EXHIBIT 1 Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 1 of 36
EXHIBIT 1
Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 1 of 36
Notice of Service of Processnull / ALL
Transmittal Number: 19699946Date Processed: 04/24/2019
Primary Contact: Amanda L. Riley*Panera, LLC3630 South Geyer RoadSte 100St. Louis, MO 63127
Electronic copy provided to: Geri Haight
Entity: Panera, LLCEntity ID Number 2788006
Entity Served: Panera, LLC
Title of Action: Debora Philpott, on Behalf of herself and Others Similarly Situated vs. Panera,LLC
Document(s) Type: Summons/Complaint
Nature of Action: Class Action
Court/Agency: Sacramento County Superior Court, CA
Case/Reference No: 34-2019-00254303
Jurisdiction Served: California
Date Served on CSC: 04/22/2019
Answer or Appearance Due: 30 Days
Originally Served On: CSC
How Served: Personal Service
Sender Information: David Yeremian818-875-208
Notes: Verified there are no missing pages and that document matches original image served.
Information contained on this transmittal form is for record keeping, notification and forwarding the attached document(s). It does notconstitute a legal opinion. The recipient is responsible for interpreting the documents and taking appropriate action.
To avoid potential delay, please do not send your response to CSC251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, Delaware 19808-1674 (888) 690-2882 | [email protected]
Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 2 of 36
COPY SUMMONS r~RCoffRTusEONLY . usa neu cor~r.
{GrTACrON. JIJDI CJAL) ~P~?~~
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: Cotari L't C:alii -jrllia, (AWS.D AL DEMA6UDAD0):
PANERA, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Co>iinpany;,andDOES l i ough 5, tnc usiv.c
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PUo►1NTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DENIANDANTE): ~~' , Ck. puty
DEBORA PHILPOTT, an individual, onbehalfofherself and others similarlysituated
NOTICEI You havQ been sued. The court may dodde againsf,you withoutyour being heard unless you respond wllhfn 30 tlays. Read the Informetion below:
You'have 30;CALENDAR DAYS:after ihls summons and legat papers are served on you to file a wtitten rosponse at this court and have a eopy served on the plaintiff; A- fetler_or phone call wflt not protect you. Your written response must be In ptopet legat form tf you want the wurt to hear your case. There may bo a couit form that you can use'f6r yaut'lesponse. Yau'6an Qrsd Ahese court forrrss aritl more (rrforrimation at the Ci~lifornla Ccurts lZnftne Sell-Heip Cenler (sv►vw.covr(lnlo,ca.gov7sellhelp), your cwrnty law tlbrary, or the courthouse nearest you. If you, earinot pay the Gling fee, ask tite court derk for a fee waiver form. If you do riot ne your resporise on time, ybu may Idse the case by defaul t, and .your wages, mortay, and property may be laken %vllhout further warning,from the courl.
There are olher legal requirements. You inay want Io cafl an attomay right away. If you'do not know an atlorney: you may went to catl an attomey rererral service. If you_aannol afford an attomey, you may be el#giflla for free lega.l servfees fr~n a_ nonprofit legal services prograrts You ean locala Ihese nonprofd groups at the Califorrjia Legaf Servioes 1Neb sile (wwwaawhelpcalrlamla.org); the Callfomia'Courts Online Self-help Center (rvtnv.courtin/o.ca.eavlselllielp), orby contactirrtg your, local court or oounty bar associaGon. NOTE• The court has a.statutory tlen.for viaived rees antl costs on any settlemenl or artiitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. , rPs The cou lien must be paid bafore the court witl dismiss the case: IAYlSOJ Lo han demaniiado. Sl no fesponde dentno de'90 dias,, la corle puede deddiren su.con6a. sin bscuchar su verslbn:: Lea !e intormacldn a conunuacl6n. -
rtene 3i7 DIAS DE CALENDARlO despuc's de qare le eritrr:guen esta cttaclbri y pspelas legales para presenterana iesptteste porescrBo en esta obrta y haceiquo se entiogue urre eopia al demandanfe. t/na carte o una hamada tetefdnlca no lo protegen. Su respuesta por esLrito tiene'qup estar on fomrato fepal correcto st.desea que procesen su caso en la corie. Es posftile qua haya on forrrrutario que ustedpueda usar para su respuesta. Raede encontrar estos fannutario.s de la corte.y mSs informacfbn en el Cenfro de Ayuda de las Cortes de. Cal7tomia (vvww.sucorle_ca.gov), enla bibriatoca ds feyes d9 su condado o en fa corte que'le qpede inas cema. Sl n'o puede pagar la ctrota dr pn;sentaeidn,. pide al secretriria de 1a corie qvele d6 uh rormularro de raioricidn'tle pago.de cuotas. 51 rio m pnesenta su respuesta a tlepo, puede perderel caso porincump8mfento y`la corte le podra qui7ar su sueldo, dlnero y bienes sin mds advertencia.
Nay atras Rqulstros fegales. Es recomendable que uame a un abogado htmediatamente. Sirlo conoc® a un aoogado, puao'e 110marra un servicio tle ,remTsidn a abogadas. Si na puede pagar a un abogado, as posibra que cumpla,con los raqulsr'tos para obiener aervlr9os tagales gra(ttltos de un programa do servlclos /egales sin fnes de lucru, Puede enconfrarestos grupos 3lrt flnea do tucro en ol sitio web.de Cadlomla Legal Sorvices, (Iwrw.lawhelpcalifomfa.otg),.en e1.Centro de_Ayuda de /as Cortas da Carrfomia, (ivwnv.suoatte.ca.gov) oporllendoso on confacto con.la corte o.ef coleglo deabogadosJocalas. AV1S0= Por tey, la corte tlene-derecho a n;ciamrlas cuolas y tos costos exentos porlmponerungrevamen sabre cualquierrecuperaddn de $10,000 d mOs de valorreclbtda modiante un acuordo o ana concesidn de arbJtrdJe en un caso de daiecho_ dvll. Tkrne que pagar el gravamen de ta corte antes Ce que la corte pGeda desechar a) caso, .
The name and address of the courtis: cAse Nurrer:R: (E'lnombr® ydirecci6n de la corte es): Sacrametito Superior Court
720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
The name; ad.dress, arid tdlephone number of plaintifys attorriey, or plaintiff qiithout" an attomey, is: (El.nombre, fa direccidn y el n"urrrero de teldlono.del abogado del demandante, o del demandanfe que no frene abogado, es):
David Yeremian, 535 N. Brand Blv.d. Suite 705, Glendale, CA 91203 (818) N YO~ 80 i~!G
DATE: (Fecha) APR 1 1 2019
Clerk, by , Deputy
(Forproofofservice of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-070):) (Para prueba de enhega de esta citati6n use el formulario Proof of Senrice of Summons, (POS-010)).
NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served 1. = as an individual deferidant. 2. f--j as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify):
3, ® on behalf o1 (specTfy): PANERA, LLC, a Defatvare Limited Liability Company
under. 0 CCP 416.10 (corporation) 0 ECP 4i6.60 (minor)
Q CCP 416.20 (defunct corporatir?n) CCP 416.70 (conservatee)
~] CCP 416:40 (association or partnership) CCP 416.90 (auttiorized person)
[] other (specify): 4. by personal delivery on (date); _
aWa,:wy ulm 5 UMfiAO NS codo ot Civa proocdum 5541220,465 orGNnornim' - ' wnw.eo~atfn7o.ee.pov juv 1, 200J
Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 3 of 36
DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, 1NC. David Yeremian (SBN 226337) David(a~yeremianlaw.coin 535 N. Brand:Blvd.. Suite 705 Glendale, California 91203 Telephone: (818.) 230-8380 Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
DAVTYAN PROFESS.IONAL LAW CORP. Emil Davtyan (SBN 299363) [email protected] 5959 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 130 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 875-2Q08
Attorneys for Plaintiff DEBORA PHILPOTT, on belialf of herself and all others similarly situated
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE.QF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
FILED Superior- Cour-t Of Dalifort Sjc;romp_ntQ
0411 -d1.2D12
nyou .-Ig By , Ltopu Case KLiatiLer•.
34-201 9-902543OU2
ia
t COPY
Case No.:
CLASS ACT10N ~ I
Assigned for All Purposes To: ~ I Non. Dept..
CLASS ACTION- COMPLAINT FOR:
l. Failure to Pay Minimum Wages in violation of Labor Code §.§ 1194, 1197.
2. Failure to Pay Wages and Overtime Under Labor Code § 510;
3. Meal Period Liability Under Labor Code §.§ 226.7, 512;
4. Rest-Break Liab.ility Under Labor Code § 226.7;
5. Violation of Labor Code §§ 226(a); 6. Violation of Labor Code.§ 203; and 7. Violation of Business & Professions. Code
§ 17200 el seq:
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
, 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
.11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2 3
24
25
26
27
28
DEBOftA PHILPOTT, an individual, on belialf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
PANERA, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES l' through 50, inclusive,
Defendants.
CLASS ACTION COIutPLr1INT
Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 4 of 36
1 Plaintiff Debora Philpott, (hereinafter "Plaintiff') on behalf of herself and all others
2 similarly situated (collectively, "Employees" or "Class Members") complains of Defendants, and
3 I each of them, as follows:
4 INTRODUCTION
5 1. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all current and former
6 Employees within the State of California who, at any time four (4) years prior to the filing of this
7 lawsuit, are or were employed as non-exempt, hourly employees by Defendants PANERA, LLC, a
8 Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 50 (all defendants being collectively referred to herein
9 as "Defendants"). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, and each of them, violated various provisions
10 of the California Labor Code, relevant orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC), and
11 California Business & Professions Code, and seeks redress for these violations.
12 2. Plaintiff is a resident of Riverside County in California and during the time period
13 relevant to this Complaint was employed by Defendants at two different locations, as a non-
14 exempt hourly employee, preparing food and catering orders for Defendants. Upon information
15 and belief, the same violations Plaintiff endured at Defendants' Riverside County, California,
16 locations were also experienced by all non-exempt hourly employees working for Defendants
17 throughout California. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants and (1) shared similar job duties and
18 responsibilities, (2) was subjected to the same policies and practices, and (3) endured similar
19 violations at the hands of Defendants as the other Employees who served in similar and related
20 positions.
21 3. Plaintiff and Class Members consistently worked at Defendants' behest without
22 being paid all wages due. Plaintiff and Class Members were employed by Defendants and worked
23 throughout California where the conduct giving rise to the allegations in this Class Action
24 Complaint occurred. More specifically, Defendants failed to accurately record time worked by
25 Plaintiff and Class Members by pressuring them into keeping time records that complied with
26 their shift schedule regardless of the hours they actually worked, failed to pay Class Members for
27 all hours worked and also provided inaccurate wage statements that prevented them from learning
28 of these unlawful pay practices. Defendants also failed to provide Class Members with all lawful
-2- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 5 of 36
1 I meal and rest breaks.
2 THE PARTIES
3 A. The Plaintiff
4 4. Plaintiff Debora Philpott has resided in Riverside County and, during the time
5 period relevant to this Complaint, was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt hourly employee
6 within the State of California, at Defendants' bakery-cafe restaurants in Temecula and Menifee,
7 I California.
8 B. The Defendants
9 5. Defendant PANERA, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company and describes
10 its type of business with the California Secretary of State as "Operator of Bakery-Cafes and Fresh
11 Dough Facilities." Defendant PANERA, LLC has been the employer listed on the wage statements
12 and employment records issued to Plaintiff during the relevant time period that Plaintiff was
13 employed with Defendants.
14 6. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or
15 whatever else, of the Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 50, inclusive, are currently
16 unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names under Code of
17 Civil Procedure § 474. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants
18 designated herein as Does 1 through 50, inclusive, are legally responsible in some manner for the
19 unlawful acts referred to herein. Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to
20 reflect the true names and capacities of the Defendants designated herein as Does 1 through 50
21 , when their identities become known.
22 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each Defendant acted in
23 all respects pertinent to this action as the agent of the other Defendants, that Defendants carried
24 out a joint scheme, business plan, or policy in all respects pertinent hereto, and that the acts of
25 each Defendant are legally attributable to the other Defendants. Furthermore, Defendants acted in
26 all respects as the employers or joint employers of Class Members. Defendants, and each of them,
27 exercised control over the wages, hours or working conditions of Class Members, issued policies
28 governing their employment, or suffered or permitted Class Members to work, or engaged Class
-3- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 6 of 36
~
1 Members, thereby creating a common law employment relationship, with Class Members.
2 Therefore, Defendants, and each of them, employed or jointly employed Class Members.
3I 8. Whenever and wherever reference is made in this Complaint to any act by a
4 I Defendant or Defendants, such allegations and references shall also be deemed to mean the acts
5 I and failures to act of each Defendant acting individually, jointly, and severally.
6 9. Whenever and wherever reference is made to individuals who are not named as a
7 Defendant in this Complaint but were agents, servants, employees and/or supervisors of
8 Defendants, such individuals at all relevant times acted on behalf of Defendants within the scope
9 of their employment.
10 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
11 10. This Court has jurisdiction over this Action pursuant to California Code of Civil
12 Procedure § 410.10 and California Business & Professions Code § 17203. This Action is brought
13 as a Class Action on behalf of similarly situated Employees of Defendants pursuant to California
14 Code of Civil Procedure § 382. Venue as to Defendants is also proper in this judicial district
15 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 395 et seq. Defendants employ Plaintiff and
16 other Class Members throughout California, and maintain and operate at least four company
17 facilities in Sacramento, California..
18 FACTUAL BACKGROUND
19 11. The Employees who comprise the Class, including Plaintiff, are non-exempt
20 employees pursuant to the applicable Wage Order(s) of the IWC. Defendants hire hourly
21 employees who work in non-exempt positions at the direction of Defendants in the State of
22 California. Plaintiff and Class Members were either not paid by Defendants for all hours worked
23 or were not paid at the appropriate minimum, regular and overtime rates. Plaintiff also contends
24 that Defendants failed to pay Class Members all wages due and owing by compelling and
25 pressuring them to clock in and out each day as close as possible to their pre-designated shift
26 schedule, to their detriment. This practice resulted in Employees performing pre-shift and post-
27 shift work while off the clock, effectively under-recording the hours they actually worked.
28 Defendants also failed to provide timely and uninterrupted meal and rest breaks, and failed to
-4- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 7 of 36
furnish accurate wage statements.
2 12. From four (4) years prior to the filing of this action and continuing through the
3 present and resolution of it, Defendants required Class Members to clock in and out using
4 Defendants' timekeeping system for the beginning and ending times of their work shifts and meal
5 periods. This timekeeping system was available and ready from the time Class Members started
6 and ended their daily shifts. However, instead of paying Class Members for all hours and minutes
7 they actually worked, Defendants pressured and compelled them to punch in and out for each shift
8 as close as possible to their pre-assigned shift schedule.
9 13. Defendants' uniformly applied practice resulted in Class Members remaining under
10 the control and authority of Defendants before and after they were required to punch out. As a
11 matter of practice, scheduled work shifts were rarely followed and changed daily, depending on
12 Defendants' staffing needs. For example, if Plaintiff was scheduled for a three (3) hour shift, she
13 might get called in the day before or a few hours before her shift were to start, and be asked to
14 arrive earlier to cover a co-worker's shift. Therefore Defendants' weekly schedules did not
15 accurately reflect the actual hours that were worked by Class Members. Furthermore, prior to
16 clocking in for their shift, for example, Class Members were required to put on their uniforms,
17 take inventory and/or prepare their work stations, or meet with the store supervisors or managers
18 to discuss issues pertaining to that day. After clocking out, Employees would spend an additional
19 five (5) to ten (10) minutes taking off their uniforms and storing them in their lockers, taking out
20 trash, and cleaning up their work area as well as the area outside of the restaurant. These necessary
21 tasks were often completed after clocking out, because Defendants discouraged Class Members
22 from receiving overtime pay, despite the fact that they required the work be completed after
23 clocking out.
24 14. Furthermore, Defendants also required Class Members to work off-the-clock
25 during their meal breaks. Specifically, while Employees were clocked out for a meal break,
26 supervisors and/or managers would interrupt the Employees' break to ask questions or to request
27 assistance, without the Employees clocking back in. Therefore, all of the off-the-clock work Class
28 Members performed resulted in overtime hours accruing earlier than when Defendants started
-5- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 8 of 36
,
ll I paying them in a work shift.
2 15. This unlawful conduct by Defendants was done with the ostensible intent of paying
3 i I Class members only for the hours they were scheduled to work, rather than the hours they actually
4 worked under Defendants' control. By implementing policies, programs, practices, procedures and
5 protocols which resulted in the systematic under-recording of their actual hours worked, including
6 I off-the-clock work and overtime, Defendants' willful actions resulted in the systematic
7 I underpayment of wages to Class Members.
8 16. Plaintiff contends this policy is not neutral and results, over time, to the detriment
9 I of Class Members by systematically under-compensating them. The actual times when Plaintiff
10 and Class Members were under the control and direction of Defendants was under-reported in the
11 hours reflected on the timekeeping records.
12 17. Therefore, from at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and
13 continuing to the present, Defendants have had a consistent policy or practice of failing to pay
14 Class Members for all hours worked, and failing to pay at least minimum wages for all time they
15 worked for Defendants.
16 18. As a result of the above described post-shift work, off the clock work, the daily
17 I work demands and pressures to work through breaks, along with the other wage violations they
18 endured at Defendants' hands addressed herein, Class Members were not properly paid by
19 Defendants all wages earned and owed to them, and/or were not paid at the required rate of pay for
20 all hours worked, including when working more than eight (8) hours in any given day and more
21 than forty (40) hours in any given week, and including double-time wages for all hours over
22 twelve (12) worked on any given work shift.
23 19. As a result of Defendants' unlawful policies and practices, Class Members also
24 incurred overtime hours worked for which they were not adequately and completely compensated, .
25 in addition to the hours they were required to work off the clock. To the extent applicable,
26 Defendants also failed to accurately pay Class Members an overtime rate of 1.5 times the regular
27 rate for the first eight hours of the seventh consecutive work day in a week and overtime payments
28 i at the rate of two (2) times the regular rate for hours worked over eight (8) on the seventh
-6- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 9 of 36
1 consecutive work day, as required by law.
2 20. Furthermore, Defendants similarly miscalculated Class Members' "regular rate of
3 pay" for purposes of paying meal premiums for missed or interrupted meal breaks.
4 21. Therefore, from at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and
5 continuing to the present, Defendants have had a consistent policy or practice of failing to pay
6 Employees for all hours worked. Also, from at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit
7 and continuing to the present, Defendants also had a consistent policy or practice of failing to pay
8 Employees their true and correct overtime compensation at premium overtime rates for all hours
9 worked in excess of eight (8) hours a day and/or forty (40) hours a week, and double-time rates for
10 all hours worked in excess of twelve (12) hours a day.
11 22. Additionally, Defendants failed to provide all unpaid, off-duty meal periods and all
12 paid, off-duty rest periods to Class Members as required by the applicable laws. Defendants did
13 not have an accurate policy or practice which provided or recorded all the required meal and rest
14 periods. Specifically, Employees were required to perform work for more than five (5) hours
15 during a shift without receiving a timely meal or rest breaks, in order to keep up with the demands
16 and pressures from their managers and supervisors. In addition, upon information and belief,
17 Defendants followed a practice of under-reporting the hours Employees worked in a manner that
18 impacted when Employees received meal and off-duty rest breaks. This resulted in meal and rest
19 breaks that were provided late, generally after five (5) hours into the shift.
20 23. In addition to untimely meal and rest periods, Employees' meal and rest breaks
21 were regularly shortened or interrupted due to work demands. Specifically, Defendants often
22 required Employees to return from their meal or rest breaks to answer supervisor/manager
23 questions, help locate items, or attend to other work-related duties without clocking back in. This
24 resulted in Class Members often having to work through their scheduled meal and/or rest breaks,
25 or otherwise taking shortened ones, because the demands of the job would not avail them the
26 opportunity to take a full, uninterrupted, and off duty meal and/or rest break. Therefore, Class
27 Members remained under Defendants' control from before the time they clocked in for the day
28 until after the time they clocked out, without any reprieve from the demands of their job.
-7- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 10 of 36
1 24. Upon information and belief, on the occasions when Employees worked more than
2 ten (10) hours in a shift, Defendants also failed to provide them with a second, uninterrupted,
3 timely and duty-free meal period, and with a second or third uninterrupted, timely and duty-free
4 I rest period. As a result, Defendants' failure to provide Class Members with all their legally
5 required off-duty, unpaid meal periods and all the legally required off-duty, paid rest periods is
6 and will be evidenced by Defendants' business records, or lack thereof.
7 25. Therefore, from at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and
8 continuing to the present, Defendants have regularly required Employees to work shifts in excess
9 of five (5) hours without providing them with uninterrupted meal periods of not less than thirty
10' (30) minutes, and shifts in excess of ten (10) hours without providing them with second meal
11 periods of not less than thirty minutes; nor did Defendants pay Employees "premium pay," i.e. one
12 hour of wages at each Employee's regular rate of pay, for each meal period that Defendants failed
13 to provide or deficiently provided. To the extent that Class Members were paid a meal "premium,"
14 Defendants failed to properly calculate the "regular rate" of pay. Meal period violations thus
15 occurred in one or more of the following manners:
16 a. Class members were not provided full thirty-minute duty free meal periods for.
17 work days in excess of five (5) hours and were not compensated one (1) hour's
18 wages in lieu thereof, all in violation of, among others, Labor Code §§ 226.7,
19 512, and paragraph 11 of the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
20 Order(s);
21 b. Class members were not provided second full thirty-minute duty free meal
22 periods for work days in excess of ten (10) hours;
23 c. Class members were required to work through at least part of their daily meal
24 period(s);
25 d. Meal periods were provided after five hours of continuous work during a shift
26 when Plaintiff and Class members worked over six (6) hours on any given shift;
27 and
28
-8- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 11 of 36
1 e. Class members were restricted in their ability to take a full thirty-minute meal
2 period.
3' 26. Plaintiff and the similarly situated Class members were regularly required by
4 Defendants to work through or during their breaks; and were not provided with one hour's wages
5 in lieu thereof. Class members were also restricted in their ability to take their full ten (10) minutes
6 I net rest time or were otherwise not provided with duty-free rest periods. On occasions when Class
7 members worked over ten (10) hour shifts, they were, upon information and belief, not authorized
8 and permitted to take a third timely and uninterrupted, duty-free rest break. Therefore, from at
9 least four (4) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and continuing to the present, Defendants
10 have consistently failed to provide Employees with paid rest breaks of not less than ten (10)
11 minutes for every work period of four (4) or more consecutive hours; or major fraction thereof,
12 nor did Defendant pay Employees premium pay for each day on which requisite rest breaks were
13 not provided or were deficiently provided. To the extent that Class Members were paid a meal
14 "premium," Defendants failed to_properly calculate the "regular rate" of pay.
15 27. Rest period violations therefore arose in one or more of the following manners:
16 a. Class members were required to work without being provided a minimum ten
17 (10) minute rest period for every four (4) hours or major fraction thereof
18 worked and were not compensated one (1) hour of pay at their regular rate of
19 compensation for each workday that a rest period was not provided;
20 b. Class.members, due to the busy work environment, were restricted in their
21 ability to take timely off-duty rest breaks which in turn were often provided at
22 the end of a shift instead of every four (4) hours worked, or major fraction
23 thereof;
24 c. Class members were not authorized and permitted to take timely rest periods
25 for every four hours worked, or major fraction thereof; and
26 d. Class members were required to remain on-duty during rest periods or
27 otherwise had their rest periods interrupted by work demands.
28
-9- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 12 of 36
28. Defendants have also failed to comply with Labor Code § 226(a) by, among other
2 requirements, inaccurately reporting total hours worked, total wages earned by Class Niembers,
and the appropriate applicable rates. Specifically, the wage statements given to Class Members
H failed to accurately account for unpaid wages and overtime by under-reporting the hours Class
Members actually worked, due to off-the-clock work, as discussed above. Class Members were
6 required to work before clocking in and after clocking out, as well as during their meal breaks
7 while off-the-clock. Additionally, the wage statements facially violated the requirements of Labor
8 Code § 226(a) because they failed to accurately account the total number of hours worked and the
9 appropriate applicable rate in each period. Because the overtime hours are listed twice on the
10 statement, once for "Overtime Premium" and once for "Overtime Straight," the statement
11 overstates the actual hours worked, creating confusion as to how the overtime was calculated, how
12 the hours were computed, and whether Class Members received all wages owed. If a Class
13 Member added up all hours on the wage statement it would not accurately reflect the total hours
14 they worked, creating confusion. Class Members would thus have to resort to documents outside
15 of the wage statement to verify their total hours worked. Plaintiff and Class members are therefore
16 entitled to penalties not to exceed $4,000.00 for each employee pursuant to Labor Code § 226(e).
17 Defendants have also failed to comply with paragraph 7 of the applicable California lWC Wage
18 Orders by failing to maintain time records showing when the employee begins and ends each work
19 period, meal periods, wages earned pursuant to Labor Code § 226.7, and total daily hours worked
20 by itemizing in wage statements all deductions from payment of wages and accurately reporting
21 total hours worked by Class Members.
22 29. From at least four (4) years prior to filing this lawsuit and continuing to the present,
23 Defendants have also had a consistent policy of failing to pay all wages owed to Employees at the
24 time of their termination or within seventy-two (72) hours of their resignation, as required by
25 California wage-and-hour laws. Specifically, upon termination from the Temecula location,
26 Plaintiff was given a payroll debit card and told it would have funds within 24 hours. However,
27 the payroll card was not funded properly for several days. Even then, Plaintiff could only use the
28 card at certain locations and had to pay a$3 service charge to be able to withdraw cash from
-10- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 13 of 36
1 certain automated teller machines ("ATM"). Similarly, when Plaintiff was terminated over the
2 I telephone from the Menifee location, she was instructed to return to the restaurant the following
3 day to receive her final paycheck. Again, however, Defendants gave her a blank payroll debit card
4 that was not funded for several days. Finally, more than one month after terminating Plaintiff,
5 Defendants paid for her accrued vacation time. Upon information and belief, Defendants similarly
6 I failed to pay Class Members all wages owed at the time of their termination or within seventy-two
7 1(72) hours of their resignation.
8 30. In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff bring this action on her behalf and on behalf of
9 all similarly situated Employees, pursuant to, inter alia, Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 218.5,
10 218.6, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1174, 1185, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, and California Code of
11 Regulations, Title 8, section 11000 et seq.,
12 31. Furthermore, pursuant to Business and Professions Code §§ 17200-17208, Plaintiff
13 I and her fellow Employees seek injunctive relief, restitution, and disgorgement of all benefits
14 Defendants have enjoyed from their violations of Labor Code and the other unfair, unlawful, or
15 fraudulent practices alleged in this Complaint.
16 CLASS ALLEGATIONS
17 32. Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
18 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 382. Plaintiff seeks to represent a Class (or "the Class,"
19 "Class Members," or "Employees") defined as follows: "All individuals employed by Defendants
20 at any time during the period of four (4) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and ending on a
21 date as determined by the Court ("the Class Period"), who have been employed by Defendants as
22 non-exempt, hourly employees at Defendant's bakery-cafe restaurants within the State of
23 California."
24 33. Further, Plaintiff seeks to represent the following Subclasses composed of and
25 I defined as follows:
26 a. Subclass l. Minimum Wages Subclass. All Class Members who were not
27 compensated for all hours worked for Defendants at the applicable minimum
28 wage.
-11- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 14 of 36
1 b. Subclass 2. Wages and Overtime Subclass. All Class Members who were not
2 compensated for all hours worked for Defendants at the required rates of pay,
3 including for all hours worked in excess of eight in a day and/or forty in a
4 week.
5 c. Subclass 3. Meal Period Subclass. All Class Members who were subject to
6 Defendants' policy and/or practice of failing to provide unpaid 30-minute
7 uninterrupted and duty-free meal periods or one hour of pay at the Employee's
8 correct regular rate of pay in lieu thereof.
9 d. Subclass 4. Rest Break Subclass. All Class Members who were subject to
10 Defendants' policy and/or practice of failing to authorize and permit Employees
11 to take uninterrupted, duty-free, 10-minute rest periods for every four hours
12 worked, or major fraction thereof, and failing to pay one hour of pay at the
13 Employee's correct regular rate of pay in lieu thereof.
14 e. Subclass 5. Wage Statement Subclass. All Class Members who, within the
15 applicable limitations period, were not provided with accurate itemized wage
16 statements.
17 f. Subclass 6. Termination Pay Subclass. All Class Members who, within the
18 applicable limitations period, either voluntarily or involuntarily separated from
19 their employment and were subject to Defendants' policy and/or practice of
20 failing to timely pay wages upon termination.
21 g. Subclass 7. UCL Subclass. All Class Members who are owed restitution as a
22 result of Defendants' business acts and practices, to the extent such acts and
23 practices are found to be unlawful, deceptive, and/or unfair.
24 34. Plaintiff reserves the right under California Rule of Court 3.765 to amend or
25 I modify the Class description with greater particularity or further division into subclasses or
26 limitation to particular issues. To the extent equitable tolling operates to toll claims by the Class
27 against Defendants, the Class Period should be adjusted accordingly.
28 35. Defendants, as a matter of company policy, practice and procedure, and in violation
-12- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 15 of 36
1 of the applicable Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Order requirements,
2 and the applicable provisions of California law, intentionally, knowingly, and willfully, engaged
3 in a practice whereby Defendants failed to correctly calculate compensation for the time worked
4 by the Plaintiff and Class Members, even though Defendants enjoyed the benefit of this work,
5 required employees to perform this work and permitted or suffered to permit this work.
6 Defendants have uniformly denied these Class Members wages to which they are and were
7 entitled, and failed to provide meal periods or authorize and permit rest periods, in order to
8 unfairly cheat the competition and unlawfully profit.
9 36. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action
10 under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure § 382 because there is a well-defined community
11 of interest in litigation and the proposed Class is easily ascertainable.
12 A. Numerosity
13 37. The potential members of the Class as defined are so numerous that joinder of all
14 the members of the Class is impracticable. While the precise number of Class Members has not
15 been determined at this time, Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants employ or, during
16 the time period relevant to this lawsuit, employed hundreds of Employees who satisfy the Class
17 defmition within the State of California.
18 38. Accounting for employee turnover during the relevant time period increases this
19 number substantially. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' employment records will provide
20 information as to the number and location of all Class Members.
21 B. Commonality
22 39. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class that predominate over any
23 questions affecting only individual Class Members. These common questions of law and fact
24 include:
25 a. Whether Defendants failed to pay Employees minimum wages;
26 b. Whether Defendants failed to pay Employees wages for all hours worked;
27 C. Whether Defendants failed to pay Employees wages as required under
28 Labor Code § 510;
-13- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 16 of 36
1 d. Whether Defendants violated Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512, and the
2' applicable IWC Wage Orders, by failing to provide Employees with
3 requisite meal periods or premium pay in lieu thereof, when Employees
4 worked over six (6) hours on any given shift;
5 e. Whether Defendants violated Labor Code §§ 226.7, and the applicable IWC
6 Wage Orders, by failing to authorize and permit Employees to take requisite
7 rest breaks or provide premium pay in lieu thereof;
8 f. Whether Defendants violated Labor Code § 226(a) by providing Employees
9 with inaccurate wage statements;
10 g. Whether Defendants violated Labor Code § 204 by failing to timely pay
11 wages;
12 h. Whether Defendants violated Labor Code §§ 201, 202, and 203 by failing to
13 pay wages and compensation due and owing at the time of termination of
14 employment;
15 i. Whether Defendants' conduct was willful;
16 j. Whether Defendants violated Labor Code § 226 and § 1174 and the IWC
17 Wage Orders by failing to maintain accurate records of Class Members'
18 earned wages and work periods;
19 k. Whether Defendants violated Labor Code § 1194 by failing to compensate
20 all Employees during the relevant time period for all hours worked, whether
21 regular or overtime;
22 1. Whether Defendants violated Business and Professions Code § 17200 et
23 seq.; and
24 M. Whether Employees are entitled to equitable relief pursuant to Business and
25 Professions Code § 17200 et seq.
26 C. Typicality
27 40. The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of those of the other Employees. The
28 Class Members all sustained injuries and damages arising out of and caused by Defendants'
-14- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 17 of 36
1 common course of conduct in violation of statutes, as well as regulations that have the force and
2 I effect of law, as alleged herein.
3 D. Adequacy of Representation
4 41. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interest of the Class
5 I Members. Counsel who represents the Employees are experienced and competent in litigating
6 I employment class actions.
7 E. Superiority of Class Action
8 42. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient
9 I adjudication of this controversy. Individual joinder of all Employees is not practicable, and
10 questions of law and fact common to all Employees predominate over any questions affecting only
11 individual Employees. Each Employee has been damaged and is entitled to recovery by reason of
12 Defendants' illegal policies or practices of failing to properly compensate Employees.
13 43. As to the issues raised in this case, a class action is superior to all other methods for
14 the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, as joinder of all Class Members is
15 impracticable and many legal and factual questions to be adjudicated apply uniformly to all Class
16 Members. Further, as the economic or other loss suffered by vast numbers of Class Members may
17 be relatively small, the expense and burden of individual actions makes it difficult for the Class
18 Members to individually redress the wrongs they have suffered. Moreover, in the event ,
.19 disgorgement is ordered, a class action is the only mechanism that will permit the employment of
20 a fluid fund recovery to ensure that equity is achieved. There will be relatively little difficulty in
21 managing this case as a class action, and proceeding on a class-wide basis will permit Employees
22 to vindicate their rights for violations they endured which they would otherwise be foreclosed
23 from receiving in a multiplicity of individual lawsuits that would be cost prohibitive to them.
24 44. Class action treatment will allow those persons sinularly situated to litigate their
25 claims in the manner that is most efficient and economical for the parties and the judicial system.
26 Plaintiff is unaware of any difficulties in managing this case that should preclude class treatment.
27 Plaintiff contemplates the eventual issuance of notice to the proposed Class Members that would
28 set forth the subject and nature of the instant action. The Defendants' own business records can be
-15- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 18 of 36
1 utilized for assistance in the preparation and issuance of the contemplated notices. To the extent
2 that any further notice is required additional media and/or mailings can be used.
3 45. Defendants, as a prospective and actual employer of the Employees, had a special
4 fiduciary duty to disclose to prospective Class Members the true facts surrounding Defendants'
5 pay practices, policies and working conditions imposed upon the similarly situated Employees as
6 well as the effect of any alleged arbitration agreements that may have been forced upon them. In
7 addition, Defendants knew they possessed special knowledge about pay practices and policies,
8 most notably intentionally refusing to pay for all hours actually worked which should have been
9 recorded in Defendants' pay records and the consequence of the alleged arbitration agreements
10 and policies and practices on the Employees and Class as a whole.
11 46. Plaintiff and the Employees in the Class did not discover the fact that they were
12 entitled to all pay under the Labor Code until shortly before the filing of this lawsuit nor was there
13 ever any discussion about Plaintiff's and the Class' wavier of their Constitutional rights of trial by
14 jury, right to collectively organize and oppose unlawful pay practices under California and federal
15 law as well as obtain injunctive relief preventing such practices from continuing. As a result, the
16 applicable statutes of limitation were tolled until such time as Plaintiff and the Class Members
17 discovered their claims.
18 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
19 FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES
20 (Against All Defendants)
21 47. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in
22 I I full herein.
23 48. In California, employees must be paid at least the then applicable state minimum
24 wage for all hours worked. (IWC Wage Order MW-2014). Additionally, pursuant to California
25 Labor Code § 204, other applicable laws and regulations, and public policy, an employer must
26 timely pay its employees for all hours worked.
27 49. California Labor Code § 1197, entitled "Pay of Less Than Minimum Wage" states:
28 "The minimum wage for employees fixed by the commission is the minimum wage to be paid to
-16- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 19 of 36
employees, and the payment of a less wage than the minimum so fixed is unlawful."
ti 50. The applicable minimum wages fixed by the commission for work during the
relevant period is found in the Wage Orders. The minimum wage provisions of California Labor
4 Code are enforceable by private civil action pursuant to Labor Code § 1194(a) which states:
"Notwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage, any employee receiving less than the
6 legal minimum wage or the legal overtime compensation applicable to the employee is entitled to
7 recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount of this minimum wage or overtime
8 compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit." The action
9 may be maintained directly against the employer in an employee's name without first filing a
10 claim with the Deparhnent of Labor Standards and Enforcement.
11 51. As described in California Labor Code §§ 1185 and 1194.2, any action for wages
12 incorporates the applicable Wage Order of the California lndustrial Welfare Commission. Also,
13 California Labor Code §§ 1194, 1197, 1197.1 and those Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
14 Orders entitle non-exempt employees to an amount equal to or greater than the minimum wage for
15 all hours worked. All hours must be paid at the statutory or agreed rate and no part of this rate may
16 be used as a credit against a minimum wage obligation.
17 52. Defendants failed to pay Class Members minimum wages for all hours worked
18 because of pre-shift and post-shift work they required Employees to perform. Defendants were
19 consistently understaffed during each shift, and consequently compelled the scheduled Class
20 Members to work longer hours than their scheduled shifts in order to prepare food for customer
21 orders, fulfill catering orders, and complete other work-related duties. In an effort to avoid paying
22 overtime, Defendants required Class Members to work before clocking in and after clocking out
23 for their shifts, resulting in time cards which reflected less time than actually worked. Class
24 Members also worked off-the-clock during their meal breaks, because their meal breaks were
25 often interrupted by managers and/or supervisors who sought assistance, without Class Members
26 clocking back in. Over time, this practice resulted in underpayment of wages owed to Class
27 Members, while benefiting Defendants. During the relevant time period, Defendants thus regularly
28 failed to pay minimum wages to Class Members. Defendants' uniform pattern of unlawful wage
-17- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 20 of 36
1 and hour practices manifested as a result of implementing a uniform policy and practice that
2 denied accurate miniinum wage compensation to Class Members.
3 53. In committing these violations of the California Labor Code, Defendants
4 inaccurately recorded or calculated the time worked and consequently underpaid the actual time
5 worked by Plaintiff and Class Members. Defendants acted in an illegal attempt to avoid the
6 payment of all earned wages, and other benefits in violation of the California Labor Code, the
7 Industrial Welfare Commission requirements and other applicable laws and regulations. As a
8 result of these violations, Defendant also failed to timely pay all wages earned in accordance with
9 California Labor Code § 1194.
10 54. California Labor Code § 1194.2 also provides for the following remedies: "In any
11 action under Section 1194 ... to recover wages because of the payment of a wage less than the
12 minimum wages fixed by an order of the commission, an employee shall be entitled to recover
13 liquidated damages in an amount equal to the wages unlawfully unpaid and interest thereon."
14 55. In addition to restitution for all unpaid wages, pursuant to California Labor Code §
15 1197.1, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to recover a penalty of $100.00 for the initial
16 failure to timely pay each employee minimum wages, and $250.00 for each subsequent failure to
17 pay each employee minimum wages.
18 56. Pursuant to California Labor Code § 1194.2, Plaintiff and Class Members are
19 I further entitled to recover liquidated damages in an amount equal to wages unlawfully unpaid and
20 interest thereon.
21 57. Defendants have the ability to pay minimum wages for all time worked and have
22 willfully refused to pay such wages with the intent to secure for Defendants a discount upon this
23 indebtedness with the intent to annoy, harass, oppress, hinder, delay, or defraud Employees.
24 58. Wherefore, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to recover the unpaid
25 minimum wages (including double minimum wages), liquidated damages in an amount equal to
26 the minimum wages unlawfully unpaid, interest thereon and reasonable attorney's fees and costs
27 of suit pursuant to California Labor Code § 1194(a). Plaintiff and the other members of the Class
28 further request recovery of all unpaid wages, according to proof, interest, statutory costs, as well
-18- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 21 of 36
1 as the assessment of any statutory penalties against Defendants, in a sum as provided by the
2 California Labor Code and/or other applicable statutes. To the extent minimum wage
3 compensation is determined to be owed to the Class Members who have terminated their
4 employment, Defendants' conduct also violates Labor Code §§ 201 and/or 202, and therefore
5 these individuals are also be entitled to waiting time penalties under California Labor Code § 203,
6 which penalties are sought herein on behalf of these Class Members. Defendants' failure to timely
7 pay all wages owed also violated Labor Code § 204 and resulted in violations of Labor Code §
8' 226 because they resulted in the issuance of inaccurate wage statements. Defendants' conduct as
9 alleged herein was willful, intentional and not in good faith. Further, Plaintiff and other Class
10 Members are entitled to seek and recover statutory costs.
11 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
12 FAILURE TO PAY WAGES AND OVERTIME UNDER LABOR CODE § 510
13 (Against All Defendants)
14 59. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in
15 I full herein.
16 60. In California, "[a]ny work in excess of eight hours in one workday and any work in
17 excess of 40 hours in any one workweek and the first eight hours worked on the seventh day of
18 work in any one workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than one and one-half times
19 the regular rate of pay for an employee." California Labor Code § 510. In addition, "[a]ny work in
20 excess of 12 hours in one day" or "in excess of eight hours on any seventh day of a workweek
21 shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay for an employee." Id.
22 The action may be maintained directly against the employer in an employee's name without first
23 filing a claim with the Deparhnent of Labor Standards and Enforcement.
24 61. By their conduct, as set forth herein, Defendants violated California Labor Code §
25 510 (and the relevant orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission) by failing to pay Employees:
26 (a) time and one-half their regular hourly rates for hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a
27 workday or in excess of forty (40) hours in any workweek or for the first eight (8) hours worked
28 on the seventh day of work in any one workweek; or (b) twice their regular rate of pay for hours
-19- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 22 of 36
worked in excess of twelve (12) hours in any one (1) day or for hours worked in excess of eight
2 (8) hours on any seventh day of work in a workweek.
3 62. Upon information and belief, Defendants, and each of them, have intentionally and
4 improperly pressured Plaintiff and Class Members to change, adjust and/or modify their hours
5 worked in order to avoid paying all earned and owed straight time and overtime wages and other
6 benefits, in violation of the California Labor Code, the California Code of Regulations and the
7 IWC Wage Orders and guidelines set forth by the Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement.
Defendants have violated these provisions by requiring Plaintiff and other similarly situated non-
9 exempt Employees to work through meal periods when they were clocked out or to otherwise
10 work off—the-clock pre-shift and post-shift to complete their daily job. Employees were not
11 properly compensated, nor were they paid overtime rates for all hours worked in excess of eight
12 hours in a given day, and/or forty hours in a given week, as discussed above. Based on
13 information and belief, Defendants did not make available to Employees a reasonable protocol for
14 correcting time records when Employees worked overtime hours or to fix incorrect time entries, to
15 the Employee's detriment. Defendants have also violated these provisions by requiring Plaintiff
16 and other similarly situated Employees in the Class to work through meal periods when they were
17 required to be clocked out or to otherwise work off the clock to complete their daily job duties.
18 63. Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and Class Members the unpaid balance of
19 regular wages owed and overtime compensation, as required by California law, violates the
20 provisions of Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198, and is therefore unlawful.
21 64. Additionally, Labor Code § 558(a) provides "any employer or other person acting
22 on behalf of an employer who violates, or causes to be violated, a section of this chapter or any
23 provisions regulating hours and days of work in any order of the IWC shall be subject to a civil
24 penalty as follows: (1) For any violation, fifty dollars ($50) for each underpaid employee for each
25 pay period for which the employee was underpaid in addition to an amount sufficient to recover
26 underpaid wages. (2) For each subsequent violation, one hundred dollars ($100) for each
27 underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in addition to an
28 amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages. (3) Wages recovered pursuant to this section shall
-20- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 23 of 36
1 be paid to the affected employee." Labor Code § 558(c) states, "the civil penalties provided for in
2 this section are in addition to any other civil or criminal penalty provided by law." Defendants
3 have violated provisions of the Labor Code regulating hours and days of work as well as the IWC
4 Wage Orders. Accordingly, Plaintiff and Class Members seek the remedies set forth in Labor
5 I Code § 558.
6 65. Defendants' failure to pay compensation in a timely fashion also constituted a
7I violation of California Labor Code § 204, which requires that all wages shall be paid
81 semimonthly. From four (4) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit to the present, in direct
9 violation of that provision of the California Labor Code, Defendants have failed to pay all wages
10 and overtime compensation earned by Employees. Each such failure to make a timely payment of
11 compensation to Employees constitutes a separate violation of California Labor Code § 204.
12 66. Employees have been damaged by these violations of California Labor Code §§
13 204 and 510 (and the relevant orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission).
14 67. Consequently, pursuant to California Labor Code, including Labor Code §§ 204,
15 1 510, and 1194 (and the relevant orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission), Defendants are
16 liable to Employees for the full amount of all their unpaid wages and overtime compensation, with
17 interest, plus their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, as well as the assessment of any statutory
18 penalties against Defendants, and each of them, and any additional sums as provided by the Labor
19 Code and/or other statutes.
20 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION -
21 MEAL BREAK LIABILITY UNDER LABOR CODE §§ 226.7, 512
22 (Againsl All Defendants)
23 68. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in
24 I I full herein.
25 69. Pursuant to Labor Code § 512 an employer may not employ someone for a shift of
26 more than five (5) hours without providing him or her with a meal period of not less than thirty
27 (30) minutes or for a shift of more than ten (10) hours without providing him or her with a second
28 meal period of not less than thirty (30) minutes. Section 226.7(b) of the Labor Code further
-21- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 24 of 36
1 specifies that employers "not require an employee to work during a meal or rest or recovery
2 period. .." If, however, "an employer fails to provide an employee a meal or rest or recovery
3 period in accordance with a state law, including an ... order of the Industrial Welfare Conunission
4 ... the employer shall pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee's regular rate
5 of compensation for each workday that the meal or rest or recovety period is not provided." Labor
6 Code § 226.7(c).
7 70. Plaintiff and Class Members regularly worked shifts greater than five (5) hours and
8 in some instances, greater than ten (10) hours. However, meal periods were provided to
9 Employees like Plaintiff, if at all, later than five (5) hours into a work shift, in violation of Labor
10 Code § 512.
11 71. Defendants also required Employees to respond to work demands during meal
12 periods, or otherwise provided shortened meal periods, in violation of Labor Code § 226.7(b).
13 Defendants regularly pressured Class Members to place employment and business needs over their
14 lawful meal breaks. Specifically, supervisors and/or managers would often interrupt the
15 Employees' meal break to ask questions relating to work or otherwise request assistance, without
16 the Employees clocking back in. Therefore, Class Members regularly remained under Defendants'
17 control from before the time they clocked in for the day until after the time they clocked out,
18 without any reprieve from the demands of their job.
19 72. Furthermore, upon information and belief, on the occasions when Employees
20 worked more than ten (10) hours in a given shift, they did so without receiving a second
21 uninterrupted thirty (30) minute meal period as required by law.
22 73. Defendants thus failed to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with compliant meal
23 periods as required by the Labor Code, by failing to provide the opportunity to take meal breaks,
24 by providing the meal breaks late or for less than thirty (30) minutes, or by requiring them to
25 perform work during breaks.
26 74. Moreover, Defendants failed to compensate Class Members for all meal periods not
27 provided or inadequately provided, as required under Labor Code § 226.7(c) and paragraph 11 of
28 the applicable IWC Wage Orders. These sections provide that, if an employer fails to provide an
-22- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 25 of 36
employee a meal period in accordance with state law, the employer shall pay the employee one (1)
2 hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal period
is not provided. Defendants failed to compensate Employees for each meal period not provided or
0 inadequately provided, as required under Labor Code § 226.7(c). Furthermore, even if a meal
premium was paid, Defendants failed to properly calculate the Class Members' regular rate of pay.
6 75. Therefore, pursuant to Labor Code § 226.7, Class Members are entitled to damages
7 in an amount equal to one (1) hour of wages at their effective hourly rates of pay for each meal
8 period not provided or deficiently provided, a sum to be proven at trial, as well as the assessment
9 of any statutory penalties against the Defendants, and each of them, in a sum as provided by the
10 Labor Code and other statutes.
11 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
12 REST BREAK LIABILITY UNDER LABOR CODE § 226.7
13 (Against All Defendants)
14 76. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in
15 I full herein.
16 77. Labor Code §§ 226.7 and paragraph 12 of the applicable IWC Wage Orders
17 provide that employers must authorize and permit all employees to take paid, duty-free rest
18 periods at the rate of ten (10) minutes net rest time per four (4) work hours, or major fraction
19 thereo£ These sections further provide that if an employer fails to provide an employee rest period
20 in accordance with this section, the employer shall pay the employee one (1) hour of pay at the
21 employee's regular rate of compensation for each workday that the rest period is not provided.
22 78. Employees consistently worked consecutive shifts of at least eight (8) hours or
23 more, thus requiring Defendants to authorize and permit them to take rest periods. Pursuant to the
24 Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage Order, Class Members were entitled to paid rest breaks
25 of not less than ten (10) minutes for each consecutive four (4) hour or longer shift. Defendants
26 failed to provide Class Members with timely rest breaks of not less than ten (10) minutes for each
27 consecutive four (4) hours of work, or major fraction thereof. Furthermore, upon information and
28 belief, on the occasions when Employees worked more than ten (10) hours in a given shift, they
-23- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 26 of 36
1 did so without receiving a third uninterrupted ten (10) minute rest break as required by law.
2 79. More specifically, because of a shortage of staff inembers and the amount of work
3 required of Employees, Defendants required Employees to respond to work demands during rest
4 breaks by placing business needs over their rest breaks. Employees would often be required to
5 answer work-related questions or offer back-up assistance during their rest breaks. This resulted in
6 Class Members often having to work through their scheduled rest breaks, or otherwise taking
7 shortened ones, because the demands of the job would not avail them the opportunity to take a
8 lawfully uninterrupted and off duty rest break. Therefore, Class Members regularly remained
9 under Defendants' control from before the time they clocked in for the day until after the time they
10 clocked out, without any reprieve from the demands of their job.
11 80. Defendants, and each of them, have therefore intentionally and improperly denied
12 rest periods to Plaintiff and the Class Members in violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7 and paragraph
13 12 of the applicable IWC Wage Orders.
14 81. Defendants failed to authorize and permit Class Members to take rest periods, as
15 required by the Labor Code. Moreover, Defendants did not compensate Class Members with an
16 additional hour of pay at each Employee's regular rate of pay for each day that Defendants failed
17 to provide them with adequate rest breaks, as required under Labor Code § 226.7. To the extent
18 that rest break premiums were paid, Defendants miscalculated the Employees' regular rate of pay
19 by failing to include their bonuses as part of the regular rate of pay.
20 82. Therefore, pursuant to Labor Code § 226.7 and paragraph 12 of the applicable IWC
21 Wage Orders, Class Members are entitled to damages in an amount equal to one (1) hour of wages
22 at their effective hourly rates of pay for each day worked without the required rest breaks, a sum to
23 be proven at trial, as well as the assessment of any statutory penalties against Defendants, and each
24 of them, in a sum as provided by the Labor Code and/or other statutes.
25
26
27
28
-24- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 27 of 36
1 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 226(a)
3 (Against All Defendants)
4 83. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in
5 I full herein.
6 84. California Labor Code § 226(a) requires an employer to furnish each of his or her
7 employees with an accurate, itemized statement in writing showing pay period, the gross and net
8 earnings, total hours worked, and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate;
9 these statements must be appended to the detachable part of the check, draft, voucher, or whatever
10 else serves to pay the employee's wages; or, if wages are paid by cash or personal check, these
11 statements may be given to the employee separately from the payment of wages; in either case the
12 employer must give the employee these statements twice a month or each time wages are paid.
13 85. Pursuant to Labor Code § 226(e), Class Members who suffer injury as a result of an
14 employer's knowing and intentional failure to comply with the wage statement requirements are
15 entitled to recover the ~reater of all actual damages or fifty dollars ($50) for the initial pay period
16 in which a violation occurs and one hundred dollars ($100) for each violation in a subsequent pay
17 period, not exceeding an aggregate penalty of four thousand dollars ($4,000). They are also
18 entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.
19 86. Class Members are deemed to suffer injury if the employer fails to provide accurate
20 and complete information specified in Labor Code § 226(a) and the employee cannot "promptly
21 and easily determine" one or more of the following: (i) the amount of the gross wages or net
22 wages paid to the employee during the pay period or any of the other information required to be
23 provided on the itemized wage statement pursuant to items (2) to (4), inclusive, (6), and (9) of
24 subdivision (a), (ii) which deductions the employer made from gross wages to determine the net
25 wages paid to the employee during the pay period, (iii) the name and address of the employer and,
26 (iv) the name of the employee and only the last four digits of his or her social security number or
27 an employee identification number other than a social security number. Labor Code §
28 226(e)(2)(B)•
-25- CLASS ACTION COIVIPLAINT
Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 28 of 36
87. For purposes of Labor Code § 226(e) "promptly and easily determine" means an
2 objective standard, such that a reasonable person would be able to readily ascertain the
3 information without reference to other documents or information. Labor Code § 226(e)(2)(C).
4 88. Defendants failed to provide Class Members with accurate itemized wage
5 statements in writing, as required by the Labor Code. Specifically, the wage statements given to
6 Class Members failed to accurately account for unpaid wages and overtime by under-reporting the
7 hours Class Members actually worked, due to off-the-clock work. Class Members were required to
work before clocking in and after clocking out, as well as during their meal breaks, as discussed
9 above. Additionally, the wage statements facially violated the requirements of Labor Code §
10 226(a) because they failed to accurately account the total number of hours worked and the
11 appropriate applicable rate in each period. Because the overtime hours are listed twice on the
12 statements, once for "Overtime Premium" and once for "Overtime Straight," the statement
13 overstates the actual hours worked, creating confusion as to how the overtime was calculated, how
14 the hours were computed, and whether Class Members received all wages owed. If a Class
15 Member added up all hours on the wage statement, it would not accurately reflect the total hours
16 they worked, creating confusion and requiring a review of documents in addition to the wage
17 statement to verify their total hours worked.
18 89. Throughout the liability period, Defendants intentionally failed to furnish to Class
19 Members, upon each payment of wages, itemized statements accurately showing: (1) gross wages
20 earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee, (3) all deductions, (4) net wages earned, (5) the
21 inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid, (6) the name of the employee and
22 only the last four digits of his or her social security number or an employee identification number
23 other than a social security number, (7) the name and address of the legal entity that is the'
24 employer and (8) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding
25 number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee pursuant to Labor Code § 226, '
26 amongst other statutory requirements. Defendants knowingly and intentionally failed to provide
27 Class Members with such timely and accurate wage and hour statements.
28
-26- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 29 of 36
1 90. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants' violation of Labor Code § 226(a),
2 Class Members suffered injuries, including among other things confusion over whether they
3 received all wages owed them, the difficulty and expense involved in reconstructing pay records,
4 and forcing them to make mathematical computations to analyze whether the wages paid in fact
5 compensated them correctly for all hours worked.
6 91. Therefore, Class Members are entitled to penalties under Labor Code § 226(e), as
7 Defendants have failed to provide wage statements with accurate and complete information as
8 required by one or more of items Labor Code § 226 (a)(1) to (9), inclusive.
9 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
10 VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 203
11 (Against All Defendants)
12 92. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in
13 I full herein.
14 93. Numerous Class Members are no longer employed by Defendants; they either quit
15 Defendants' employ or were fired.
16 94. Defendants failed to pay these Employees all wages due and certain at the time of
17 termination or within seventy-two (72) hours of resignation. Furthermore, even when Defendants
18 provided Class Member with a Payroll Card days after terminating her, the funds were not
19 immediately available.
20 95. The wages withheld from these Employees by Defendants remained due and owing
21 for more than thirty (30) days from the date of separation of employment.
22 96. Defendants failed to pay Class Members without abatement, all wages as defined
23 by applicable California law. Among other things, these Class Members were not paid all regular
24 and overtime wages at the time of their termination or within 72 hours of resignation, because
25 Defendants failed to pay for all hours worked, required off-the-clock work to the detriment of
26 Employees, and failed to pay premium wages owed for unprovided meal periods and rest periods,
27 as further detailed in this Complaint.
28
-27- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 30 of 36
1 97. Defendants' failure to pay said wages within the required time was willful within
2 the meaning of Labor Code § 203. Specifically, Defendants knew wages were due but failed to
3 pay them, entitling Class Members to penalties under Labor Code § 203, which provides that an
4 employee's wages shall continue until paid for up to thirty (30) days from the date they were due.
5 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
6 VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 ET SEQ.
7 (Against All Defendants)
8 98. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in
9 I full herein.
10 99. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself, Class Members, and the general public, brings this
11 claim pursuant to Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. Defendants' conduct, as alleged in
12 this Complaint, has been and continues to be unfair, unlawful, and harmful to Employees and the
13 general public. Plaintiff seeks to enforce important rights affecting the public interest within the
14 meaning of Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5.
15 100. Plaintiff is a"person" within the meaning of Business & Professions Code
16 § 17204, has suffered injury, and therefore has standing to bring this cause of action for injunctive
17 relief, restitution, and other appropriate equitable relief.
18 101. Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. prohibits unlawful and unfair
19 business practices. By the conduct alleged herein, Defendants' practices were deceptive and
20 fraudulent in that Defendants' policy and practice failed to provide the required amount of
21 compensation for missed meal and rest breaks, and failed to adequately compensate Plaintiff and
22 Class members for all hours worked, due to systematic business practices as alleged herein that
23 cannot be justified, pursuant to the applicable California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare
24 Cominission requirements in violation of California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et
25 seq., and for which this Court should issue injunctive and equitable relief, pursuant to California
26 Business & Professions Code § 17203, including restitution of wages wrongfully withheld.
27 102. Wage-and-hour laws express fundamental public policies. Paying employees their
28 wages and overtime, providing them with meal periods and rest breaks, etc., are fundamental
-28- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 31 of 36
1 public policies of California. Labor Code § 90.5(a) articulates the public policies of this State
2 vigorously to enforce minimum labor standards, to ensure that employees are not required or
3 permitted to work under substandard and unlawful conditions, and to protect law-abiding
4 employers and their employees from competitors who lower costs to themselves by failing to
5 comply with minimum labor standards.
6 103. Defendants have violated statutes and public policies. Through the conduct alleged
7 in this Complaint Defendants have acted contrary to these public policies, have violated specific
8 provisions of the Labor Code, and have engaged in other unlawful and unfair business practices in
9 violation of Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.; which conduct has deprived Plaintiff,
10 and all persons similarly situated, and all interested persons, of the rights, benefits, and privileges
11 guaranteed to all employees under the law.
12 104. Defendants' conduct, as alleged hereinabove, constitutes unfair competition in
13 violation of the Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.
14 105. Defendants, by engaging in the conduct herein alleged, by failing to pay wages and
15 I overtime, failing to provide meal periods and rest breaks, etc., either knew or in the exercise of
16 reasonable care should have known that their conduct was unlawful; therefore their conduct
17 violates the Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.
18 106. By the conduct alleged herein, Defendants have engaged and continue to engage in
19 a business practice which violates California and federal law, including but not limited to, the
20 applicable Industrial Wage Order(s), the Califomia Code of Regulations, and the California Labor
21 Code including Sections 204, 226, 226.7, 512, 1194, 1197, 1198, and 2802 for which this Court
22 should issue declaratory and other equitable relief pursuant to California Business & Professions
23 Code § 17203 as may be 'necessary to prevent and remedy the conduct held to constitute unfair
24 competition, including restitution of wages wrongfully withheld.
25 107. As a proximate result of the above-mentioned acts of Defendants, Employees have
26 been damaged, in a sum to be proven at trial.
27 108. Unless restrained by this Court Defendants will continue to engage in such
28 unlawful conduct as alleged above. Pursuant to the Business & Professions Code, this Court
-29- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 32 of 36
1 should make such orders or judgments, including the appointment of a receiver, as may be
2 necessary to prevent the use by Defendants or their agents or employees of any unlawful or
3 deceptive practice prohibited by the Business & Professions Code, including but not limited to the
4 disgorgement of such profits as may be necessary to restore Employees to the money Defendants
5 have unlawfully failed to pay.
6 RELIEF REQUESTED
7 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:
8 l. For an order certifying this action as a class action;
9 2. For compensatory damages in the amount of the unpaid minimum wages for work
10 performed by Employees and unpaid overtime compensation from at least four (4)
11 years prior to the filing of this action, as may be proven;
12 3. For liquidated damages in the amount equal to the unpaid minimum wage and
13 interest thereon, from at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this action,
14 according to proof;
15 4. For compensatory damages in the amount of all unpaid wages, including overtime
16 and double-time pay, as may be proven;
17 5. For compensatory damages in the amount of the hourly wage made by Employees
18 for each missed or deficient meal period where no premium pay was paid therefor
19 from four (4) years prior to the filing of this action, as may be proven;
20 6. For compensatory damages in the amount of the hourly wage made by Employees
21 for each day requisite rest breaks were not provided or were deficiently provided
22 where no premium pay was paid therefor from at least four (4) years prior to the
23 filing of this action, as may be proven;
24 7. For penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 226(e) for Employees, as may be proven;
25 8. For penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 203 for all Employees who quit or were
26 fired in an amount equal to their daily wage times thirty (30) days, as may be
27 proven;
28
-30- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 33 of 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 I
12
13
14 II
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9. For restitution for unfair competition pursuant to Business & Professions Code §
17200 et seq., including disgorgement or profits, as may be proven;
10. For an order enjoining Defendants and their agents, servants, and employees, and
all persons acting under, in concert with, or for them, from acting in derogation of
any rights or duties adumbrated in this Complaint;
11. For all general, special, and incidental damages as may be proven;
12. For an award of pre judgment and post judgment interest;
13. For an award providing for the payment of the costs of this suit;
14. For an award of attorneys' fees; and
15. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem proper and just.
DATED: April 11, 2019 DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
By t Davi 11 Attorney for intiff Debora Philpott, and all others simila situated
-31- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 34 of 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff hereby demands trial of her claims by jury to the extent authorized by law.
DATED: April 11, 2019 DAVID YEREM*N & ASSOCIATES, INC.
By t ~~---~ D a v i emi n Attorney for intiff Debora Philpott, and all others similarly situated
-32- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 35 of 36
FRUED ~ ilj3311G4' CLtlrt O7' ~31
~~~ra~r:tgt,tfl
0411 1 1?C?q 9 t-; y S.L br. Y~l g
Gy Casd hlurttbEl':
lY
~ .~ Complex Case Designation `A'ar `i`
Q Counter Q Joinder
Filed wtth first appearance by defendant JUD4E. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) DEPTt
w must be completed (see'instructio)
best describes thls.case: Contract Q Breach of contracUvrarranty (05)
Q Ru(e 3.740 collections (09)
71 Other collections (09)
~ Insurance caverage (18) Q Other contract (37) Roal Proporty Q Errdnent domainMverse
condemnatioo (14) Q Wrongful evictiori (33) Q Otfier real property (26)
Untawful Detainer Q
Q
Commercial (31)
Residehtial (32)
Q Driigs (38)
Judiclal Q
Reviow Asset forfeiture
Q (05)
Pelltion re: arbliration a►vard (11)
Q Writ of mandate (02)
n Other ludiotal review (39)
on
Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Rules of Couri, rules 3.400-3.403)
Q AnutrusUTrade regulatlon (03)
Q Conslruclion defect (10)
Q Mass ton (40)
Q Secudtles litigaqon (28) Q Environmentallroxic tort (30) Q Insurance coverage claims arising from the
above lisled provisionally oomplex case lypes (41)
Enforcemont of Judgment
= Enforcemenl of )udgment (20)
Mlscellaneous Clvll Complaint
Q RICO (27)
Q Other complaint (not specNled above) (42)
Mlscollaneous Clvil Potition
Q Partnership and corporate governance (21) Q Other pelilion (nof specirted above) (43)
COPY A David YerLm,an1(226337) RNev
pdame,slateat+rrr~rmti.~ enjoderessl:
David Yeremian & Associates Inc. 535 N. Brand Blvd. Suite 705 Glendale, CA 91201
TELEPHONE NO-' ~S 18) 230=8380 FAx r;o.. .(818)' 230-0308 ATToaNEY FOR rasmer laintiff. Debora Philpott
FOR COURT usF ONLv
suPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Sa srREEr A1mREss 720 9th Street 6SA!UN8 ADDRE.SS:
CnYANDZIPCODE Sacramento 95814 eru,NCH NAn!e Gordon D. Scliaber C
CASE NAME: Phil ott.v. Panera, LLC
CIVIL CASE COVER SliEET ✓Q Unlimited Q Umited
~ (Amount (Amourit demanded demandedis exceeds $25,000) 525,000 or less).
~ Iterns 1-8.befr ~ 1. Check one box beiow for the case type that ~yq Auto Tort
Q Auto (22) Q Uninsured motodst (46) Othor PIrPDlWD (Porsonal InjurylProperty D'amagelWrongful Death) Tort Q Asbestos (04) Q ProduCt liability (24) Q Medical malpractice (45)
Q Other PIIPDNIID (23) Non-PIIPDIYVD (Other) Tort = Business IaNunfair business pracllce (07) Q Civil rights (08)
Q DefamaUon (13) Q Fraud (16)
Q Intellectual property (19) Q Professional negllgence (25)
~ Q Other non-PIlPDM1D tort (35)
~Em loyment
Wrongful termination (36)
2. This case Lv(J is L.J is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional Juiiicial management:
a. Q Large number of separately represented parties d. Q Large nurnber of witnesses b. 0 Factensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e: Q Coordination wilh related actions pending in one or more courts
issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or In a federal court c. © Substantial amount of documentary evidence f, Q Substantial posljudgment judicial supenasion
3. Remedies sought (c/reck all that apply)r a.© monetary b. Q nonmo.netary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. Qpunilive
4. Number of causes of action (specfly): Seven (7)
5. This case Q✓ is Q is not a class action suit. 6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case;{You may usel;lo CM-0•!5.)
Date.: April 11, 2019 ~~~ i.+f David Yeremian ~ ' ✓-r-- - ---
nYPE QR PAIhT NAME7 isl4':~~ URE f~,F PAR7Y-OR ATORNEY FOR PARTY)
. Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the firsl paper filed in the action or proceeding (eicceF t small claims cases or cases filed under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to fiie may result in sanctions.
• File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. • If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq, of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this covei sheet on atl
other parties to the action or proceeding. • Unless this is a collections case under ruie 3.740 or a complex case, this cwver sheet will be used for statistical purposes on~r.
aoe 1 of 1
FormAdop'.odforLlandatoryUaa CIVILCASECOVERSHEET Ca!R~esafCourlrfos2.30,3120.3.4004.403,3.74P. Jud~oal Cancl or Ca6rorNa Ca'. Stae!dards of Juakial AdmirreValiorti at0 3.11) CM-010 (ReV. Ju!71. 70071 www.CauClnfb.tigov
Case 2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 36 of 36