. 12 30. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this Action and continuing to the 13 present, Defendants have, at times, failed to pay minimum wages to Plaintiff and Class Members, 14 or some of them, in violation of California state wage and hour laws as a result of, among other 15 things, at times, failing to accurately track and/or pay for all hours actually worked at their regular 16 rate of pay that is above the minimum wage; engaging, suffering, or permitting employees to work 17 off the clock, including, without limitation, by requiring Plaintiff and Class Members: to come early 18 to work and leave late work without being able to clock in for all that time, to suffer under 19 Defendants’ control due to long lines for clocking in, to complete pre-shift tasks before clocking in 20 and post-shift tasks after clocking out, to clock out for meal periods and continue working, to clock 21 out for rest periods, to don and doff uniforms and/or safety equipment off the clock, to attend 22 company meetings off the clock, detrimental rounding of employee time entries; editing and/or 23 manipulation of time entries to show less hours than actually worked; failing to pay split shift 24 premiums; and failing to pay reporting time pay to the detriment of Plaintiff and Class Members. 25 31. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this Action and continuing to the 26 present, Defendants have, at times, failed to provide Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of them, 27 full, timely thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal period for days on which they worked more than 28 five (5) hours in a work day and a second thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal period for days on 10 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 which they worked in excess of ten (10) hours in a work day, and failing to provide compensation 2 for such unprovided meal periods as required by California wage and hour laws. 3 32. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the 4 present, Defendants have, at times, failed to authorize and permit Plaintiff and Class Members, or 5 some of them, to take rest periods of at least ten (10) minutes per four (4) hours worked or major 6 fraction thereof and failed to provide compensation for such unprovided rest periods as required by 7 California wage and hour laws. 8 33. For at least one (1) year prior to the filing of this Action and continuing to the present, 9 Defendants have, at times, failed to furnish Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of them, with 10 itemized wage statements that accurately reflect gross wages earned; total hours worked; net wages 11 earned; all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of 12 hours worked at each hourly rate; and other such information as required by Labor Code section 13 226, subdivision (a). As a result thereof, Defendants have further failed to furnish employees with 14 an accurate calculation of gross and gross wages earned, as well as gross and net wages paid. 15 34. For at least one (1) year prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the present, 16 Defendants have, at times, failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of them, the full 17 amount of their wages for labor performed in a timely fashion as required under Labor Code section 18 204. 19 35. For at least three (3) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the 20 present, Defendants have, at times, failed to indemnify Class Members, or some of them, for the 21 costs incurred in laundering mandatory work uniforms;. 22 36. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the 23 present, Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to provide Plaintiffs and similarly 24 situated employees or former employees within the State of California with the rights provided to 25 them under the Healthy Workplace Heathy Families Act of 2014, codified at Labor Code section 26 245, et seq. 27 37. Plaintiff, on their own behalf and on behalf of Class Members, brings this action 28 pursuant to, including but not limited to, Labor Code sections 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7, 11 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 227.3, 245, et seq., 404, 510, 512, 558.1, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 2802, and California Code of 2 Regulations, Title 8, section 11040, seeking overtime wages, minimum wages, payment of premium 3 wages for missed meal and rest periods, failure to pay timely wages, waiting time penalties, wage 4 statement penalties, failure to indemnify work-related expenses, , other such provisions of California 5 law, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 6 38. Plaintiff, on Plaintiff’s own behalf and on behalf of Class Members, pursuant to 7 Business and Professions Code sections 17200 through 17208, also seeks (an) injunction(s) 8 prohibiting Defendants from further violating the Labor Code and requiring the establishment of 9 appropriate and effective means to prevent further violations, as well as all monies owed but 10 withheld and retained by Defendants to which Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled, as well as 11 restitution of amounts owed. 12 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 13 39. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of Plaintiff and Class Members as a class action 14 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 382. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all current 15 and former non-exempt employees of Defendants within the State of California at any time 16 commencing four (4) years preceding the filing of Plaintiff’s complaint up until the time that notice 17 of the class action is provided to the class (collectively referred to as “Class Members”). 18 40. Plaintiff reserves the right under California Rule of Court rule 3.765, subdivision (b) 19 to amend or modify the class description with greater specificity, further divide the defined class 20 into subclasses, and to further specify or limit the issues for which certification is sought. 21 41. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action under 22 the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 382 because there is a well-defined community 23 of interest in the litigation and the proposed Class is easily ascertainable. 24 A. Numerosity 25 42. The potential Class Members as defined are so numerous that joinder of all the 26 members of the Class is impracticable. While the precise number of Class Members has not been 27 determined yet, Plaintiff is informed and believes that there are over seventy-five (75) Class 28 Members employed by Defendants within the State of California. 12 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 43. Accounting for employee turnover during the relevant periods necessarily increases 2 this number. Plaintiff alleges Defendants’ employment records would provide information as to the 3 number and location of all Class Members. Joinder of all members of the proposed Class is not 4 practicable. 5 B. Commonality 6 44. There are questions of law and fact common to Class Members. These common 7 questions include, but are not limited to: 8 A. Did Defendants violate Labor Code sections 510 and 1194 by failing to pay all hours 9 worked at a proper overtime rate of pay? 10 B. Did Defendants violate Labor Code sections 510, 1194 and 1197 by failing to pay 11 for all other time worked at the employee’s regular rate of pay and a rate of pay that 12 is greater than the applicable minimum wage? 13 C. Did Defendants violate Labor Code section 512 by not authorizing or permitting 14 Class Members to take compliant meal periods? 15 D. Did Defendants violate Labor Code section 226.7 by not providing Class Members 16 with additional wages for missed or interrupted meal periods? 17 E. Did Defendants violate applicable Wage Orders by not authorizing or permitting 18 Class Members to take compliant rest periods? 19 F. Did Defendants violate Labor Code section 226.7 by not providing Class Members 20 with additional wages for missed rest periods? 21 G. Did Defendants violate Labor Code sections 201 and 202 by failing to pay Class 22 Members upon termination or resignation all wages earned? 23 H. Are Defendants liable to Class Members for waiting time penalties under Labor Code 24 section 203? 25 I. Did Defendants violate Labor Code section 226, subdivision (a) by not furnishing 26 Class Members with accurate wage statements? 27 J. Did Defendants fail to pay Class Members in a timely fashion as required under 28 Labor Code section 204? 13 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 K. Did Defendants fail to indemnify Class Members for all necessary expenditures or 2 losses incurred in direct consequence of the discharge of their duties or by obedience 3 to the directions of Defendants as required under Labor Code section 2802? 4 L. Did Defendants fail to return deposits made by Class Members with accrued interest 5 thereon as required under Labor Code section 404? 6 M. Did Defendants violate the Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code 7 section 17200, et seq., by their unlawful practices as alleged herein? 8 N. Are Class Members entitled to restitution of wages under Business and Professions 9 Code section 17203? 10 O. Are Class Members entitled to costs and attorneys’ fees? 11 P. Are Class Members entitled to interest? 12 C. Typicality 13 45. The claims of Plaintiff herein alleged are typical of those claims which could be 14 alleged by any Class Members, and the relief sought is typical of the relief which would be sought 15 by each Class Member in separate actions. Plaintiff and Class Members sustained injuries and 16 damages arising out of and caused by Defendants’ common course of conduct in violation of laws 17 and regulations that have the force and effect of law and statutes as alleged herein. 18 D. Adequacy of Representation 19 46. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interest of Class 20 Members. Counsel who represents Plaintiff is competent and experienced in litigating wage and 21 hour class actions. 22 E. Superiority of Class Action 23 47. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient 24 adjudication of this controversy. Individual joinder of all Class Members is not practicable, and 25 questions of law and fact common to Class Members predominate over any questions affecting only 26 individual Class Members. Class Members, as further described therein, have been damaged and 27 are entitled to recovery by reason of Defendants’ policies and/or practices that have resulted in the 28 violation of the Labor Code at times, as set out herein. 14 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 48. Class action treatment will allow Class Members to litigate their claims in a manner 2 that is most efficient and economical for the parties and the judicial system. Plaintiff is unaware of 3 any difficulties that are likely to be encountered in the management of this action that would 4 preclude its maintenance as a class action. 5 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 6 (Failure to Pay Overtime Wages – Against All Defendants) 7 49. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in 8 the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat. 9 50. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class Members were employees or former 10 employees of Defendants covered by Labor Code sections 510, 1194 and 1199, as well as applicable 11 Wage Orders. 12 51. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Labor Code section 510 was in effect and 13 provided: “(a) Eight hours of labor constitutes a day’s work. Any work in excess of eight hours in 14 one workday and any work in excess of forty hours in any one workweek . . . shall be compensated 15 at the rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for an employee.” 16 52. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Labor Code section 510 further provided that 17 “[a]ny work in excess of 12 hours in one day shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice 18 the regular rate of pay for an employee. In addition, any work in excess of eight hours on any 19 seventh day of a workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of 20 pay.” 21 53. Four (4) years prior to the filing of the Complaint in this Action through the present, 22 Plaintiff and Class Members, at times, worked for Defendants during shifts that consisted of more 23 than eight (8) hours in a workday and/or more than forty hours in a workweek, and/or seven (7) 24 consecutive workdays in a workweek, without being paid overtime wages for all hours worked as a 25 result of, including but not limited to, Defendants failing to accurately track and/or pay for all hours 26 actually worked at the proper overtime rate of pay; engaging, suffering, or permitting employees to 27 work off the clock, including, without limitation, by requiring Plaintiff and Class Members: to come 28 early to work and leave late work without being able to clock in for all that time, to suffer under 15 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 Defendants’ control due to long lines for clocking in, to complete pre-shift tasks before clocking in 2 and post-shift tasks after clocking out, to clock out for meal periods and continue working, to clock 3 out for rest periods, to don and doff uniforms and/or safety equipment off the clock, to attend 4 company meetings off the clock, failing to include all forms of remuneration, including non- 5 discretionary bonuses, incentive pay, meal allowances, mask allowances, gift cards and other forms 6 of remuneration into the regular rate of pay for the pay periods where overtime was worked and the 7 additional compensation was earned for the purpose of calculating the overtime rate of pay; 8 detrimental rounding of employee time entries, editing and/or manipulation of time entries; and by 9 attempting but failing to properly implement an alternative workweek schedule (“AWS”) 10 (including, without limitation, by failing to implement a written agreement designating the regularly 11 scheduled alternative workweek in which the specified number of work days and work hours are 12 regularly recurring; failing to adopt the AWS in a secret ballot election, before the performance of 13 work, by at least a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the affected employees in the work unit; failing to follow 14 the notice/disclosures procedures prior to any AWS election; and/or failing to register an AWS 15 election with the State of California, as required by Labor Code section 511 and applicable Wage 16 Orders) to the detriment of Plaintiff and Class Members. 17 54. Accordingly, by requiring Plaintiff and Class Members to, at times, work greater 18 than eight (8) hours per workday, forty (40) hours per workweek, and/or seven (7) straight workdays 19 without properly compensating overtime wages at the proper overtime rate of pay, Defendants, on 20 occasion, willfully violated the provisions of the Labor Code, among others, sections 510, 1194, and 21 applicable IWC Wage Orders, and California law. 22 55. As a result of the unlawful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff and Class Members have 23 been deprived of overtime wages in amounts to be determined at trial, and are entitled to recovery, 24 plus interest and penalties thereon, attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to Labor Code section 1194 25 and 1199, Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 and 1032, and Civil Code section 3287. 26 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 27 (Failure to Pay Minimum Wages – Against All Defendants) 28 56. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in 16 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat. 2 57. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class Members were employees or former 3 employees of Defendants covered by Labor Code sections 1197, 1199 and applicable Wage Orders. 4 58. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1197 and applicable Wage Orders, Plaintiff and 5 Class Members were entitled to receive minimum wages for all hours worked or otherwise under 6 Defendants’ control. 7 59. For four (4) years prior to the filing of the Complaint in this Action through the 8 present, Defendants failed, at times, to accurately track and/or pay for all hours actually worked at 9 their regular rate of pay that is above the minimum wage ; engaged, suffered, or permitted 10 employees to work off the clock, including, without limitation, by requiring Plaintiff and Class 11 Members: to come early to work and leave late work without being able to clock in for all that time, 12 to suffer under Defendants’ control due to long lines for clocking in, to complete pre-shift tasks 13 before clocking in and post-shift tasks after clocking out, to clock out for meal periods and continue 14 working, to clock out for rest periods, to don and doff uniforms and/or safety equipment off the 15 clock, to attend company meetings off the clock, detrimental rounding of employee time entries; 16 editing and/or manipulation of time entries to show less hours than actually worked; failing to pay 17 split shift premiums; and failing to pay reporting time pay to the detriment of Plaintiff and Class 18 Members. 19 60. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have 20 suffered damages in an amount, subject to proof, to the extent they were not paid minimum wages 21 for all hours worked or otherwise due. 22 61. Pursuant to Labor Code sections 218.6, 1194, 1194.2, Code of Civil Procedure 23 sections 1021.5 and 1032, and Civil Code section 3287, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to 24 recover the full amount of unpaid minimum wages, interest and penalties thereon, liquidated 25 damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit. 26 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 27 (Failure to Provide Meal Periods – Against All Defendants) 28 62. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in 17 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat. 2 63. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class Members were employees or former 3 employees of Defendants covered by Labor Code section 512 and applicable Wage Orders. 4 64. Pursuant to Labor Code section 512 and applicable Wage Orders, no employer shall 5 employ an employee for a work period of more than five (5) hours without a timely meal break of 6 not less than thirty (30) minutes in which the employee is relieved of all of his or her duties. 7 Furthermore, no employer shall employ an employee for a work period of more than ten (10) hours 8 per day without providing the employee with a second timely meal period of not less than thirty (30) 9 minutes in which the employee is relieved of all of his or her duties. 10 65. Pursuant to Labor Code section 226.7, if an employer fails to provide an employee 11 with a meal period as provided in the applicable Wage Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, 12 the employer shall pay the employee one (1) additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate 13 of compensation for each workday that the meal period is not provided. 14 66. For four (4) years prior to the filing of the Complaint in this Action through the 15 present, Plaintiff and Class Members were, at times, not provided complete, timely 30-minute, duty- 16 free uninterrupted meal periods every five hours of work without waiving the right to take them, as 17 permitted. Moreover, at times, Defendants failed to provide one (1) additional hour of pay at the 18 Class Member’s regular rate of compensation on the occasions that Class Members were not 19 provided compliant meal periods. 20 67. By their failure to provide Plaintiff and Class Members compliant meal periods as 21 contemplated by Labor Code section 512, among other California authorities, and failing, at times, 22 to provide compensation for such unprovided meal periods, as alleged above, Defendants willfully 23 violated the provisions of Labor Code section 512 and applicable Wage Orders. 24 68. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have 25 suffered damages in an amount, subject to proof, to the extent they were not paid additional pay 26 owed for missed, untimely, interrupted, incomplete and/or on-duty meal periods. 27 69. Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to recover the full amount of their unpaid 28 additional pay for unprovided compliant meal periods, in amounts to be determined at trial, plus 18 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 interest and penalties thereon, attorneys’ fees, and costs, under Labor Code sections 226 and 226.7, 2 Code of Civil Procedure sections 1021.5 and 1032, and Civil Code section 3287. 3 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 4 (Failure to Provide Rest Periods – Against All Defendants) 5 70. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in 6 the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat. 7 71. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class Members were employees or former 8 employees of Defendants covered by applicable Wage Orders. 9 72. California law and applicable Wage Orders require that employers “authorize and 10 permit” employees to take ten (10) minute rest periods in about the middle of each four (4) hour 11 work period “or major fraction thereof.” Accordingly, employees who work shifts of three and-a- 12 half (3 ½) to six (6) hours must be provided ten (10) minutes of paid rest period, employees who 13 work shifts of more than six (6) and up to ten (10) hours must be provided with twenty (20) minutes 14 of paid rest period, and employees who work shifts of more than ten (10) hours must be provided 15 thirty (30) minutes of paid rest period. 16 73. Pursuant to Labor Code section 226.7, if an employer fails to provide an employee 17 with a meal period or rest period as provided in the applicable Wage Order of the Industrial Welfare 18 Commission, the employer shall pay the employee one (1) additional hour of pay at the employee’s 19 regular rate of compensation for each work day that the rest period is not provided. 20 74. For four (4) years prior to the filing of the Complaint in this Action through the 21 present, Plaintiff and Class Members were, at times, not authorized or permitted to take complete, 22 timely 10-minute, duty-free uninterrupted rest periods every four (4) hours of work or major fraction 23 thereof. Moreover, at times, Defendants failed to provide one (1) additional hour of pay at the Class 24 Member’s regular rate of compensation on the occasions that Class Members were not authorized 25 or permitted to take compliant rest periods. 26 75. By their failure, at times, to authorize and permit Plaintiff and Class Members to take 27 rest periods contemplated by California law, and one (1) additional hour of pay at the employee’s 28 regular rate of compensation for such unprovided rest periods, as alleged above, Defendants 19 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 willfully violated the provisions of Labor Code section 226.7 and applicable Wage Orders. 2 76. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have 3 suffered damages in an amou