Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
1
2
3
4
5
Plaintiffs), hereby submit their Class Action Complaint against Defendants GRUPPO
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
INTRODUCTION
1. This class action arises out of the work experience of Page and Sever and all similarly
situated employees and similarly aggrieved employees of GRUPPO CHIARELLO and/or
SERRA who worked at COQUETA, a restaurant located on Pier 5 in San Francisco, California,
between approximately April 2013 and the present.
19
2. This class action is within the Courts jurisdiction under California Labor Code,
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
California Business and Professions Code 17200, et seq., (Unfair Practices Act) and the
applicable wage order(s) issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) including IWC
Wage Order No. 5.
3. This complaint challenges systemic illegal employment practices resulting in
violations of the California Labor Code, Business and Professions Code and applicable IWC
wage orders against employees of Defendants.
27
4. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that Defendants, jointly
28
and severally, have acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard
2
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
to the rights of all employees in receiving all lawful wages for all hours worked and lawful meal
5. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that Defendants have
engaged in, among other things a system of willful violations of the California Labor Code,
Business and Professions Code and applicable IWC wage orders by creating and maintaining
policies, practices and customs that knowingly deny employees: (a) all wages due for all hours
employees were suffered and permitted to work, including by manipulating employees time
8
9
10
11
clocks and time sheets to unlawfully deduct time from hours worked, (b) lawful overtime
compensation, (c) lawful meal and rest breaks, (d) tip income; (e) accurate, itemized wage
statements, (f) lawful expense reimbursements, and (g) required payments into employee health
funds. The policies, practices and customs of Defendants, as described above and below, have
12
resulted in unjust enrichment of Defendants and an unfair business advantage over businesses
13
14
15
that routinely adhere to the strictures of the California Labor Code, Business and Professions
Code and applicable IWC wage orders.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
16
17
18
6. The Court has jurisdiction over the violations of the California Labor Code,
California Business and Professions Code 17200, et seq., (Unfair Practices Act) and the
19
applicable wage order(s) issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission including IWC Wage
20
21
7. Venue is proper because Defendants are located within San Francisco County.
22
PARTIES
23
24
complained of in this action in ways that have deprived them of the rights guaranteed to them by
25
California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code 17200, et seq., (Unfair
26
Practices Act) and the applicable wage order(s) issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission
27
including IWC Wage Order No. 5. Defendants employed Plaintiffs at all times relevant to this
28
complaint.
3
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
April 1, 2013 through mid-March 2016. PAGE was employed as a server at COQUETA, a San
Francisco restaurant operated and managed by all Defendants named herein at all times relevant
10. Plaintiff ASJA SEVER was employed with Defendants from approximately April 1,
2014 through mid-March 2016. SEVER was also employed as a server at COQUETA, a San
Francisco restaurant operated and managed by all Defendants named herein at all times relevant
8
9
10
11
12
San Francisco, California.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
times mentioned herein the President and Owner of GRUPPO CHIARELLO and SERRA, and a
21
resident of the State of California. CHIARELLO owns and/or operates several local businesses
22
including but not limited COQUETA, where Plaintiffs and class members worked. On
23
information and belief, CHIARELLO controlled and regulated the working conditions, hours
24
worked, and payment of wages for Plaintiffs and all class members. Upon timely amendment of
25
this Complaint as a matter of right, Plaintiffs will assert a claim against CHIARELLO, GRUPPO
26
CHIARELLO, and SERRA for Violations of Labor Code 2699 et seq. (Private Attorneys
27
General Act).
28
14. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times herein
4
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
mentioned Defendants and DOES 1 through 50, are and were corporations, business entities,
individuals, and partnerships, licensed to do business and actually doing business in the State of
and manage the COQUETA restaurant in San Francisco, California, among other restaurants in
the San Francisco Bay Area. As such, and based upon all the facts and circumstances incident to
Defendants business in California, Defendants are subject to California Labor Code, California
Business and Professions Code 17200, et seq., (Unfair Practices Act) and the applicable wage
8
9
10
11
order(s) issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission including IWC Wage Order No. 10.
15.
Plaintiffs do not know the true names or capacities, whether individual, partner or
corporate, of the Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and for that reason,
said Defendants are sued under such fictitious names, and Plaintiffs pray leave to amend this
12
complaint when the true names and capacities are known. Plaintiffs are informed and believe
13
14
15
16
17
18
and thereon allege that each of said fictitious Defendants was responsible in some way for the
matters alleged herein and proximately caused Plaintiffs and members of the class to be subject
to the illegal employment practices, wrongs and injuries complained of herein.
16.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that Defendants
GRUPPO CHIARELLO and SERRA share common ownership and common management.
19
Further, Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that Defendants are a single
20
21
centralized control of labor relations, and common ownership or financial control. Plaintiffs are
22
informed and believe and based thereon allege that there is such a unity of interest and ownership
23
between Defendants that their separate personalities no longer exist, and that an inequitable
24
result would follow if they were not all liable. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based
25
thereon allege that Defendants jointly employed them and the class members.
26
17.
At all times herein mentioned, each of said Defendants participated in the doing
27
of the acts hereinafter alleged to have been done by the named Defendants; and furthermore, the
28
Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants and employees of each of the other
5
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Defendants, as well as the agents of all Defendants, and at all times herein mentioned, were
acting within the course and scope of said agency and employment.
18.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that at all times
material hereto, each of the Defendants named herein was the agent, employee, alter ego and/or
joint venturer of, or working in concert with each of the other co-Defendants and was acting
within the course and scope of such agency, employment, joint venture, or concerted activity.
To the extent said acts, conduct, and omissions were perpetrated by certain Defendants, each of
8
9
10
11
the remaining Defendants confirmed and ratified said acts, conduct, and omissions of the acting
Defendant.
19.
At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, were members of,
and engaged in, a joint venture, partnership and common enterprise, and were acting within the
12
course and scope of, and in pursuance of, said joint venture, partnership and common enterprise.
13
14
15
16
17
18
20.
At all times herein mentioned, the acts and omissions of various Defendants, and
each of them, concurred and contributed to the various acts and omissions of each and all of the
other Defendants in proximately causing the injuries and damages as herein alleged.
21.
At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, ratified each and
every act or omission complained of herein. At all times herein mentioned, the Defendants, and
19
each of them, aided and abetted the acts and omissions of each and all of the other Defendants in
20
21
22
22.
23
themselves and the class pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 382 and is consistent
24
with Fed. R. Civ. P. Rules 23(a), (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3). The class is defined as: All current
25
and former non-exempt employees who were employed by Defendants GRUPPO CHIARELLO
26
and/or SERRA and worked at COQUETA in San Francisco within the last four years up to the
27
time that class certification is granted. A subclass is defined as All current and former non-
28
exempt service employees who were employed by Defendants GRUPPO CHIARELLO and/or
6
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
SERRA and worked at COQUETA in San Francisco within the last four years up to the time that
23.
Numerosity: The members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all
members would be impractical, if not impossible. The identity of the members of the class is
readily ascertainable by review of Defendants records. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and
based thereon allege that: (a) Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to pay employees
wages for all hours worked by them; (b) Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to pay
8
9
10
11
overtime compensation to non-exempt employees who work over eight hours in a workday; (c)
Defendants manipulate employees time clocks and time sheets to unlawfully deduct time from
hours worked, to avoid the payment of overtime compensation and minimum wages for all hours
worked; (d) Defendants unlawfully require a subclass of employees to pool their tips with
12
kitchen staff; (e) Defendants fail to provide lawful meal breaks; (f) Defendants fail to authorize
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
and permit employees to take lawful rest breaks; (g) class members are not provided with
accurate itemized wage statements; (h) class members are not reimbursed for all expenses
incidental to the discharge of their duties; (i) Defendants fail to make required payments into
employee health funds; and (j) class members are not paid all wages at the separation of
employment.
24.
Adequacy of Representation: The named Plaintiffs are fully prepared to take all
20
necessary steps to fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class defined above.
21
Plaintiffs attorneys are ready, willing and able to fully and adequately represent the class and the
22
individual Plaintiffs.
23
25.
24
caused: (a) class members not to be paid wages for all hours they worked, including time
25
deducted by Defendants by manipulating employees time clocks and time sheets to unlawfully
26
deduct time from hours worked; (b) class members not to be paid overtime compensation; (c)
27
class members not to be provided with lawful meal breaks; (d) subclass members are required to
28
pool their tips with kitchen staff; (e) class members not to be authorized and permitted to take
7
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
lawful rest breaks; (f) class members not to be provided with accurate itemized wage statements;
(g) class members not to receive reimbursements for expenses incidental to the discharge of their
duties; (h) class members not to receive required contributions to employee health funds; (i) class
members to not be paid all wages due at separation of employment. Plaintiffs are informed and
believe and based thereon allege that this conduct is accomplished with the advance knowledge
and designed intent to willfully withhold appropriate wages for work performed by class
members. Defendants uniformly administered a corporate policy, practice and/or custom of not
8
9
10
11
paying members of the class for all hours worked and not providing lawful meal and rest breaks.
26.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that Defendants, in
violation of California Labor Code 201 and 202, et seq., respectfully, had a consistent and
uniform policy, practice and custom of willfully failing to comply with Labor Code 226.7 and
12
1194, and 1198. Plaintiffs and other members of the class did not secret or absent themselves
13
14
15
16
17
18
from Defendants, nor refuse to accept the earned and unpaid wages from Defendants.
Accordingly, Defendants are liable for waiting time compensation for the unpaid wages to
separated employees pursuant to California Labor Code 203.
27.
As a pattern and practice, in violation of the aforementioned labor laws and wage
orders, Defendants did not maintain adequate records, and/or altered records pertaining to when
19
Plaintiffs and the members of the class began and ended each work period, meal period, the total
20
daily hours worked, and the total hours worked per pay period and applicable rates of pay in
21
22
28.
Common Question of Law and Fact: There are predominant common questions
23
of law and fact and a community of interest amongst Plaintiffs and the claims of the class
24
concerning whether: (a) Defendants fail to pay employees minimum wages for actual hours
25
worked, including by manipulating employees time clocks and time sheets to unlawfully deduct
26
time from hours worked; (b) Defendants fail to pay overtime compensation when non-exempt
27
employees work over eight hours in a workday; (c) Defendants unlawfully require subclass
28
employees to pool their tips with kitchen staff; (d) Defendants fail to provide lawful meal breaks;
8
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
(e) Defendants fail to authorize and permit employees to take lawful rest breaks; (f) class
members are not provided with accurate itemized wage statements; (g) class members do not
receive reimbursements for expenses incidental to the discharge of their duties; (h) class
members do not receive required contributions to employee health funds; (i) class members are
not paid all wages due at separation of employment; (j) Defendants employment policies and
practices wrongfully and illegally failed to compensate Plaintiffs and the other members of the
8
9
10
11
29.
Typicality: The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of all members of
the class. Each Plaintiff is a member of the class and has suffered the alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and California Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders including
IWC Wage Order No. 5, described herein.
12
30.
The California Labor Code and Wage Order provisions upon which Plaintiffs
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
base their claims are broadly remedial in nature. These laws and labor standards serve an
important public interest in establishing minimum working conditions and standards in
California. These laws and labor standards protect the average working employee from
exploitation by employers who may seek to take advantage of superior economic and bargaining
power in setting onerous terms and conditions of employment.
31.
The nature of this action and the format of laws available to Plaintiffs and
20
members of the class identified herein make the class action format a particularly efficient and
21
appropriate procedure to redress the wrongs alleged herein. If each employee were required to
22
file an individual lawsuit, the corporate Defendants would necessarily gain an unconscionable
23
advantage since it would be able to exploit and overwhelm the limited resources of each
24
individual plaintiff with their vastly superior financial and legal resources. Requiring each class
25
member to pursue an individual remedy would also discourage the assertion of lawful claims by
26
employees who would be disinclined to file an action against their former and/or current
27
employer for real and justifiable fear of retaliation and permanent damage to their careers at
28
subsequent employment.
9
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
32.
possible, would create a substantial risk of: (a) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect
to individual class members against the Defendants and which would establish potentially
incompatible standards of conduct for the Defendants, and/or (b) adjudications with respect to
individual class members which would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interest of the
other class members not parties to the adjudications or which would substantially impair or
impede the ability of the class members to protect their interests. Further, the claims of the
8
9
10
11
individual members of the class are not sufficiently large to warrant vigorous individual
prosecution considering all of the concomitant costs and expenses.
33.
Plaintiffs experienced, is representative and will establish the right of each of the members of the
12
plaintiff class to recovery on the causes of action alleged herein.
13
14
15
16
17
34.
The plaintiff class is commonly entitled to a specific fund with respect to the
compensation illegally and unfairly retained by Defendants. The plaintiff class is commonly
entitled to restitution of those funds being improperly withheld by Defendants. This action is
brought for the benefit of the entire class and will result in the creation of a common fund.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS RELEVANT TO CAUSES OF ACTION
18
19
20
marred with rampant wage and hour violations. These Labor Code violations include: the willful
21
refusal to pay employees wages for all hours worked and overtime wages for all overtime hours
22
worked; the routine, systematic denials of meal and rest breaks to employees; the deliberate
23
falsification of time and attendance records; the issuance of false wage statements; the failure to
24
reimburse employees for expenses incidental to the discharge of their duties; the failure to pay
25
26
36.
27
for all hours worked, as required by Labor Code 200 et seq. Defendants ran such a poorly
28
functioning establishment that Plaintiffs and class members routinely were required to work
10
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
multiple ten-hour and double shifts each week. However, on a routine and systematic basis,
Defendants surreptitiously changed employee timesheets, so that the timesheets falsely reflected
the amount of hours that Plaintiffs and class members actually worked. Without notifying
Plaintiffs or class members, Defendants managers manipulated the time records without their
authorization, and unlawfully deducted hours from their timesheets, such that Plaintiffs and class
members were not paid minimum wages for all hours they actually worked. In addition,
Defendants made unlawful deductions from subclass employees earned nightly tips.
8
9
10
11
37. In addition to their failure to pay minimum wages for all hours actually worked,
Defendants unscrupulous and unlawful time deduction policies resulted in a failure to pay
Plaintiffs and class members overtime wages in violation of Labor Code 510. By deceitfully
deducting hours from their timesheets, Defendants failed to pay overtime compensation to
12
Plaintiffs and class members who worked over eight hours in a workday, or forty hours in a
13
14
15
16
17
18
workweek. Defendants deliberately falsified employee time records to avoid paying Plaintiffs
and class members overtime compensation that they rightfully earned. Defendants have no
lawful Alternative Workweek schedule in place which would allow them to only pay overtime
compensation when non-exempt employees work over ten hours in a shift.
38. In addition, Plaintiffs and class members were routinely denied the opportunity to
19
take meal periods and rest breaks. Plaintiffs and class members worked for periods of more than
20
four (4) hours without a rest period of ten (10) minutes, and for periods of more than five (5)
21
hours without a meal period of thirty (30) minutes. Defendants routinely required Plaintiffs and
22
class members to work through their rest breaks. Even though Plaintiffs and class members
23
clocked out for their meal periods, Defendants managers required Plaintiffs and class members
24
to perform work while they were clocked out, such as running food, putting away wine
25
deliveries, stocking, and running personal errands for Defendants managers. When employees
26
worked double shifts, Defendants denied them their right to take an additional meal period.
27
Defendants falsified employee time records to make it appear as though Plaintiffs and class
28
members were given a meal period, when in reality they worked through their meal period.
11
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
39.
Defendants also failed to furnish Plaintiffs and class members with wage
statements that contained all nine pieces of information required by Labor Code 226.
Defendants furnished Plaintiffs and class members with paystubs that neglected to accurately
state: proper total hours, including overtime hours, worked by Plaintiffs and all similarly situated
employees, accurate gross wages earned, all applicable hourly rates and the corresponding
6
7
8
9
number of hours worked by Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees at each rate. Because
Defendants unscrupulously altered the time sheets of Plaintiffs and class members, Defendants
wage statements contained false and inaccurate information.
40. Defendants also failed to reimburse employees for all work-related expenses, as
10
required by Cal. Labor Code 2802. Among other things, Defendants routinely required
11
12
13
14
15
16
Plaintiffs and class members to pay for the dry-cleaning of their work clothing and to purchase
incidental items for Defendants managers. Plaintiffs and class members were not reimbursed
for expenses that were incidental to the discharge of their employment duties, or incurred at the
direction of their employer.
41. Defendants also failed to make certain payments into an employee health care fund,
17
in violation of Labor Code 227. Defendants agreed to make certain payments into a health
18
services account for the benefit of employees, and were required to make minimum payments in
19
accordance with local ordinances. Nonetheless, Defendants failed to make the required
20
21
22
42. Defendants also required servers to pool and share tips with other employees not in
the line of service, including kitchen employees in violation of Labor Code 350 et seq.
23
24
25
26
27
28
43.
Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation set
12
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
44.
This cause of action is brought pursuant to Labor Code 200 et seq., which
provides that employees are entitled to wages and compensation for work performed, and
provides a private right of action for failure to pay wages and compensation for said work
performed. Labor Code 1194 entitles a plaintiff to recover unpaid wages. Labor Code
1194.2 entitles a plaintiff to recover liquidated damages in an equal amount for unpaid minimum
wages.
7
8
9
45.
As a pattern and practice, in violation of the aforementioned labor laws and wage
orders, Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that Defendants did not
properly maintain records pertaining to when Plaintiffs and the putative class took their meal
10
periods, the total daily hours worked, and the total hours worked per pay period and applicable
11
12
13
14
15
16
compensation and minimum wage owing, including interest thereon, penalties, reasonable
17
attorneys fees, and costs of suit according to the mandate of California Labor Code 1194, et
18
seq.
19
47.
20
with minimum wage payments in accordance with Labor Code 1194 and IWC Wage Order No.
21
10 despite the clear legal obligation to do so, unless and until enjoined and restrained by order of
22
this court, will cause great and irreparable injury to Plaintiffs and all members of the class in that
23
the Defendants will continue to violate these California laws, represented by labor statutes and
24
wage orders, unless specifically ordered to comply with same. This expectation of future
25
violations will require current and future employees to repeatedly and continuously seek legal
26
27
28
redress in order to gain compensation to which they are entitled under California law. Plaintiffs
have no other adequate remedy at law to insure future compliance with the California labor laws
and wage orders alleged to have been violated herein.
13
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
5
6
7
8
9
10
48.
Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation set
This cause of action is brought pursuant to Labor Code 510 et seq., which
provides that employees are entitled to be compensated: (a) at the rate of no less than one and
one-half times the regular rate of pay for any work in excess of eight hours in one workday or
forty hours in any one workweek, and (b) at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay
11
for work in excess of twelve hours in one day. Labor Code 1194 et seq., provides a private
12
13
14
15
16
right of action for failure to pay overtime wages and compensation for said work performed.
Labor Code 1194 entitles a plaintiff to recover unpaid wages. Labor Code 1194.2 entitles a
plaintiff to recover liquidated damages in an equal amount for unpaid minimum wages.
50.
As a pattern and practice, in violation of the aforementioned labor laws and wage
17
orders, Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that Defendants did not
18
properly maintain records pertaining to when Plaintiffs and the putative class took their meal
19
periods, the total daily hours worked, and the total hours worked per pay period and applicable
20
21
51.
22
23
recovery by Plaintiffs in a civil action, for the unpaid balance of the full amount of overtime
24
wages and compensation owing, including interest thereon, penalties, reasonable attorneys fees,
25
and costs of suit according to the mandate of California Labor Code 1194, et seq.
26
27
28
52.
with overtime wage payments in accordance with Labor Code 1194 and IWC Wage Order No.
10 despite the clear legal obligation to do so, unless and until enjoined and restrained by order of
14
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
this court, will cause great and irreparable injury to Plaintiffs and all members of the class in that
the Defendants will continue to violate these California laws, represented by labor statutes and
wage orders, unless specifically ordered to comply with same. This expectation of future
violations will require current and future employees to repeatedly and continuously seek legal
redress in order to gain compensation to which they are entitled under California law. Plaintiffs
6
7
have no other adequate remedy at law to insure future compliance with the California labor laws
and wage orders alleged to have been violated herein.
10
11
12
53.
Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation set
13
14
15
16
17
18
employees, including Plaintiffs and other members of the class, were actually relieved of all
duties, not performing any work, and free to leave the premises during meal periods. Plaintiffs
and the class were suffered and permitted to work through legally required meal breaks. As
19
such, Defendants are responsible for paying premium compensation for missed meal periods
20
pursuant to Labor Code 226.7 and IWC Wage Order No. 5 11(B). Defendants shall pay each
21
affected employee one (1) hour of pay at the employees regular rate of compensation for each
22
23
55.
Plaintiffs and class members regularly worked in excess of five (5) hours per day
24
and accordingly had a right to take a 30-minute meal period each day they worked in excess of
25
26
56.
27
through their meal periods without proper compensation. Defendants did staff employees in
28
such a manner and at such posts that would make it impossible for these employees to take their
15
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
meal period. This policy of requiring employees to work through their legally mandated meal
57.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that Defendants
willfully failed to pay employees who were not provided the opportunity to take meal breaks the
premium compensation set out in Labor Code 226.7 and IWC Wage Order No. 5 11(B).
6
7
8
9
10
11
58.
As a pattern and practice, in violation of the aforementioned labor laws and wage
orders, Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that Defendants did not
properly maintain records pertaining to when Plaintiffs began and ended each meal period in
violation of California Labor Code 1174 and 7 of the applicable IWC Wage Order(s).
59.
described herein is unlawful and creates an entitlement to recovery by the Plaintiffs and the class
12
identified herein, in a civil action, for the unpaid balance of the unpaid premium compensation
13
14
15
16
17
18
pursuant to Labor Code 226.7 and IWC Wage Order No. 5 11(B), including interest thereon,
penalties, reasonable attorneys fees, and costs of suit according to the mandate of California
Labor Code 1194.
60.
with the opportunity to take meal breaks and to provide premium compensation in accordance
19
with Labor Code 226.7 and 512 and IWC Wage Order No. 5 11(B) despite the clear legal
20
obligation to do so, unless and until enjoined and restrained by order of this court, will cause
21
great and irreparable injury to Plaintiffs and all members of the class in that the Defendants will
22
continue to violate these California laws, represented by labor statutes and wage orders, unless
23
specifically ordered to comply with same. This expectation of future violations will require
24
current and future employees to repeatedly and continuously seek legal redress in order to gain
25
compensation to which they are entitled under California law. Plaintiffs have no other adequate
26
remedy at law to insure future compliance with the California labor laws and wage orders
27
28
16
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
5
6
61.
7
8
9
10
11
62.
legally mandated rest breaks. As such, Defendants are responsible for paying premium
compensation for missed rest periods pursuant to Labor Code 226.7 and IWC Wage Order No.
5 12(B). Defendants shall pay each affected employee one (1) hour of pay at the employees
regular rate of compensation for each workday that the rest break was not provided.
12
13
Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation set
63.
Plaintiffs and class members regularly worked in excess of three and half (3 )
hours per day. Defendants policies and practices prevented Plaintiffs and class members from
14
enjoying their right to a ten (10) minute rest period in the middle of each four (4) hour work
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
period.
64.
through rest periods. Defendants and Defendants supervisors assigned work, scheduled shifts,
and staffed worksites in a manner that did not allow Plaintiffs and class members to regularly
take rest periods.
65.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that Defendants
22
willfully failed to pay employees who were not provided the opportunity to take rest breaks the
23
premium compensation set out in Labor Code 226.7 and IWC Wage Order No. 5 12(B).
24
66.
25
described herein is unlawful and creates an entitlement to recovery by the Plaintiffs and the class
26
identified herein, in a civil action, for the unpaid balance of the unpaid premium compensation
27
pursuant to Labor Code 226.7 and IWC Wage Order No. 5 12(B), including interest thereon,
28
penalties, reasonable attorneys fees, and costs of suit according to the mandate of California
17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
Defendants wrongful and illegal conduct in failing provide class members with
the opportunity to take rest breaks and to provide premium compensation in accordance with
Labor Code 226.7 and 512 and IWC Wage Order No. 5 12(B) despite the clear legal
obligation to do so, unless and until enjoined and restrained by order of this court, will cause
great and irreparable injury to Plaintiffs and all members of the class in that the Defendants will
continue to violate these California laws, represented by labor statutes and IWC wage orders,
8
9
10
11
unless specifically ordered to comply with same. This expectation of future violations will
require current and future employees to repeatedly and continuously seek legal redress in order
to gain compensation to which they are entitled under California law. Plaintiffs have no other
adequate remedy at law to insure future compliance with the California labor laws and wage
12
orders alleged to have been violated herein.
13
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
(a) class members were not paid all minimum wages; (b) class members were not paid all
22
overtime compensation; (c) Defendants unlawfully require subclass employees to pool their tips
23
with kitchen staff; (d) class members were not provided with lawful meal breaks; (e) class
24
members were not authorized and permitted to take lawful rest breaks; (f) class members were
25
26
70. As a pattern and practice, Defendants failed to furnish Plaintiffs and all similarly
27
situated employees, either semimonthly or at the time of each payment of wages, either as a
28
detachable part of the check or separately, an accurate, itemized statement in writing showing
18
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
gross wages earned, total hours worked, and the applicable hourly rates and corresponding
number of hours worked by Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees at each rate.
71. Defendants willfully and intentionally failed to provide Plaintiffs and all similarly
situated employees with accurate, itemized statements, to show on such itemized statements the
proper total hours, including overtime hours, worked by Plaintiffs and all similarly situated
6
7
8
9
employees in that it required or suffered them to work and failed to pay wages to them for all
hours worked. Defendants willfully and intentionally failed to show accurate gross wages
earned, total hours worked by Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees, and all applicable
hourly rates and the corresponding number of hours worked by Plaintiffs and all similarly
10
situated employees at each rate.
11
12
13
14
15
72. As such, Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees are entitled to payment from
Defendants of the greater of actual damages or $50 for the initial pay period in which the
violation occurred and $100 for each subsequent violation, up to a maximum of $4000, pursuant
to Labor Code 226, as well as reasonable attorneys fees and costs of suit.
16
17
18
19
20
21
73. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth in
the preceding paragraphs.
22
74. Labor Code 2802 requires an employer to indemnify employees for all necessary
23
24
25
75. Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees have been harmed because Defendants
26
required them to incur expenditures and losses for materials and services related to the discharge
27
of their duties or a result of instructions given to them, and willfully and intentionally failed to
28
19
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
76. As such, Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees are entitled to recover the
unpaid balance of all such unreimbursed expenditures and losses, including interest thereon,
penalties, including those available under Labor Code 558, reasonable attorneys fees, and
9
10
11
12
13
77. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth in
the preceding paragraphs.
78.
practices in California: (a) class members were not lawfully paid for all hours worked; (b) class
members were not paid overtime compensation for all hours worked; (c) class members were not
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
provided with lawful meal breaks; (d) class members were not authorized and permitted to take
lawful rest breaks; (e) subclass employees were required to pool tips and share the tip pool with
employees not in the line of service.
79.
Plaintiffs seek, on their own behalf, on behalf of other members of the class
21
similarly situated, full restitution of monies, as necessary and according to proof, to restore any
22
and all monies withheld, acquired and/or converted by the Defendants by means of the unfair
23
24
81.
Plaintiffs seek on their own behalf, and on behalf of other members of the class
25
similarly situated, an injunction to prohibit Defendants from continuing to engage in the unfair
26
27
28
82.
The restitution includes the equivalent of all unpaid wages for hours worked
20
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Code 226.7 and IWC Wage Order No. 10 11(B) and 12(B), including interest thereon.
2
3
83.
The acts complained of herein occurred within the last four years preceding the
84.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that at all times herein
mentioned Defendants have engaged in unlawful, deceptive and unfair business practices, as
proscribed by California Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq., including those set
forth herein above thereby depriving Plaintiffs and other members of the class the minimum
8
9
working condition standards and conditions due to them under the California laws and Industrial
Welfare Commission wage orders as specifically described therein.
10
11
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs on their own behalf and on the behalf of the members of the
12
class and all aggrieved employees, pray for judgment as follows:
13
14
15
16
17
18
1.
2.
3.
4.
For waiting time wages according to proof pursuant to California Labor Code 203;
5.
For consequential damages according to proof as set forth in California Labor Code
226.7 and IWC Wage Order No. 5 11(B) related to meal breaks;
19
20
6.
That Defendants be ordered to show cause why they should not be enjoined and ordered
21
to comply with the applicable Labor Code provisions and California Industrial Welfare
22
23
compensation, meal breaks and record keeping for Defendants employees related to
24
same; and for an order enjoining and restraining Defendants and their agents, servants
25
26
7.
27
28
For consequential damages according to proof as set forth in California Labor Code
226.7 and IWC Wage Order No. 5 12(B) related to rest breaks;
8.
That Defendants be ordered to show cause why they should not be enjoined and ordered
21
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
to comply with the applicable California Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders
related to rest breaks; and for an order enjoining and restraining Defendants and their
9.
For restitution to Plaintiffs and other similarly effected members of the class of all funds
10. For an injunction to prohibit Defendants to engage in the unfair business practices
complained of herein;
10
11. For an injunction requiring Defendants to give notice to persons to whom restitution is
11
12
12. For actual damages or statutory penalties according to proof as set forth in California
13
Labor Code 226 and IWC Wage Order No. 5 7(B) related to record keeping;
14
13. That Defendants be ordered to show cause why they should not be enjoined and ordered
15
to comply with the applicable California Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders
16
related to record keeping for Defendants employees related to same; and for an order
17
enjoining and restraining Defendants and their agents, servants and employees related
18
thereto;
19
14. For civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code 2699(f) and (g) for each aggrieved
20
21
15. For pre-judgment interest as allowed by California Labor Code 218.5 or 1194 and
22
23
16. For reasonable attorneys fees, expenses and costs as provided by California Labor
24
25
26
17. For such other and further relief the court may deem just and proper.
27
//
28
//
22
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT