Preview
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
David D. Bibiyan (Cal. Bar No. 287811) Electronically FILED by
Superior Court of California,
david@tomorrowlaw.com County of Los Angeles
Jeffrey D. Klein (Cal. Bar No. 297296) 3/25/2024 2:02 PM
David W. Slayton,
jef{@tomorrowlaw.com Executive Officer/Clerk of Court,
1460 Westwood Boulevard By J. Covarrubias, Deputy Clerk
Los Angeles, California 90024
Tel: (310) 438-5555; Fax: (310) 300-1705
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Ramon Perio and
on behalf of all others similarly situated
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10
RAMON PERIO, an individual and on behalf CASENO.: 245T CYOFS87
11 of all others similarly situated,
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR:
12 Plaintiff, 1 FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES;
13 2. FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES;
14 FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL
PERIODS;
15
STUDIO INSTRUMENT RENTALS, INC., a
FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST PERIODS; 3
16 California Corporation; and DOES | through
100, inclusive, WAITING TIME PENALTIES;
17
Defendants. WAGE STATEMENT VIOLATIONS;
18
FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY WAGES;
19
8 VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 2802;
20
9. UNFAIR COMPETITION.
21
22 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
23 [Amount in Controversy Exceeds $35,000.00]
24
25
26
27
28
A atPro
‘460
24 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
(G10) 438
Plaintiff Ramon Perio, on behalf of Plaintiff and all others similarly situated, alleges as|
follows:
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
INTRODUCTION
1 This is a Class Action, pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure section 382, against Studio
Instrument Rentals, Inc., and any of its respective subsidiaries or affiliated companies within the State
of California (““STUDIO” collectively with DOES 1 through 100, as further defined below,
“Defendants”) on behalf of Plaintiff and all other current and former non-exempt California
employees employed by or formerly employed by Defendants (“Class Members”).
10 PARTIES
11 A Plaintiff
12 2. Plaintiff Ramon Perio is a resident of the State of California. At all relevant times|
13 herein, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants employed
14 Plaintiff as a non-exempt employee, with duties that included, but were not limited to, driving and|
15 delivering rental instruments, and loading and unloading rental instruments. Plaintiff is informed and
16 believes, and based thereon alleges, that Plaintiff Ramon Perio worked for Defendants from|
17 approximately May of 2022 through approximately November of 2023.
18 B Defendants
19 3 Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant STUDIO is,
20 and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the|
21 laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of , State of California. At all relevant|
22 times herein, STUDIO employed Plaintiff and similarly situated employees within the State of|
23 California. At all relevant times herein, STUDIO employed Plaintiff
and similarly situated employees|
24 within the State of California.
25 4 The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise,
26 of defendants sued herein as DOES | through 100, inclusive, are currently unknown to Plaintiff, who|
27 therefore sues defendants by such fictitious names under Code of Civil Procedure section 474.
28
2
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that each of the defendants designated
herein as DOE is legally responsible in some manner for the unlawful acts referred to herein. Plaintiff|
will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to reflect the true names and capacities of the
defendants designated hereinafter as DOES when such identities become known. Plaintiffis informed
and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each defendant acted in all respects pertinent to this|
action, as the agent of the other defendant(s), carried out a joint scheme, business plan or policy in all]
respects pertinent hereto, and the acts of each defendant are legally attributable to the other defendants.
Whenever, heretofore or hereinafter, reference is made to “Defendants,” it shall include STUDIO and
any of their parent, subsidiary, or affiliated companies within the State of California, as well as any|
10 Individual and DOES 1 through 100 identified herein.
11 JOINT LIABILITY ALLEGATIONS
12 5 Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that all the times|
13 mentioned herein, each of the Defendants was the agent, principal, employee, employer,
14 representative, joint venture or co-conspirator of each of the other defendants, either actually or|
15 ostensibly, and in doing the things alleged herein acted within the course and scope of such agency,
16 employment, joint venture, and conspiracy.
17 6. All of the acts and conduct described herein of each and every corporate defendant was|
18 duly authorized, ordered, and directed by the respective and collective defendant corporate employers,
19 and the officers and management-level employees of said corporate employers. In addition thereto,
20 said corporate employers participated in the aforementioned acts and conduct of their said employees,
21 agents, and representatives, and each of them; and upon completion of the aforesaid acts and conduct|
22 of said corporate employees, agents, and representatives, the defendant corporation respectively and
23 collectively ratified, accepted the benefits of, condoned, lauded, acquiesced, authorized, and otherwise}
24 approved of each and all of the said acts and conduct of the aforementioned corporate employees,
25 agents and representatives.
7
26 Plaintiff is further informed and believes and based thereon alleges that DOES 51
27 through 100 violated, or caused to be violated, the above-referenced and below-referenced Labor
28
3
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Code provisions in violation of Labor Code section 558.1.
8 Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon allege, that there exists such al
unity of interest and ownership between Defendants, and each of them, that their individuality and
separateness have ceased to exist.
9 Plaintiffis informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that despite the formation|
of the purported corporate existence of STUDIO and DOES 1 through S50, inclusive (the “Alter Ego
Defendants’), they, and each of them, are one and the same with DOES 51 through 100 (“Individual
Defendants’), and each of them, due to, but not limited to, the following reasons:
A The Alter Ego Defendants are completely dominated and controlled by the Individual
10 Defendants who personally committed the wrongful and illegal acts and violated the|
11 laws as set forth in this Complaint, and who has hidden and currently hide behind the|
12 Alter Ego Defendants to perpetrate frauds, circumvent statutes, or accomplish some
13 other wrongful or inequitable purpose;
14 The Individual Defendants derive actual and significant monetary benefits by and
15 through the Alter Ego Defendants’ unlawful conduct, and by using the Alter Ego
16 Defendants as the funding source for the Individual Defendants’ own personal
17 expenditures;
18 Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Individual Defendants
19 and the Alter Ego Defendants, while really one and the same, were segregated to appear
20 as though separate and distinct for purposes of perpetrating a fraud, circumventing a
21 statute, or accomplishing some other wrongful or inequitable purpose;
22 Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the business affairs of the
23 Individual Defendants and the Alter Ego Defendants are, and at all relevant times
24 mentioned herein were, so mixed and intermingled that the same cannot reasonably be
25 segregated, and the same are inextricable confusion. The Alter Ego Defendants are,
26 and at all relevant times mentioned herein were, used by the Individual Defendants as
27 mere shells and conduits for the conduct of certain of their, and each of their
28
4
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
affairs. The Alter Ego Defendants are, and at all relevant times mentioned herein were,
the alter egos of the Individual Defendants;
The recognition of the separate existence of the Individual Defendants and the Alter
Ego Defendants would promote injustice insofar that it would permit defendants to
insulate themselves from liability to Plaintiff for violations of the Civil Code, Labor
Code, and other statutory violations. The corporate existence of these defendants
should thus be disregarded in equity and for the ends of justice because such disregard
is necessary to avoid fraud and injustice to Plaintiff herein;
Accordingly, the Alter Ego Defendants constitute the alter ego of the Individual
10 Defendants (and vice versa), and the fiction of their separate corporate existence must
11 be disregarded;
12 10. As a result of the aforementioned facts, Plaintiffis informed and believes, and based
13 thereon alleges that Defendants, and each of them, are joint employers.
14 JURISDICTION
15 ll. Jurisdiction exists in the Superior Court of the State of California pursuant to Code of|
16 Civil Procedure section 410.10.
17 12. Venue is proper in Los Angeles County, California pursuant to Code of Civil
18 Procedure sections 392, et seq. because, among other things, Los Angeles County is where the causes
19 of action complained of herein arose; the county in which the employment relationship began; the|
20 county in which performance of the employment contract, or part of it, between Plaintiff and
21 Defendants was due to be performed; the county in which the employment contract, or part of it,
22 between Plaintiff and Defendants was actually performed; and the county in which Defendants, or|
23 some of them, reside. Moreover, the unlawful acts alleged herein have a direct effect on Plaintiff
and
24 Class Members in Los Angeles County, and because Defendants employ numerous Class Members|
25 in Los Angeles County.
26 FACTUAL BACKGROUND
27 13. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the present,
28
5
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Defendants have, at times, failed to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of|
them, in violation of California state wage and hour laws as a result of, without limitation, Plaintiff]
and Class Members working over eight (8) hours per day, forty (40) hours per week, and seven|
consecutive work days in a work week without being properly compensated for hours worked in|
excess of (8) hours per day in a work day, forty (40) hours per week in a work week, and/or hours|
worked on the seventh consecutive work day in a work week by, among other things, failing to
accurately track and/or pay for all minutes actually worked at the proper overtime rate of pay;
engaging, suffering, or permitting employees to work off the clock, including, without limitation, by|
requiring Plaintiff and Class Members: to come early to work and leave late work without being able
10 to clock in for all that time, to suffer under Defendants’ control due to long lines for clocking in, to
11 complete pre-shift tasks before clocking in and post-shift tasks after clocking out, to clock out for|
12 meal periods and continue working, to clock out for rest periods, to attend company meetings off the}
13 clock, to make phone calls off the clock, to drive off the clock, and/or go through security screenings|
14 and/or temperature checks off the clock; failing to include all forms of remuneration, including non-
15 discretionary bonuses, incentive pay, meal allowances, mask allowances, gift cards and other forms
16 of remuneration into the regular rate of pay for the pay periods where overtime was worked and the|
17 additional compensation was earned for the purpose of calculating the overtime rate of pay;
18 detrimental rounding of employee time entries, editing and/or manipulation of time entries; and by|
19 attempting but failing to properly implement an alternative workweek schedule (“AWS”) (including,
20 without limitation, by failing to implement a written agreement designating the regularly scheduled
21 alternative workweek in which the specified number of work days and work hours are regularly
22 recurring; failing to adopt the AWS in a secret ballot election, before the performance of work, by at
23 least a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the affected employees in the work unit; failing to follow the|
24 notice/disclosures procedures prior to any AWS election; and/or failing to register an AWS election
25 with the State of California, as required by Labor Code section 511 and applicable Wage Orders) to)
26 the detriment of Plaintiff and Class Members.
27 14. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this Action and continuing to the present,
28
6
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Defendants have, at times, failed to pay minimum wages to Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of|
them, in violation of California state wage and hour laws as a result of, among other things, at times,
failing to accurately track and/or pay for all hours actually worked at their regular rate of pay that is
above the minimum wage; engaging, suffering, or permitting employees to work off the clock,
including, without limitation, by requiring Plaintiff and Class Members: to come early to work and
leave late work without being able to clock in for all that time, to suffer under Defendants’ control]
due to long lines for clocking in, to complete pre-shift tasks before clocking in and post-shift tasks|
after clocking out, to clock out for meal periods and continue working, to clock out for rest periods,
to attend company meetings off the clock, to make phone calls off the clock; to drive off the clock;
10 detrimental rounding of employee time entries; editing and/or manipulation of time entries to show]
11 less hours than actually worked; failing to pay split shift premiums; and failing to pay reporting time|
12 pay to the detriment of Plaintiff and Class Members.
13 15. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this Action and continuing to the present,
14 Defendants have, at times, failed to provide Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of them, full, timely
15 thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal period for days on which they worked more than five (5) hours|
16 in a work day and a second thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal period for days on which they|
17 worked in excess of ten (10) hours in a work day, and failing to provide compensation for such|
18 unprovided meal periods as required by California wage and hour laws.
19 16. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the present,
20 Defendants have, at times, failed to authorize and permit Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of|
21 them, to take rest periods of at least ten (10) minutes per four (4) hours worked or major fraction|
22 thereof and failed to provide compensation for such unprovided rest periods as required by California)
23 wage and hour laws.
24 17. For at least three (3) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the present,
25 Defendants have, at times, failed to pay Plaintiff
and Class Members, or some of them, the full amount
26 of their wages owed to them upon termination and/or resignation as required by Labor Code sections|
27 201 and 202, including for, without limitation, failing to pay overtime wages, minimum wages, and
28
7
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
premium wages.
18. For at least one (1) year prior to the filing of this Action and continuing to the present,
Defendants have, at times, failed to furnish Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of them, with|
itemized wage statements that accurately reflect gross wages earned; total hours worked; net wages|
earned; all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of|
hours worked at each hourly rate; and other such information as required by Labor Code section 226,
subdivision (a). As a result thereof, Defendants have further failed to furnish employees with an|
accurate calculation of gross and gross wages earned, as well as gross and net wages paid.
19. For at least one (1) year prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the present,
10 Defendants have, at times, failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of them, the full amount
11 of their wages for labor performed in a timely fashion as required under Labor Code section 204.
12 20. For at least three (3) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the present,
13 Defendants have, at times, failed to indemnify Class Members, or some of them, for the costs incurred
14 in mileage and/or gas costs incurred in driving personal vehicles for work-related purposes; using}
15 cellular phones for work-related purposes; and purchasing tools necessary to perform work duties.
16 21. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the present,
17 Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to provide Plaintiffs and similarly situated
18 employees or former employees within the State of California with the rights provided to them under|
19 the Healthy Workplace Heathy Families Act of 2014, codified at Labor Code section 245, et seq.
20 22. Plaintiff, on their own behalf and on behalf of Class Members, brings this action|
21 pursuant to, including but not limited to, Labor Code sections 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7,
22 245, et seq., 510, 512, 558.1, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 2802, and California Code of Regulations, Title 8,
23 section 11040, seeking overtime wages, minimum wages, payment of premium wages for missed meal]
24 and rest periods, failure to pay timely wages, waiting time penalties, wage statement penalties, other]
25 such provisions of California law, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
26 23. Plaintiff, on Plaintiff's own behalf and on behalf of Class Members, pursuant to|
27 Business and Professions Code sections 17200 through 17208, also seeks (an) injunction(s)|
28
8
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
prohibiting Defendants from further violating the Labor Code and requiring the establishment of|
appropriate and effective means to prevent further violations, as well as all monies owed but withheld
and retained by Defendants to which Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled, as well as restitution|
of amounts owed.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
24. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of Plaintiff and Class Members as a class action|
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 382. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all current and
former non-exempt employees of Defendants within the State of California at any time commencing}
four (4) years preceding the filing of Plaintiff's complaint up until the time that notice of the class|
10 action is provided to the class (collectively referred to as “Class Members”).
11 25. Plaintiff reserves the right under California Rule of Court rule 3.765, subdivision (b)|
12 to amend or modify the class description with greater specificity, further divide the defined class into}
13 subclasses, and to further specify or limit the issues for which certification is sought.
14 26. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action under|
15 the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 382 because there is a well-defined community of|
16 interest in the litigation and the proposed Class is easily ascertainable.
17 A Numerosity
18 27. The potential Class Members as defined are so numerous that joinder of all the
19 members of the Class is impracticable. While the precise number of Class Members has not been|
20 determined yet, Plaintiffis informed and believes that there are over seventy-five (75) Class Members|
21 employed by Defendants within the State of California.
22 28. Accounting for employee turnover during the relevant periods necessarily increases|
23 this number. Plaintiff alleges Defendants’ employment records would provide information as to the
24 number and location of all Class Members. Joinder of all members of the proposed Class is not|
25 practicable.
26 B Commonality
27 29. There are questions of law and fact common to Class Members. These common
28
9
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 || questions include, but are not limited to:
2 A Did Defendants violate Labor Code sections 510 and 1194 by failing to pay all hours|
3 worked at a proper overtime rate of pay?
Did Defendants violate Labor Code sections 510, 1194 and 1197 by failing to pay for|
all other time worked at the employee’s regular rate of pay and a rate of pay that is|
greater than the applicable minimum wage?
Did Defendants violate Labor Code section 512 by not authorizing or permitting Class|
Members to take compliant meal periods?
Did Defendants violate Labor Code section 226.7 by not providing Class Members
10 with additional wages for missed or interrupted meal periods?
11 Did Defendants violate applicable Wage Orders by not authorizing or permitting Class|
12 Members to take compliant rest periods?
13 Did Defendants violate Labor Code section 226.7 by not providing Class Members|
14 with additional wages for missed rest periods?
15 Did Defendants violate Labor Code sections 201 and 202 by failing to pay Class|
16 Members upon termination or resignation all wages earned?
17 Are Defendants liable to Class Members for waiting time penalties under Labor Code
18 section 203?
19 Did Defendants violate Labor Code section 226, subdivision (a) by not furnishing}
20 Class Members with accurate wage statements?
21 Did Defendants fail to pay Class Members in a timely fashion as required under Labor|
22 Code section 204?
23 Did Defendants violate the Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code|
24 section 17200, et seq., by their unlawful practices as alleged herein?
25 Are Class Members entitled to restitution of wages under Business and Professions
26 Code section 17203?
27 Are Class Members entitled to costs and attorneys’ fees?
28
10
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
N. Are Class Members entitled to interest?
Cc Typicality
30. The claims of Plaintiff herein alleged are typical of those claims which could be alleged
by any Class Members, and the relief sought is typical of the relief which would be sought by each|
Class Member in separate actions. Plaintiff and Class Members sustained injuries and damages
arising out of and caused by Defendants’ common course of conduct in violation of laws and|
regulations that have the force and effect of law and statutes as alleged herein.
D. Adequacy of Representation
31. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interest of Class Members.
10 Counsel who represents Plaintiff is competent and experienced in litigating wage and hour class|
11 actions.
12 E Superiority of Class Action
13 32. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication
14 of this controversy. Individual joinder of all Class Members is not practicable, and questions of law]
15 and fact common to Class Members predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class|
16 Members. Class Members, as further described therein, have been damaged and are entitled to
17 recovery by reason of Defendants’ policies and/or practices that have resulted in the violation of the
18 Labor Code at times, as set out herein.
19 33. Class action treatment will allow Class Members to litigate their claims in a manner|
20 that is most efficient and economical for the parties and the judicial system. Plaintiff is unaware of|
21 any difficulties that are likely to be encountered in the management of this action that would preclude|
22 its maintenance as a class action.
23 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
24 (Failure to Pay Overtime Wages — Against All Defendants)
25 34. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in the|
26 preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.
27 35. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class Members were employees or former
28
11
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
employees of Defendants covered by Labor Code sections 510, 1194 and 1199, as well as applicable}
Wage Orders.
36. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Labor Code section 510 was in effect and
provided: “(a) Eight hours of labor constitutes a day’s work. Any work in excess of eight hours in|
one workday and any work in excess of forty hours in any one workweek . . . shall be compensated at|
the rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for an employee.”
37. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Labor Code section 510 further provided that
“TaJny work in excess of 12 hours in one day shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice|
the regular rate of pay for an employee. In addition, any work in excess of eight hours on any seventh|
10 day of a workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay.”
11 38. Four (4) years prior to the filing of the Complaint in this Action through the present,
12 Plaintiff and Class Members, at times, worked for Defendants during shifts that consisted of more|
13 than eight (8) hours in a workday and/or more than forty hours in a workweek, and/or seven (7)
14 consecutive workdays in a workweek, without being paid overtime wages for all hours worked as aj
15 result of, including but not limited to, Defendants failing to accurately track and/or pay for all hours|
16 actually worked at the proper overtime rate of pay; engaging, suffering, or permitting employees to|
17 work off the clock, including, without limitation, by requiring Plaintiff and Class Members: to come|
18 early 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 attend company meetings off the clock, to make phone calls off the clock, to}
22 drive off the clock, and/or go through security screenings and/or temperature checks off the clock;
23 failing to include all forms of remuneration, including non-discretionary bonuses, incentive pay, meal
24 allowances, mask allowances, gift cards and other forms of remuneration into the regular rate of pay|
25 for the pay periods where overtime was worked and the additional compensation was earned for the|
26 purpose of calculating the overtime rate of pay; detrimental rounding of employee time entries, editing]
27 and/or manipulation of time entries; and by attempting but failing to properly implement an alternative}
28
12
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
workweek schedule (“AWS”) (including, without limitation, by failing to implement a written
agreement designating the regularly scheduled alternative workweek in which the specified number|
of work days and work hours are regularly recurring; failing to adopt the AWS in a secret ballot|
election, before the performance of work, by at least a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the affected employees|
in the work unit; failing to follow the notice/disclosures procedures prior to any AWS election; and/or|
failing to register an AWS election with the State of California, as required by Labor Code section|
511 and applicable Wage Orders)] to the detriment of Plaintiff
and Class Members.
39. Accordingly, by requiring Plaintiff and Class Members to, at times, work greater than|
eight (8) hours per workday, forty (40) hours per workweek, and/or seven (7) straight workdays|
10 without properly compensating overtime wages at the proper overtime rate of pay, Defendants, on
11 occasion, willfully violated the provisions of the Labor Code, among others, sections 510, 1194, and|
12 applicable IWC Wage Orders, and California law.
13 40. As a result of the unlawful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff and Class Members have been|
14 deprived of overtime wages in amounts to be determined at trial, and are entitled to recovery, plus|
15 interest and penalties thereon, attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to Labor Code section 1194 and|
16 1199, Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 and 1032, and Civil Code section 3287.
17 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
18 (Failure to Pay Minimum Wages — Against All Defendants)
19 41. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in the|
20 preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.
21 42. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class Members were employees or former
22 employees of Defendants covered by Labor Code sections 1197, 1199 and applicable Wage Orders.
23 43. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1197 and applicable Wage Orders, Plaintiff and Class|
24 Members were entitled to receive minimum wages for all hours worked or otherwise under|
25 Defendants’ control.
26 44, For four (4) years prior to the filing of the Complaint in this Action through the present,
27 Defendants failed, at times, to accurately track and/or pay for all hours actually worked at their regular!
28
13
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
rate of pay that is above the minimum wage; engaged, suffered, or permitted employees to work off
the clock, including, without limitation, by requiring Plaintiff and Class Members: to come early to
work and leave late work without being able to clock in for all that time, to suffer under Defendants’
control due to long lines for clocking in, to complete pre-shift tasks before clocking in and post-shift|
tasks after clocking out, to clock out for meal periods and continue working, to clock out for rest
periods, to attend company meetings off the clock, to make phone calls off the clock; to drive off the}
clock; detrimental rounding of employee time entries; editing and/or manipulation of time entries to]
show less hours than actually worked; failing to pay split shift premiums; and failing to pay reporting]
time pay] to the detriment of Plaintiff and Class Members.
10 45. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have}
11 suffered damages in an amount, subject to proof, to the extent they were not paid minimum wages for|
12 all hours worked or otherwise due.
13 46. Pursuant to Labor Code sections 218.6, 1194, 1194.2, Code of Civil Procedure sections}
14 1021.5 and 1032, and Civil Code section 3287, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to recover
15 the full amount of unpaid minimum wages, interest and penalties thereon, liquidated damages,
16 reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.
17 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
18 (Failure to Provide Meal Periods — Against All Defendants)
19 47. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in the|
20 preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.
21 48. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class Members were employees or former
22 employees of Defendants covered by Labor Code section 512 and applicable Wage Orders.
23 49. Pursuant to Labor Code section 512 and applicable Wage Orders, no employer shall]
24 employ an employee for a work period of more than five (5) hours without a timely meal break of not|
25 less than thirty (30) minutes in which the employee is relieved of all of his or her duties. Furthermore,
26 no employer shall employ an employee for a work period of more than ten (10) hours per day without
27 providing the employee with a second timely meal period of not less than thirty (30) minutes in which|
28
14
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
the employee is relieved of all of his or her duties.
50. Pursuant to Labor Code section 226.7, if an employer fails to provide an employee|
with a meal period as provided in the applicable Wage Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission,
the employer shall pay the employee one (1) additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of|
compensation for each workday that the meal period is not provided.
Sl. For four (4) years prior to the filing of the Complaint in this Action through the present,
Plaintiff and Class Members were, at times, not provided complete, timely 30-minute, duty-free}
uninterrupted meal periods every five hours of work without waiving the right to take them, as|
permitted. Moreover, at times, Defendants failed to provide one (1) additional hour of pay at the Class|
10 Member’s regular rate of compensation on the occasions that Class Members were not provided|
11 compliant meal periods.
12 52. By their failure to provide Plaintiff and Class Members compliant meal periods as|
13 contemplated by Labor Code section 512, among other California authorities, and failing, at times, to|
14 provide compensation for such unprovided meal periods, as alleged above, Defendants willfully
15 violated the provisions of Labor Code section 512 and applicable Wage Orders.
16 53. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have}
17 suffered damages in an amount, subject to proof, to the extent they were not paid additional pay owed|
18 for missed, untimely, interrupted, incomplete and/or on-duty meal periods.
19 54. Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to recover the full amount of their unpaid
20 additional pay for unprovided compliant meal periods, in amounts to be determined at trial, plus|
21 interest and penalties thereon, attorneys’ fees, and costs, under Labor Code sections 226 and 226.7,
22 Code of Civil Procedure sections 1021.5 and 1032, and Civil Code section 3287.
23 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
24 (Failure to Provide Rest Periods — Against All Defendants)
25 55. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in the|
26 preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.
27 56. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class Members were employees or former
28
15
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
employees of Defendants covered by applicable Wage Orders.
57. California law and applicable Wage Orders require that employers “authorize and
permit” employees to take ten (10) minute rest periods in about the middle of each four (4) hour work
period “or major fraction thereof.” Accordingly, employees who work shifts of three and-a-half (3
‘4) to six (6) hours must be provided ten (10) minutes of paid rest period, employees who work shifts
of more than six (6) and up to ten (10) hours must be provided with twenty (20) minutes of paid rest|
period, and employees who work shifts of more than ten (10) hours must be provided thirty (30)|
minutes of paid rest period.
58. Pursuant to Labor Code section 226.7, if an employer fails to provide an employee|
10 with a meal period or rest period as provided in the applicable Wage Order of the Industrial Welfare}
11 Commission, the employer shall pay the employee one (1) additional hour of pay at the employee’s|
12 regular rate of compensation for each work day that the rest period is not provided.
13 59. For four (4) years prior to the filing of the Complaint in this Action through the present,
14 Plaintiff
and Class Members were, at times, not authorized or permitted to take complete, timely 10-|
15 minute, duty-free uninterrupted rest periods every four (4) hours of work or major fraction thereof.
16 Moreover, at times, Defendants failed to provide one (1) additional hour of pay at the Class Member’ s|
17 regular rate of compensation on the occasions that Class Members were not authorized or permitted
18 to take compliant rest periods.
19 60. By their failure, at times, to authorize and permit Plaintiff
and Class Members to take}
20 rest periods contemplated by California law, and one (1) additional hour of pay at the employee’s|
21 regular rate of compensation for such unprovided rest periods, as alleged above, Defendants willfully
22 violated the provisions of Labor Code section 226.7 and applicable Wage Orders.
23 61. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have}
24 suffered damages in an amount, subject to proof, to the extent they were not paid additional pay owed|
25 for rest periods that they were not authorized or permitted to take.
26 62. Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to recover the full amount of their unpaid
27 additional pay for unprovided compliant rest periods, in amounts to be determined at trial, plus interest
28
16
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
and penalties thereon, attorneys’ fees, and costs, under Labor Code sections 226 and 226.7, Code of|
Civil Procedure sections 1021.5 and 1032, and Civil Code section 3287.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Failure to Pay All Wages Due Upon Termination — Against All Defendants)
63. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in the|
preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.
64. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class Members were employees or former
employees of Defendants covered by Labor Code sections 201, 202 and 203, as well as applicable}
Wage Orders.
10 65. Pursuant to Labor Code sections 201 and 202, Plaintiff and Class Members were}
11 entitled upon termination to timely payment of all wages earned and unpaid prior to termination.
12 Discharged Class Members were entitled to payment of all wages earned and unpaid prior to discharge|
13 immediately upon termination. Class Members who resigned were entitled to payment of all wages
14 earned and unpaid prior to resignation within 72 hours after giving notice of resignation or, if they
15 gave 72 hours previous notice, they were entitled to payment of all wages earned and unpaid at the|
16 time of resignation.
17 66. Plaintiffis informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that in the three (3) years
18 before the filing of the Complaint in this Action through the present, Defendants, due to the failure,
19 at times, to provide overtime wages mentioned above, failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members all]
20 wages earned prior to resignation or termination in accordance with Labor Code sections 201 or 202.
21 67. Plaintiff is informed and believes Defendants’ failure, at times, to pay Plaintiff and
22 Class Members all wages earned prior to termination or resignation in accordance with Labor Code|
23 sections 201 and 202 was willful. Defendants had the ability to pay all wages earned by Plaintiff
and
24 Class Members at the time of termination in accordance with Labor Code sections 201 and 202, but|
25 intentionally adopted policies or practices incompatible with the requirements of Labor Code sections|
26 201 and 202 resulting in the failure, at times, to pay all wages earned prior to termination or
27 resignation.
28
17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
68. Pursuant to Labor Code section 203, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to|
waiting time penalties from the date their earned and unpaid wages were due, upon termination or
resignation, until paid, up to a maximum of thirty (30) days.
69. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have}
suffered damages in an amount subject to proof, to the extent they were not paid for all wages earned|
prior to termination or resignation.
70. Pursuant to Labor Code section 203 and 218.6, Code of Civil Procedure sections}
1021.5 and 1032, and Civil Code section 3287, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to recover
waiting time penalties, interest, and their costs of suit, as well.
10 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
11 (Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements — Against All Defendants)
12 71. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in the|
13 preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.
14 72. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class Members were employees or former
15 employees of Defendants covered by Labor Code section 226, as well
Preview
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. David D. Bibiyan (Cal. Bar No. 287811) Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, david@tomorrowlaw.com County of Los Angeles Jeffrey D. Klein (Cal. Bar No. 297296) 3/25/2024 2:02 PM David W. Slayton, jef{@tomorrowlaw.com Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, 1460 Westwood Boulevard By J. Covarrubias, Deputy Clerk Los Angeles, California 90024 Tel: (310) 438-5555; Fax: (310) 300-1705 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Ramon Perio and on behalf of all others similarly situated SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 10 RAMON PERIO, an individual and on behalf CASENO.: 245T CYOFS87 11 of all others similarly situated, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR: 12 Plaintiff, 1 FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES; 13 2. FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES; 14 FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIODS; 15 STUDIO INSTRUMENT RENTALS, INC., a FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST PERIODS; 3 16 California Corporation; and DOES | through 100, inclusive, WAITING TIME PENALTIES; 17 Defendants. WAGE STATEMENT VIOLATIONS; 18 FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY WAGES; 19 8 VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 2802; 20 9. UNFAIR COMPETITION. 21 22 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 23 [Amount in Controversy Exceeds $35,000.00] 24 25 26 27 28 A atPro ‘460 24 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (G10) 438 Plaintiff Ramon Perio, on behalf of Plaintiff and all others similarly situated, alleges as| follows: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS INTRODUCTION 1 This is a Class Action, pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure section 382, against Studio Instrument Rentals, Inc., and any of its respective subsidiaries or affiliated companies within the State of California (““STUDIO” collectively with DOES 1 through 100, as further defined below, “Defendants”) on behalf of Plaintiff and all other current and former non-exempt California employees employed by or formerly employed by Defendants (“Class Members”). 10 PARTIES 11 A Plaintiff 12 2. Plaintiff Ramon Perio is a resident of the State of California. At all relevant times| 13 herein, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants employed 14 Plaintiff as a non-exempt employee, with duties that included, but were not limited to, driving and| 15 delivering rental instruments, and loading and unloading rental instruments. Plaintiff is informed and 16 believes, and based thereon alleges, that Plaintiff Ramon Perio worked for Defendants from| 17 approximately May of 2022 through approximately November of 2023. 18 B Defendants 19 3 Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that defendant STUDIO is, 20 and at all times relevant hereto was, a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the| 21 laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of , State of California. At all relevant| 22 times herein, STUDIO employed Plaintiff and similarly situated employees within the State of| 23 California. At all relevant times herein, STUDIO employed Plaintiff and similarly situated employees| 24 within the State of California. 25 4 The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, 26 of defendants sued herein as DOES | through 100, inclusive, are currently unknown to Plaintiff, who| 27 therefore sues defendants by such fictitious names under Code of Civil Procedure section 474. 28 2 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that each of the defendants designated herein as DOE is legally responsible in some manner for the unlawful acts referred to herein. Plaintiff| will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to reflect the true names and capacities of the defendants designated hereinafter as DOES when such identities become known. Plaintiffis informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each defendant acted in all respects pertinent to this| action, as the agent of the other defendant(s), carried out a joint scheme, business plan or policy in all] respects pertinent hereto, and the acts of each defendant are legally attributable to the other defendants. Whenever, heretofore or hereinafter, reference is made to “Defendants,” it shall include STUDIO and any of their parent, subsidiary, or affiliated companies within the State of California, as well as any| 10 Individual and DOES 1 through 100 identified herein. 11 JOINT LIABILITY ALLEGATIONS 12 5 Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that all the times| 13 mentioned herein, each of the Defendants was the agent, principal, employee, employer, 14 representative, joint venture or co-conspirator of each of the other defendants, either actually or| 15 ostensibly, and in doing the things alleged herein acted within the course and scope of such agency, 16 employment, joint venture, and conspiracy. 17 6. All of the acts and conduct described herein of each and every corporate defendant was| 18 duly authorized, ordered, and directed by the respective and collective defendant corporate employers, 19 and the officers and management-level employees of said corporate employers. In addition thereto, 20 said corporate employers participated in the aforementioned acts and conduct of their said employees, 21 agents, and representatives, and each of them; and upon completion of the aforesaid acts and conduct| 22 of said corporate employees, agents, and representatives, the defendant corporation respectively and 23 collectively ratified, accepted the benefits of, condoned, lauded, acquiesced, authorized, and otherwise} 24 approved of each and all of the said acts and conduct of the aforementioned corporate employees, 25 agents and representatives. 7 26 Plaintiff is further informed and believes and based thereon alleges that DOES 51 27 through 100 violated, or caused to be violated, the above-referenced and below-referenced Labor 28 3 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Code provisions in violation of Labor Code section 558.1. 8 Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon allege, that there exists such al unity of interest and ownership between Defendants, and each of them, that their individuality and separateness have ceased to exist. 9 Plaintiffis informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that despite the formation| of the purported corporate existence of STUDIO and DOES 1 through S50, inclusive (the “Alter Ego Defendants’), they, and each of them, are one and the same with DOES 51 through 100 (“Individual Defendants’), and each of them, due to, but not limited to, the following reasons: A The Alter Ego Defendants are completely dominated and controlled by the Individual 10 Defendants who personally committed the wrongful and illegal acts and violated the| 11 laws as set forth in this Complaint, and who has hidden and currently hide behind the| 12 Alter Ego Defendants to perpetrate frauds, circumvent statutes, or accomplish some 13 other wrongful or inequitable purpose; 14 The Individual Defendants derive actual and significant monetary benefits by and 15 through the Alter Ego Defendants’ unlawful conduct, and by using the Alter Ego 16 Defendants as the funding source for the Individual Defendants’ own personal 17 expenditures; 18 Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Individual Defendants 19 and the Alter Ego Defendants, while really one and the same, were segregated to appear 20 as though separate and distinct for purposes of perpetrating a fraud, circumventing a 21 statute, or accomplishing some other wrongful or inequitable purpose; 22 Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the business affairs of the 23 Individual Defendants and the Alter Ego Defendants are, and at all relevant times 24 mentioned herein were, so mixed and intermingled that the same cannot reasonably be 25 segregated, and the same are inextricable confusion. The Alter Ego Defendants are, 26 and at all relevant times mentioned herein were, used by the Individual Defendants as 27 mere shells and conduits for the conduct of certain of their, and each of their 28 4 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT affairs. The Alter Ego Defendants are, and at all relevant times mentioned herein were, the alter egos of the Individual Defendants; The recognition of the separate existence of the Individual Defendants and the Alter Ego Defendants would promote injustice insofar that it would permit defendants to insulate themselves from liability to Plaintiff for violations of the Civil Code, Labor Code, and other statutory violations. The corporate existence of these defendants should thus be disregarded in equity and for the ends of justice because such disregard is necessary to avoid fraud and injustice to Plaintiff herein; Accordingly, the Alter Ego Defendants constitute the alter ego of the Individual 10 Defendants (and vice versa), and the fiction of their separate corporate existence must 11 be disregarded; 12 10. As a result of the aforementioned facts, Plaintiffis informed and believes, and based 13 thereon alleges that Defendants, and each of them, are joint employers. 14 JURISDICTION 15 ll. Jurisdiction exists in the Superior Court of the State of California pursuant to Code of| 16 Civil Procedure section 410.10. 17 12. Venue is proper in Los Angeles County, California pursuant to Code of Civil 18 Procedure sections 392, et seq. because, among other things, Los Angeles County is where the causes 19 of action complained of herein arose; the county in which the employment relationship began; the| 20 county in which performance of the employment contract, or part of it, between Plaintiff and 21 Defendants was due to be performed; the county in which the employment contract, or part of it, 22 between Plaintiff and Defendants was actually performed; and the county in which Defendants, or| 23 some of them, reside. Moreover, the unlawful acts alleged herein have a direct effect on Plaintiff and 24 Class Members in Los Angeles County, and because Defendants employ numerous Class Members| 25 in Los Angeles County. 26 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 27 13. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the present, 28 5 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Defendants have, at times, failed to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of| them, in violation of California state wage and hour laws as a result of, without limitation, Plaintiff] and Class Members working over eight (8) hours per day, forty (40) hours per week, and seven| consecutive work days in a work week without being properly compensated for hours worked in| excess of (8) hours per day in a work day, forty (40) hours per week in a work week, and/or hours| worked on the seventh consecutive work day in a work week by, among other things, failing to accurately track and/or pay for all minutes actually worked at the proper overtime rate of pay; engaging, suffering, or permitting employees to work off the clock, including, without limitation, by| requiring Plaintiff and Class Members: to come early to work and leave late work without being able 10 to clock in for all that time, to suffer under Defendants’ control due to long lines for clocking in, to 11 complete pre-shift tasks before clocking in and post-shift tasks after clocking out, to clock out for| 12 meal periods and continue working, to clock out for rest periods, to attend company meetings off the} 13 clock, to make phone calls off the clock, to drive off the clock, and/or go through security screenings| 14 and/or temperature checks off the clock; failing to include all forms of remuneration, including non- 15 discretionary bonuses, incentive pay, meal allowances, mask allowances, gift cards and other forms 16 of remuneration into the regular rate of pay for the pay periods where overtime was worked and the| 17 additional compensation was earned for the purpose of calculating the overtime rate of pay; 18 detrimental rounding of employee time entries, editing and/or manipulation of time entries; and by| 19 attempting but failing to properly implement an alternative workweek schedule (“AWS”) (including, 20 without limitation, by failing to implement a written agreement designating the regularly scheduled 21 alternative workweek in which the specified number of work days and work hours are regularly 22 recurring; failing to adopt the AWS in a secret ballot election, before the performance of work, by at 23 least a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the affected employees in the work unit; failing to follow the| 24 notice/disclosures procedures prior to any AWS election; and/or failing to register an AWS election 25 with the State of California, as required by Labor Code section 511 and applicable Wage Orders) to) 26 the detriment of Plaintiff and Class Members. 27 14. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this Action and continuing to the present, 28 6 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Defendants have, at times, failed to pay minimum wages to Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of| them, in violation of California state wage and hour laws as a result of, among other things, at times, failing to accurately track and/or pay for all hours actually worked at their regular rate of pay that is above the minimum wage; engaging, suffering, or permitting employees to work off the clock, including, without limitation, by requiring Plaintiff and Class Members: to come early to work and leave late work without being able to clock in for all that time, to suffer under Defendants’ control] due to long lines for clocking in, to complete pre-shift tasks before clocking in and post-shift tasks| after clocking out, to clock out for meal periods and continue working, to clock out for rest periods, to attend company meetings off the clock, to make phone calls off the clock; to drive off the clock; 10 detrimental rounding of employee time entries; editing and/or manipulation of time entries to show] 11 less hours than actually worked; failing to pay split shift premiums; and failing to pay reporting time| 12 pay to the detriment of Plaintiff and Class Members. 13 15. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this Action and continuing to the present, 14 Defendants have, at times, failed to provide Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of them, full, timely 15 thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal period for days on which they worked more than five (5) hours| 16 in a work day and a second thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal period for days on which they| 17 worked in excess of ten (10) hours in a work day, and failing to provide compensation for such| 18 unprovided meal periods as required by California wage and hour laws. 19 16. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the present, 20 Defendants have, at times, failed to authorize and permit Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of| 21 them, to take rest periods of at least ten (10) minutes per four (4) hours worked or major fraction| 22 thereof and failed to provide compensation for such unprovided rest periods as required by California) 23 wage and hour laws. 24 17. For at least three (3) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the present, 25 Defendants have, at times, failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of them, the full amount 26 of their wages owed to them upon termination and/or resignation as required by Labor Code sections| 27 201 and 202, including for, without limitation, failing to pay overtime wages, minimum wages, and 28 7 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT premium wages. 18. For at least one (1) year prior to the filing of this Action and continuing to the present, Defendants have, at times, failed to furnish Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of them, with| itemized wage statements that accurately reflect gross wages earned; total hours worked; net wages| earned; all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of| hours worked at each hourly rate; and other such information as required by Labor Code section 226, subdivision (a). As a result thereof, Defendants have further failed to furnish employees with an| accurate calculation of gross and gross wages earned, as well as gross and net wages paid. 19. For at least one (1) year prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the present, 10 Defendants have, at times, failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of them, the full amount 11 of their wages for labor performed in a timely fashion as required under Labor Code section 204. 12 20. For at least three (3) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the present, 13 Defendants have, at times, failed to indemnify Class Members, or some of them, for the costs incurred 14 in mileage and/or gas costs incurred in driving personal vehicles for work-related purposes; using} 15 cellular phones for work-related purposes; and purchasing tools necessary to perform work duties. 16 21. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the present, 17 Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to provide Plaintiffs and similarly situated 18 employees or former employees within the State of California with the rights provided to them under| 19 the Healthy Workplace Heathy Families Act of 2014, codified at Labor Code section 245, et seq. 20 22. Plaintiff, on their own behalf and on behalf of Class Members, brings this action| 21 pursuant to, including but not limited to, Labor Code sections 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7, 22 245, et seq., 510, 512, 558.1, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 2802, and California Code of Regulations, Title 8, 23 section 11040, seeking overtime wages, minimum wages, payment of premium wages for missed meal] 24 and rest periods, failure to pay timely wages, waiting time penalties, wage statement penalties, other] 25 such provisions of California law, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 26 23. Plaintiff, on Plaintiff's own behalf and on behalf of Class Members, pursuant to| 27 Business and Professions Code sections 17200 through 17208, also seeks (an) injunction(s)| 28 8 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT prohibiting Defendants from further violating the Labor Code and requiring the establishment of| appropriate and effective means to prevent further violations, as well as all monies owed but withheld and retained by Defendants to which Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled, as well as restitution| of amounts owed. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 24. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of Plaintiff and Class Members as a class action| pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 382. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all current and former non-exempt employees of Defendants within the State of California at any time commencing} four (4) years preceding the filing of Plaintiff's complaint up until the time that notice of the class| 10 action is provided to the class (collectively referred to as “Class Members”). 11 25. Plaintiff reserves the right under California Rule of Court rule 3.765, subdivision (b)| 12 to amend or modify the class description with greater specificity, further divide the defined class into} 13 subclasses, and to further specify or limit the issues for which certification is sought. 14 26. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action under| 15 the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 382 because there is a well-defined community of| 16 interest in the litigation and the proposed Class is easily ascertainable. 17 A Numerosity 18 27. The potential Class Members as defined are so numerous that joinder of all the 19 members of the Class is impracticable. While the precise number of Class Members has not been| 20 determined yet, Plaintiffis informed and believes that there are over seventy-five (75) Class Members| 21 employed by Defendants within the State of California. 22 28. Accounting for employee turnover during the relevant periods necessarily increases| 23 this number. Plaintiff alleges Defendants’ employment records would provide information as to the 24 number and location of all Class Members. Joinder of all members of the proposed Class is not| 25 practicable. 26 B Commonality 27 29. There are questions of law and fact common to Class Members. These common 28 9 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 || questions include, but are not limited to: 2 A Did Defendants violate Labor Code sections 510 and 1194 by failing to pay all hours| 3 worked at a proper overtime rate of pay? Did Defendants violate Labor Code sections 510, 1194 and 1197 by failing to pay for| all other time worked at the employee’s regular rate of pay and a rate of pay that is| greater than the applicable minimum wage? Did Defendants violate Labor Code section 512 by not authorizing or permitting Class| Members to take compliant meal periods? Did Defendants violate Labor Code section 226.7 by not providing Class Members 10 with additional wages for missed or interrupted meal periods? 11 Did Defendants violate applicable Wage Orders by not authorizing or permitting Class| 12 Members to take compliant rest periods? 13 Did Defendants violate Labor Code section 226.7 by not providing Class Members| 14 with additional wages for missed rest periods? 15 Did Defendants violate Labor Code sections 201 and 202 by failing to pay Class| 16 Members upon termination or resignation all wages earned? 17 Are Defendants liable to Class Members for waiting time penalties under Labor Code 18 section 203? 19 Did Defendants violate Labor Code section 226, subdivision (a) by not furnishing} 20 Class Members with accurate wage statements? 21 Did Defendants fail to pay Class Members in a timely fashion as required under Labor| 22 Code section 204? 23 Did Defendants violate the Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code| 24 section 17200, et seq., by their unlawful practices as alleged herein? 25 Are Class Members entitled to restitution of wages under Business and Professions 26 Code section 17203? 27 Are Class Members entitled to costs and attorneys’ fees? 28 10 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT N. Are Class Members entitled to interest? Cc Typicality 30. The claims of Plaintiff herein alleged are typical of those claims which could be alleged by any Class Members, and the relief sought is typical of the relief which would be sought by each| Class Member in separate actions. Plaintiff and Class Members sustained injuries and damages arising out of and caused by Defendants’ common course of conduct in violation of laws and| regulations that have the force and effect of law and statutes as alleged herein. D. Adequacy of Representation 31. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interest of Class Members. 10 Counsel who represents Plaintiff is competent and experienced in litigating wage and hour class| 11 actions. 12 E Superiority of Class Action 13 32. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication 14 of this controversy. Individual joinder of all Class Members is not practicable, and questions of law] 15 and fact common to Class Members predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class| 16 Members. Class Members, as further described therein, have been damaged and are entitled to 17 recovery by reason of Defendants’ policies and/or practices that have resulted in the violation of the 18 Labor Code at times, as set out herein. 19 33. Class action treatment will allow Class Members to litigate their claims in a manner| 20 that is most efficient and economical for the parties and the judicial system. Plaintiff is unaware of| 21 any difficulties that are likely to be encountered in the management of this action that would preclude| 22 its maintenance as a class action. 23 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 24 (Failure to Pay Overtime Wages — Against All Defendants) 25 34. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in the| 26 preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat. 27 35. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class Members were employees or former 28 11 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT employees of Defendants covered by Labor Code sections 510, 1194 and 1199, as well as applicable} Wage Orders. 36. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Labor Code section 510 was in effect and provided: “(a) Eight hours of labor constitutes a day’s work. Any work in excess of eight hours in| one workday and any work in excess of forty hours in any one workweek . . . shall be compensated at| the rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for an employee.” 37. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Labor Code section 510 further provided that “TaJny work in excess of 12 hours in one day shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice| the regular rate of pay for an employee. In addition, any work in excess of eight hours on any seventh| 10 day of a workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay.” 11 38. Four (4) years prior to the filing of the Complaint in this Action through the present, 12 Plaintiff and Class Members, at times, worked for Defendants during shifts that consisted of more| 13 than eight (8) hours in a workday and/or more than forty hours in a workweek, and/or seven (7) 14 consecutive workdays in a workweek, without being paid overtime wages for all hours worked as aj 15 result of, including but not limited to, Defendants failing to accurately track and/or pay for all hours| 16 actually worked at the proper overtime rate of pay; engaging, suffering, or permitting employees to| 17 work off the clock, including, without limitation, by requiring Plaintiff and Class Members: to come| 18 early 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 attend company meetings off the clock, to make phone calls off the clock, to} 22 drive off the clock, and/or go through security screenings and/or temperature checks off the clock; 23 failing to include all forms of remuneration, including non-discretionary bonuses, incentive pay, meal 24 allowances, mask allowances, gift cards and other forms of remuneration into the regular rate of pay| 25 for the pay periods where overtime was worked and the additional compensation was earned for the| 26 purpose of calculating the overtime rate of pay; detrimental rounding of employee time entries, editing] 27 and/or manipulation of time entries; and by attempting but failing to properly implement an alternative} 28 12 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT workweek schedule (“AWS”) (including, without limitation, by failing to implement a written agreement designating the regularly scheduled alternative workweek in which the specified number| of work days and work hours are regularly recurring; failing to adopt the AWS in a secret ballot| election, before the performance of work, by at least a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the affected employees| in the work unit; failing to follow the notice/disclosures procedures prior to any AWS election; and/or| failing to register an AWS election with the State of California, as required by Labor Code section| 511 and applicable Wage Orders)] to the detriment of Plaintiff and Class Members. 39. Accordingly, by requiring Plaintiff and Class Members to, at times, work greater than| eight (8) hours per workday, forty (40) hours per workweek, and/or seven (7) straight workdays| 10 without properly compensating overtime wages at the proper overtime rate of pay, Defendants, on 11 occasion, willfully violated the provisions of the Labor Code, among others, sections 510, 1194, and| 12 applicable IWC Wage Orders, and California law. 13 40. As a result of the unlawful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff and Class Members have been| 14 deprived of overtime wages in amounts to be determined at trial, and are entitled to recovery, plus| 15 interest and penalties thereon, attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to Labor Code section 1194 and| 16 1199, Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 and 1032, and Civil Code section 3287. 17 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 18 (Failure to Pay Minimum Wages — Against All Defendants) 19 41. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in the| 20 preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat. 21 42. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class Members were employees or former 22 employees of Defendants covered by Labor Code sections 1197, 1199 and applicable Wage Orders. 23 43. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1197 and applicable Wage Orders, Plaintiff and Class| 24 Members were entitled to receive minimum wages for all hours worked or otherwise under| 25 Defendants’ control. 26 44, For four (4) years prior to the filing of the Complaint in this Action through the present, 27 Defendants failed, at times, to accurately track and/or pay for all hours actually worked at their regular! 28 13 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT rate of pay that is above the minimum wage; engaged, suffered, or permitted employees to work off the clock, including, without limitation, by requiring Plaintiff and Class Members: to come early to work and leave late work without being able to clock in for all that time, to suffer under Defendants’ control due to long lines for clocking in, to complete pre-shift tasks before clocking in and post-shift| tasks after clocking out, to clock out for meal periods and continue working, to clock out for rest periods, to attend company meetings off the clock, to make phone calls off the clock; to drive off the} clock; detrimental rounding of employee time entries; editing and/or manipulation of time entries to] show less hours than actually worked; failing to pay split shift premiums; and failing to pay reporting] time pay] to the detriment of Plaintiff and Class Members. 10 45. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have} 11 suffered damages in an amount, subject to proof, to the extent they were not paid minimum wages for| 12 all hours worked or otherwise due. 13 46. Pursuant to Labor Code sections 218.6, 1194, 1194.2, Code of Civil Procedure sections} 14 1021.5 and 1032, and Civil Code section 3287, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to recover 15 the full amount of unpaid minimum wages, interest and penalties thereon, liquidated damages, 16 reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit. 17 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 18 (Failure to Provide Meal Periods — Against All Defendants) 19 47. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in the| 20 preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat. 21 48. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class Members were employees or former 22 employees of Defendants covered by Labor Code section 512 and applicable Wage Orders. 23 49. Pursuant to Labor Code section 512 and applicable Wage Orders, no employer shall] 24 employ an employee for a work period of more than five (5) hours without a timely meal break of not| 25 less than thirty (30) minutes in which the employee is relieved of all of his or her duties. Furthermore, 26 no employer shall employ an employee for a work period of more than ten (10) hours per day without 27 providing the employee with a second timely meal period of not less than thirty (30) minutes in which| 28 14 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT the employee is relieved of all of his or her duties. 50. Pursuant to Labor Code section 226.7, if an employer fails to provide an employee| with a meal period as provided in the applicable Wage Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, the employer shall pay the employee one (1) additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of| compensation for each workday that the meal period is not provided. Sl. For four (4) years prior to the filing of the Complaint in this Action through the present, Plaintiff and Class Members were, at times, not provided complete, timely 30-minute, duty-free} uninterrupted meal periods every five hours of work without waiving the right to take them, as| permitted. Moreover, at times, Defendants failed to provide one (1) additional hour of pay at the Class| 10 Member’s regular rate of compensation on the occasions that Class Members were not provided| 11 compliant meal periods. 12 52. By their failure to provide Plaintiff and Class Members compliant meal periods as| 13 contemplated by Labor Code section 512, among other California authorities, and failing, at times, to| 14 provide compensation for such unprovided meal periods, as alleged above, Defendants willfully 15 violated the provisions of Labor Code section 512 and applicable Wage Orders. 16 53. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have} 17 suffered damages in an amount, subject to proof, to the extent they were not paid additional pay owed| 18 for missed, untimely, interrupted, incomplete and/or on-duty meal periods. 19 54. Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to recover the full amount of their unpaid 20 additional pay for unprovided compliant meal periods, in amounts to be determined at trial, plus| 21 interest and penalties thereon, attorneys’ fees, and costs, under Labor Code sections 226 and 226.7, 22 Code of Civil Procedure sections 1021.5 and 1032, and Civil Code section 3287. 23 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 24 (Failure to Provide Rest Periods — Against All Defendants) 25 55. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in the| 26 preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat. 27 56. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class Members were employees or former 28 15 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT employees of Defendants covered by applicable Wage Orders. 57. California law and applicable Wage Orders require that employers “authorize and permit” employees to take ten (10) minute rest periods in about the middle of each four (4) hour work period “or major fraction thereof.” Accordingly, employees who work shifts of three and-a-half (3 ‘4) to six (6) hours must be provided ten (10) minutes of paid rest period, employees who work shifts of more than six (6) and up to ten (10) hours must be provided with twenty (20) minutes of paid rest| period, and employees who work shifts of more than ten (10) hours must be provided thirty (30)| minutes of paid rest period. 58. Pursuant to Labor Code section 226.7, if an employer fails to provide an employee| 10 with a meal period or rest period as provided in the applicable Wage Order of the Industrial Welfare} 11 Commission, the employer shall pay the employee one (1) additional hour of pay at the employee’s| 12 regular rate of compensation for each work day that the rest period is not provided. 13 59. For four (4) years prior to the filing of the Complaint in this Action through the present, 14 Plaintiff and Class Members were, at times, not authorized or permitted to take complete, timely 10-| 15 minute, duty-free uninterrupted rest periods every four (4) hours of work or major fraction thereof. 16 Moreover, at times, Defendants failed to provide one (1) additional hour of pay at the Class Member’ s| 17 regular rate of compensation on the occasions that Class Members were not authorized or permitted 18 to take compliant rest periods. 19 60. By their failure, at times, to authorize and permit Plaintiff and Class Members to take} 20 rest periods contemplated by California law, and one (1) additional hour of pay at the employee’s| 21 regular rate of compensation for such unprovided rest periods, as alleged above, Defendants willfully 22 violated the provisions of Labor Code section 226.7 and applicable Wage Orders. 23 61. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have} 24 suffered damages in an amount, subject to proof, to the extent they were not paid additional pay owed| 25 for rest periods that they were not authorized or permitted to take. 26 62. Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to recover the full amount of their unpaid 27 additional pay for unprovided compliant rest periods, in amounts to be determined at trial, plus interest 28 16 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT and penalties thereon, attorneys’ fees, and costs, under Labor Code sections 226 and 226.7, Code of| Civil Procedure sections 1021.5 and 1032, and Civil Code section 3287. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Failure to Pay All Wages Due Upon Termination — Against All Defendants) 63. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in the| preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat. 64. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class Members were employees or former employees of Defendants covered by Labor Code sections 201, 202 and 203, as well as applicable} Wage Orders. 10 65. Pursuant to Labor Code sections 201 and 202, Plaintiff and Class Members were} 11 entitled upon termination to timely payment of all wages earned and unpaid prior to termination. 12 Discharged Class Members were entitled to payment of all wages earned and unpaid prior to discharge| 13 immediately upon termination. Class Members who resigned were entitled to payment of all wages 14 earned and unpaid prior to resignation within 72 hours after giving notice of resignation or, if they 15 gave 72 hours previous notice, they were entitled to payment of all wages earned and unpaid at the| 16 time of resignation. 17 66. Plaintiffis informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that in the three (3) years 18 before the filing of the Complaint in this Action through the present, Defendants, due to the failure, 19 at times, to provide overtime wages mentioned above, failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members all] 20 wages earned prior to resignation or termination in accordance with Labor Code sections 201 or 202. 21 67. Plaintiff is informed and believes Defendants’ failure, at times, to pay Plaintiff and 22 Class Members all wages earned prior to termination or resignation in accordance with Labor Code| 23 sections 201 and 202 was willful. Defendants had the ability to pay all wages earned by Plaintiff and 24 Class Members at the time of termination in accordance with Labor Code sections 201 and 202, but| 25 intentionally adopted policies or practices incompatible with the requirements of Labor Code sections| 26 201 and 202 resulting in the failure, at times, to pay all wages earned prior to termination or 27 resignation. 28 17 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 68. Pursuant to Labor Code section 203, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to| waiting time penalties from the date their earned and unpaid wages were due, upon termination or resignation, until paid, up to a maximum of thirty (30) days. 69. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have} suffered damages in an amount subject to proof, to the extent they were not paid for all wages earned| prior to termination or resignation. 70. Pursuant to Labor Code section 203 and 218.6, Code of Civil Procedure sections} 1021.5 and 1032, and Civil Code section 3287, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to recover waiting time penalties, interest, and their costs of suit, as well. 10 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 11 (Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements — Against All Defendants) 12 71. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in the| 13 preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat. 14 72. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class Members were employees or former 15 employees of Defendants covered by Labor Code section 226, as well