ee 28 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK ‘Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687) Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975) Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066) Aud 2255 Calle Clara FILED La Jolla, CA 92037 Superior Court of California Telephone: (858)551-1223 otis Sens at Lan Anges Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 Website: www.bamlawca.com ony OCT 19.2015 Attomeys for Plaintiff Sherri Raver, Executive Officer /Clerk » Deputy Ishayla Chambers cow 298 dane dna SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES BC5 98297 STAN SAPORITO, an individual, on Case No. behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR: 1, UNFAIR COMPETITION IN VIOLATION OF CAL. BUS. & PROF. Plaintiff, CODE §§ 17200, ef seq.; vs. 2. FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. SPACE EXPLORATION CODE §§ 510, et seq.; TECHNOLOGIES CORP., a Corporation, and DOES | through 50, inclusive, 3, FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE ITEMIZED STATEMENTS. VIOLATION OF CAL. ABC CODE § 226; and, 4. FAILURE TO PROVIDE WAGES. WHEN DI UE IN VIOLATIONSOF ¥: LAB. CODE §§ 201, 202 ANB. BDF eH a DEMAND FOR A seer Defendants. om Aad sasaaren #39¢avLT9 esz36598 1 S585 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT BBE28 Plaintiff Stan Saporito (“PLAINTIFF”) an individual, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated current and former employees alleges on information and belief, except for his own acts and knowledge which are based on personal knowledge, the following: THE PARTIES 1. Defendant Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (“SPACEX” or “DEFENDANT”) is a California Corporation with its principal place of business located in California. Atall relevant times relevant mentioned herein, SPACEX conducted and continues to conduct substantial business in the state of California. 2. Space Exploration Technologies Corp. designs, manufactures, and launches advanced rockets and spacecraft. The company's products include Falcon 9, a two-stage rocket and Dragon, a free-flying spacecraft. Space Exploration Technologies Corp. was founded in 2002 and is based in Hawthorne, California. 3. Plaintiff Stan Saporito was employed by SPACEX in Los Angeles County, California from June of 2013 to February of 2015 and was at all times classified by SPACEX as a non-exempt employee, paid on an hourly basis, entitled to overtime wages and the legally required meal and rest periods. 4. PLAINTIFF brings this Class Action on behalf of himself and a California class, defined as all individuals who are or previously were employed by DEFENDANT in California and classified as non-exempt employees (the “CALIFORNIA CLASS”) at any time during the period beginning four (4) years prior to the filing of this Complaint and ending on the date of the filing of this Complaint (the “CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD”). The amount in controversy for the aggregate claim of CALIFORNIA CLASS Members is under five million dollars ($5,000,000.00). A During the CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD, SPACEX did not have in place an immutable timekeeping system to accurately record and pay PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for the actual amount of time these employees worked, including overtime worked. Pursuant to the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, 2 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTe e SPACEX is required to pay PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for all time worked, meaning the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer, including all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work. SPACEX required PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members to work off the clock without paying them for all the time they were under SPACEX’s control performing post-shift duties, specifically by failing to provide enough labor hours to accomplish all the job tasks that SPACEX expected PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members to complete. PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were required to clock out of SPACEX’s timekeeping system in order to perform additional work for SPACEX as required to meet SPACEX’s job requirements. As a result, PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS. Members forfeited time worked by working without their time being accurately recorded and without compensation at the applicable overtime rates. 6. California Labor Code Section 558 provides that “[a]ny employer or other person acting on behalf of an employer who violates, or causes to be violated, a section of this chapter or any provision regulating hours and days of work in any order of the Industrial Welfare Commission shall be subject to a civil penalty.” The penalty for the initial violation is “fifty dollars ($50) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages.” The penalty for each subsequent violation is “one hundred dollars ($100) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages.” 7. Here, SPACEX knowingly caused a violation of the California Labor Code by directing its employees to alter the time records, or “shave” the time worked by PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members in order to avoid paying these employees for all their time worked, including overtime worked and missed meal breaks. SPACEX, through its agents, engaged in the unlawful alteration of CALIFORNIA CLASS Members’ time records in order to reduce the time logged so as to not accurately reflect their actual time worked. As a direct result of SPACEX’s conduct, PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were 3 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTSor rx nn eon 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 3 24 25 “26 +28 u underpaid for all time worked, including overtime worked, throughout their employment with SPACEX. 8. PLAINTIFF brings this Class Action on behalf of himself and a CALIFORNIA. CLASS in order to fully compensate the CALIFORNIA CLASS for their losses incurred during the CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD caused by SPACEX’s uniform policy and practice which fails to lawfully compensate these employees forall their overtime worked. SPACEX’s uniform policy and practice alleged herein was an unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practice whereby SPACEX retained and continues to retain wages due PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS. PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS seek an injunction enjoining such conduct by SPACEX in the future, relief for the named PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS who have been economically injured by SPACEX’s past and current unlawful conduct, and all other appropriate legal and equitable relief. 9. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, subsidiary, partnership, associate or otherwise of defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are presently unknown to the PLAINTIFF who therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 474. The PLAINTIFF will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege the trie names and capacities of Does 1 through 50, inclusive, when they are ascertained, PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and based upon that information and belief alleges, that the Defendants named in this Complaint, including DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are responsible in some manner for one or more of the events and happenings that proximately caused the injuries and damages hereinafter alleged. 10. The agents, servants and/or employees of the Defendants and each of them acting on behalf of the Defendants acted within the course and scope of his, her or its authority as the agent, servant and/or employee of the Defendants, and personally participated in the conduct alleged herein on behalf of the Defendants with respect to the conduct alleged herein. Consequently, the acts of each Defendant are legally attributable to the other Defendants and all Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the PLAINTIFF and the other members of the 4 ‘CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTee co og ne CALIFORNIA CLASS, for the loss sustained as a proximate result of the conduct of the Defendants’ agents, servants and/or employees. THE CONDUCT 11. During the CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD, DEFENDANT failed and continues to fail to correctly record and pay PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members forall time worked, including overtime worked. DEFENDANT systematically, unlawfully and unilaterally failed to accurately calculate wages for overtime worked by PLAINTIFF and other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS in order to avoid paying these employees the correct overtime compensation. As a result, PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS forfeited wages due to them for working without compensation for all time worked. DEFENDANT 's uniform policy and practice that failed to correctly record and pay PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for all time worked in accordance with applicable law is evidenced by DEFENDANT’s business records. 12. DEFENDANT knowingly caused a violation of the California Labor Code by directing its employees to alter the time records, or “shave” the time worked by PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members in order to avoid paying these employees for all their time worked, including overtime worked. DEFENDANT, through its agents, engaged in the unlawful alteration of CALIFORNIA CLASS Members’ time records, by shaving and/or engaging in an unlawful rounding policy, which rounding policy was injurious to PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members, in order to reduce the time logged so as to not accurately reflect their actual time worked. As a direct result of DEFENDANT’s conduct, PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were underpaid for all time worked, including overtime worked, throughout their employment with DEFENDANT. 13. As a result of their rigorous work schedules, PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were also from time to time unable to take thirty (30) minute off duty meal breaks and were not fully relieved of duty for their meal periods. PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were required to perform work as ordered by 5 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTDEFENDANT for more than five (5) hours during a shift without receiving a meal break as evidenced by daily time reports for these employees. Further, DEFENDANT failed to provide PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members with a second off-duty meal period each workday in which these employees were required by DEFENDANT to work ten (10) hours of work. As a result, DEFENDANT’s failure to provide PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA CLASS Members with legally required meal breaks is evidenced by DEFENDANT’s business records which contain no record of these breaks.’ PLAINTIFF and other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS therefore forfeited meal breaks without additional compensation and in accordance with DEFENDANT’s strict corporate policy and practice. 14. During the CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD, PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were also required to work in excess of four (4) hours without being provided ten (10) minute rest periods. Further, these employees were denied their first rest periods of at least ten (10) minutes for every shift worked of at least two (2) to four (4) hours, a first and second rest period of at least ten (10) minutes for every shift worked of between six (6) and eight (8) hours, and a first, second and third rest period of at least ten (10) minutes for every shift worked of ten (10) hours or more. PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were also not provided with one hour wages in lieu thereof. As a result of their rigorous work schedules, PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were systemically denied their proper rest periods by DEFENDANT and DEFENDANT’s managers 15, When PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were required to work off the clock and/or missed meal and rest breaks, DEFENDANT also failed to provide PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS with complete and accurate wage statements which failed to show, among other things, the correct amount of time worked, including, work performed in excess of eight (8) hours in a workday, and/or twelve (12) hours in a workday, and/or forty (40) hours in any workweek. Cal. Lab. Code § 226 provides that every employer shall furnish each of his or her employees with an accurate itemized wage statement in writing showing, among other things, gross wages eared and all applicable hourly 6 ‘CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTrates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding amount of time worked at each hourly rate. As a result, DEFENDANT from time to time provided PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS with wage statements which violate Cal. Lab. Code § 226. 16. By reason of this uniform conduct applicable to PLAINTIFF and all CALIFORNIA CLASS Members, DEFENDANT committed acts of unfair competition in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq (the “UCL”), by engaging in a company-wide policy and procedure which failed to accurately record overtime worked by PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members. The proper recording of these employees’ overtime worked is the DEFENDANT’s burden. As a result of DEFENDANT’s intentional disregard of the obligation to meet this burden, DEFENDANT failed to properly calculate and/or pay all required wages for work performed by the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS and violated the California Labor Code and regulations promulgated thereunder as herein alleged, 17. Specifically as to PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT required PLAINTIFF to work off the clock without paying PLAINTIFF for all the time PLAINTIFF was under DEFENDANT’s control performing off-the-clock work, specifically by failing to provide enough labor hours to accomplish all the job tasks that DEFENDANT expected PLAINTIFF to complete. Asa result, PLAINTIFF forfeited time worked by working without his time being accurately recorded and without compensation at the applicable overtime rates. PLAINTIFF was also from time to time unable to take thirty (30) minute off duty meal breaks and was not fully relieved of duty for his meal periods. PLAINTIFF was required to perform work as ordered by DEFENDANT for more than five (5) hours during a shift without receiving a meal break as evidenced by daily time reports for PLAINTIFF. Further, DEFENDANT failed to provide PLAINTIFF and with a second off-duty meal period each workday in which PLAINTIFF was required by DEFENDANT to work ten (10) hours of work. As a result, DEFENDANT’s failure to provide PLAINTIFF with legally required meal breaks is evidenced by DEFENDANT’s business records which contain no record of these breaks. PLAINTIFF therefore forfeited meal breaks 7 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTRw Re 6 7 8 C) 0 without additional compensation and in accordance with DEFENDANT ’ strict corporate policy and practice. When PLAINTIFF worked overtime and/or missed meal periods DEFENDANT also provided PLAINTIFF with a paystub that failed to accurately display PLAINTIFF’s correct rates of overtime pay and missed meal penalties for certain pay periods in violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 226(a). To date, DEFENDANT has not fully paid PLAINTIFF the compensation still owed to him or any penalty wages owed to him under Cal. Lab. Code § 203. The amount in controversy for the PLAINTIFF individually does not exceed the sum or value of $75,000. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 18. This Court has jurisdiction over this Action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 410.10 and California Business & Professions Code, Section 17203. This action is brought as a Class Action on behalf of PLAINTIFF and similarly situated employees of DEFENDANT pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382. 19. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Sections 395 and 395.5, because PLAINTIFF resided and worked in this County for DEFENDANT and DEFENDANT (i) currently maintains and at all relevant times maintained office’ and facilities in this County and/or conducts substantial business in this County, and (ii) committed the wrongful conduct herein alleged in this County against members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS. THE CALIFORNIA CLASS 20. PLAINTIFF brings the First Cause of Action for Unfair, Unlawful and Deceptive Business Practices pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seg. (the "UCL") as a Class Action, pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382, on behalf of a California class, defined as all individuals who are or previously were employed by DEFENDANT in California and classified as non-exempt employees (the “CALIFORNIA CLASS”) at any time during the period beginning four (4) years prior to the filing of this Complaint and ending on the date of the filing of this Complaint (the “CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD”). The amount in 8 ‘CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT28 controversy for the aggregate claim of CALIFORNIA CLASS Members is under five million dollars ($5,000,000.00) 21. To the extent equitable tolling operates to toll claims by the CALIFORNIA CLASS against DEFENDANT, the CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD should be adjusted acéordingly. 22. The California Legislature has commanded that “all wages... ...eamed by any person in any employment are due and payable twice during each calendar month, on days designated in advance by the employer as the regular paydays”, and further that “[a]ny work in excess of eight hours in one workday and any work in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek . . . shall be compensated at the rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for an employee.” (Lab, Code § 204 and § 510(a).) The Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC), however, is statutorily authorized to “establish exemptions from the requirement that an overtime rate of compensation be paid.....for executive, administrative, and professional employees, provided [inter alia] that the employee is primarily engaged in duties that meet the test of the exemption, [and] customarily and regularly exercises discretion and independent judgment in performing those duties...” (Lab. Code § 510(a).) Neither the PLAINTIFF nor the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS and/or the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS qualify for exemption from the above requirements. 23. DEFENDANT, as a matter of company policy, practice and procedure, and in violation of the applicable Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order requirements, and the applicable provisions of California law, intentionally, knowingly, and wilfully, engaged in a practice whereby DEFENDANT systematically failed to record all time worked by PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members, even though DEFENDANT enjoyed the benefit of this work, required employees to perform this work and permits or suffers to permit this work. 24, DEFENDANT has the legal burden to establish that each and every CALIFORNIA CLASS Member was paid wages due to them for all overtime worked at the minimum rate required by California laws. The DEFENDANT, however, as a matter of 9 ‘CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTuniform and systematic policy and procedure failed to have in place during the CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD and still fails to have in place a policy or practice to ensure that each and every CALIFORNIA CLASS Member is paid for all overtime worked as required by law. This, common business practice is applicable to each and every CALIFORNIA CLASS Member can be adjudicated on a class-wide basis as unlawful, unfair, and/or deceptive under Cal. Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seg. (the “UCL”) as causation, damages, and reliance are not elements of this claim. 25. The CALIFORNIA CLASS, is so numerous that joinder of all CALIFORNIA CLASS Members is impracticable. 26. | DEFENDANT uniformly violated the rights of the CALIFORNIA CLASS under California law by: (a) Violating the California Unfair Competition laws, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (the "UCL" by unlawfully, unfairly and/or deceptively having in place company policies, practices and procedures that uniformly and systematically failed to record and pay PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS for all time worked, including overtime worked by these employees; (6) Committing an act of unfair competition in violation of the UCL, by failing to have in place an immutable timekeeping system capable of tracking, without mutation, all of the time PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS work that was not subject to unilateral modification and manipulation; (©) Committing an act of unfair competition in violation of the UCL, by unlawfully, unfairly, and/or deceptively failing to pay the correct overtime pay owed to PLAINTIFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS for overtime worked; and, (4) Committing an act of unfair competition in violation of the UCL, by failing to provide the PLAINTIFF and the other members of the 10 ‘CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTCALIFORNIA CLASS with the legally required meal and rest periods. 27. This Class Action meets the statutory prerequisites for the maintenance of a Class Action as set forth in Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382, in that: @ () © @ The persons who comprise the CALIFORNIA CLASS are so numerous that the joinder of all CALIFORNIA CLASS Members is impracticable and the disposition of their claims as a class will benefit the parties and the Court; Nearly all factual, legal, statutory, declaratory and injunctive relief issues that are raised in this Complaint are common to the CALIFORNIA CLASS will apply uniformly to every member of the CALIFORNIA CLASS; ‘The claims of the representative PLAINTIFF are typical of the claims of each member of the CALIFORNIA CLASS. PLAINTIFF, like all the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS, was a non-exempt employee paid on an hourly basis and who was subjected to the DEFENDANT’s deceptive practice and policy which failed to accurately record all time worked, including overtime worked and as a result failed to pay all wages due to the CALIFORNIA CLASS for all overtime worked by the CALIFORNIA CLASS and thereby systematically underpaid compensation to the CALIFORNIA CLASS. PLAINTIFF sustained economic injury as a result of DEFENDANT’s employment practices. PLAINTIFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS were and are similarly or identically harmed by the same unlawful, deceptive, unfair and pervasive pattern of misconduct engaged in by DEFENDANT; and, The representative PLAINTIFF will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interest of the CALIFORNIA CLASS, and has retained counsel who are competent and experienced in Class Action litigation. a ‘CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTSow wan ewn There are no material conflicts between the claims of the representative PLAINTIFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS that would make class certification inappropriate. Counsel for the CALIFORNIA CLASS will vigorously assert the claims of all CALIFORNIA CLASS Members. 28. Inaddition to meeting the statutory prerequisites to a Class Action, this action is properly maintained as a Class Action pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382, in that: (a) (b) Without class certification and determination of declaratory, injunctive, statutory and other legal questions within the class format, prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS will create the risk of: 1) Inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the parties opposing the CALIFORNIA CLASS; and/or, 2) Adjudication with respect to individual members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS which would as a practical matter be dispositive of interests of the other members not party to the adjudication or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests. The parties opposing the CALIFORNIA CLASS have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the CALIFORNIA CLASS, making appropriate class-wide relief with respect to the CALIFORNIA CLASS as a whole in that DEFENDANT uniformly failed to pay all wages due. Including wages due for all overtime worked by the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS as required by law; 1) With respect to the First Cause of Action, the final relief on behalf of the CALIFORNIA CLASS sought does not relate exclusively to 12 ‘CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT2 3 4 5 6 7 8 - 0 restitution because through this claim PLAINTIFF seeks declaratory relief holding that the DEFENDANT’s policy and practices constitute unfair competition, along with declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and incidental equitable relief as may be necessary to prevent and remedy the conduct declared to constitute unfair competition; Common questions of law and fact exist as to the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS, with respect to the practices and violations of California law as listed above, and predominate over any question affecting only individual CALIFORNIA CLASS Members, and a Class Action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy, including consideration of: ) 2) The interests of the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions in that the substantial expense of individual actions will be avoided to recover the relatively small amount of economic losses sustained by the individual CALIFORNIA CLASS Members when compared to the substantial expense and burden of individual prosecution of this litigation; Class certification will obviate the need for unduly duplicative litigation that would create the risk of: A. Inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS, which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the DEFENDANT; and/or, B. _ Adjudications with respect to individual members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties 13 ‘CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTto the adjudication or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests; 3) In the context of wage litigation because a substantial number of individual CALIFORNIA CLASS Members will avoid asserting their legal rights out of fear of retaliation by DEFENDANT, which may adversely affect an individual's job with DEFENDANT or with a subsequent employer, the Class Action is the only means to assert their claims through a representative; and, 4) A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation because class treatment will obviate the need for unduly and unnecessary duplicative litigation that is likely to result in the absence of certification of this action pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382. 29. This Court should permit this action to be maintained as a Class Action pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382 because: (a) (b) © The questions of law and fact common to the CALIFORNIA CLASS predominate over any question affecting only individual CALIFORNIA CLASS Members because the DEFENDANT’s employment practices are uniformly and systematically applied with respect to the CALIFORNIA CLASS; A Class Action is superior to any other available method for the fair and efficient adjudication of the claims of the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS because in the context of employment litigation a substantial number of individual CALIFORNIA CLASS Members will avoid asserting their rights individually out of fear of retaliation or adverse impact on their employment; The members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS are so numerous that it is impractical to bring all members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS before the 14 ‘CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT2 3 4 7 6 7 8 9 @ © (@) (h) @ e e Court; PLAINTIFF, and the other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members, will not be able to obtain effective and economic legal redress unless the action is maintained as a Class Action; There is a community of interest in obtaining appropriate legal and equitable relief for the acts of unfair competition, statutory violations and other improprieties, and in obtaining adequate compensation for the damages and injuries which DEFENDANT’ actions have inflicted upon the CALIFORNIA CLASS; There is a community of interest in ensuring that the combined assets of DEFENDANT are sufficient to adequately compensate the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS for the injuries sustained; DEFENDANT has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the CALIFORNIA CLASS, thereby making final class-wide relief appropriate with respect to the CALIFORNIA CLASS as a whole; ‘The members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS are readily ascertainable from| the business records of DEFENDANT. The CALIFORNIA CLASS consists of all individuals who are or previously were employed by DEFENDANT in California classified as non-exempt employees during the CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD; and, Class treatment provides manageable judicial treatment calculated to bring a efficient and rapid conclusion to all litigation of all wage and hour related claims arising out of the conduct of DEFENDANT as to the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS. 30. | DEFENDANT maintains records from which the Court can ascertain and identify by job title each of DEFENDANT’ employees who have been systematically, intentionally and uniformly subjected to DEFENDANT’s company policy, practices and procedures as herein alleged. PLAINTIFF will seek leave to amend the Complaint to include any additional job titles 15 ‘CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTof similarly situated employees when they have been identified. THE CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS 31. PLAINTIFF further brings the Second, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action on behalf ofa California sub-class, defined as all members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS who are or previously were employed by DEFENDANT in a California store classified as non-exempt employees and paid on an hourly basis (the “CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS”) at any time during the period three (3) years prior to the filing of the complaint and ending on the date ofthe filing of this Complaint (the “CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS PERIOD”) pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382. The amount in controversy for the aggregate claim of CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members is under five million dollars ($5,000,000.00). 32. DEFENDANT, as a matter of company policy, practice and procedure, and in violation of the applicable Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order requirements, and the applicable provisions of California law, intentionally, knowingly, and wilfully, engaged in a practice whereby DEFENDANT failed to record all overtime worked by PLAINTIFF and members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS, even though DEFENDANT enjoyed the benefit of this work, required employees to perform this work and permitted or suffered to permit this work. DEFENDANT has uniformly denied these CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members wages to which these employees were entitled in order to unfairly cheat the competition and unlawfully profit. To the extent equitable tolling operates to toll claims by the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS against DEFENDANT, the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS PERIOD should be adjusted accordingly. 7 DEFENDANT maintains records from which the Court can ascertain and identify by name and job title, each of DEFENDANT’s employees who have been systematically, intentionally and uniformly subjected to DEFENDANT’s company policy, practices and procedures as herein alleged, PLAINTIFF will seek leave to amend the complaint to include any additional job titles of similarly situated employees when they have been identified. 34. The CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS is so numerous that joinder of all 16 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT28 CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members is impracticable. 35. Common questions of law and fact exist as to members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS, including, but not limited, to the following: @) (>) (©) @ © (e) (h) @ Whether DEFENDANT unlawfully failed to pay overtime wages to members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS in violation of the California Labor Code and California regulations and the applicable California Wage Order; Whether DEFENDANT failed to maintain an immutable timekeeping system so as to record true and accurate time records for PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS; Whether the members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS are entitled to overtime compensation for overtime worked under the overtime pay requirements of California law; Whether DEFENDANT failed to provide PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS with accurate itemized wage statements; Whether DEFENDANT failed to provide PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS with all legally required uninterrupted thirty (30) minute meal breaks; Whether DEFENDANT’s policy and practice of failing to pay members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS all wages when due within the time required by law after their employment ended violates California law; Whether DEFENDANT has engaged in unfair competition by the above-listed conduct; The proper measure of damages and penalties owed to the members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS; and, Whether DEFENDANT’s conduct was willful. as CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTSc wm raannewn 36. | DEFENDANT, as a matter of company policy, practice and procedure, fails to pay PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members for all overtime worked. All of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members, including PLAINTIFF, are non- exempt employees who are paid on an hourly basis, and who have been subjected to DEFENDANT’s uniform and systematic company procedures as alleged herein above. This business practice was uniformly applied to each and every member of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS, and therefore, the propriety of this conduct can be adjudicated on a class-wide basis. 37. DEFENDANT violated the rights of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS under California law by: (a) Violating Cal. Lab. Code §§ 510, et seq., by failing to correctly pay the PLAINTIFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB- CLASS all wages due for overtime worked, for which DEFENDANT is liable pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code § 1194; (b) Violating Cal. Lab. Code § 226, by failing to provide the PLAINTIFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS with an accurate itemized statement in writing showing all accurate and applicable overtime rates in effect during the pay period, correct total gross wages eamed, and the corresponding amount of time worked at each overtime rate by the employee; and, (©) Violating Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201, 202 and/or 203, which provides that when an employee is discharged or quits from employment, the employer must pay the employee all wages due without abatement, by failing to tender full payment and/or restitution of wages owed or in the manner required by California law to the members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS who have terminated their employment. 38. This Class Action meets the statutory prerequisites for the maintenance of a Class Action as set forth in Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382, in that: 18 ‘CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT@ (b) © (@) The persons who comprise the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS are so numerous that the joinder of all CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members is impracticable and the disposition of their claims as a class will benefit the parties and the Court; Nearly all factual, legal, statutory, declaratory and injunctive relief issues that are raised in this Complaint are common to the CALIFORNIA. LABOR SUB-CLASS and will apply uniformly to every member of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS; The claims of the representative PLAINTIFF are typical of the claims of each member of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS. PLAINTIFF, like all the other members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS, was a non-exempt employee paid on an hourly basis who was subjected to the DEFENDANT’s deceptive practice and policy which failed to correctly record all time worked and failed to pay all wages due to the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS for all time worked, including overtime worked by the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS and thereby systematically underpaid the minimum wages and overtime compensation to the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS. PLAINTIFF sustained economic injury as a result of DEFENDANT’s employment practices. PLAINTIFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS were and are similarly or identically harmed by the same unlawful, deceptive, unfair and pervasive pattern of misconduct engaged in by DEFENDANT; and, The representative PLAINTIFF will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interest of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS, and has retained counsel who are competent and experienced in Class Action litigation. There are no material conflicts between the claims of the representative PLAINTIFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA 19 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTSecwe aa uewn LABOR SUB-CLASS that would make class certification inappropriate. Counsel for the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS will vigorously assert the claims of all CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members. 39. In addition to meeting the statutory prerequisites to a Class Action, this action is properly maintained as a Class Action pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382, in that: (@ (b) © Without class certification and determination of declaratory, injunctive, statutory and other legal questions within the class format, prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS will create the risk of: 1) Inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the parties opposing the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS; or, 2) Adjudication with respect to individual members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS which would as a practical matter be dispositive of interests of the other members not party to the adjudication or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests. The parties opposing the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS, making appropriate class-wide relief with respect to the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS as a whole in that DEFENDANT uniformly failed to pay all wages due for all overtime worked by the members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS as required by law; - Common questions of law and fact predominate as to the members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS, with respect to the practices and violations of California Law as listed above, and predominate over any 20 ‘CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTquestion affecting only individual CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members, and a Class Action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy, including consideration of: 1) The interests of the members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB- CLASS in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions in that the substantial expense of individual actions will be avoided to recover the relatively small amount of economic losses sustained by the individual CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members when compared to the substantial expense and burden of individual prosecution of this litigation; 2) Class certification will obviate the need for unduly duplicative litigation that would create the risk of: A. Inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB- CLASS, which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the DEFENDANT; and/or, B. —_Adjudications with respect to individual members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the adjudication or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests; 3) In the context of wage litigation because a substantial number of individual CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members will avoid asserting their legal rights out of fear of retaliation by DEFENDANT, which may adversely affect an individual’s job with DEFENDANT or with a subsequent employer, the Class Action is the only means to assert their claims through a 21 ‘CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTSoe a aun vn representative; and, 4) A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation because class treatment will obviate the need for unduly and unnecessary duplicative litigation that is likely to result in the absence of certification of this action pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382. 40. This Court should permit this action to be maintained as a Class Action pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382 because: (a) (b) (©) @ © The questions of law and fact common to the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS predominate over any question affecting only individual CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members; A Class Action is superior to any other available method for the fair and efficient adjudication of the claims of the members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS because in the context of employment litigation a substantial number of individual CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members will avoid asserting their rights individually out of fear of retaliation or adverse impact on their employment; The members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS are so numerous that it is impractical to bring all members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS before the Court; PLAINTIFF, and the other CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members, will not be able to obtain effective and economic legal redress unless the action is maintained as a Class Action; There is a community of interest in obtaining appropriate legal and equitable relief for the acts of unfair competition, statutory violations and other improprieties, and in obtaining adequate compensation for the damages and injuries which DEFENDANT’ actions have inflicted upon the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS; 22 ‘CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT26 : ‘37 +28 vl (£) There is a community of interest in ensuring that the combined assets of DEFENDANT are sufficient to adequately compensate the members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS for the injuries sustained; (g) DEFENDANT has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS, thereby making final class- wide relief appropriate with respect to the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB- CLASS as a whole; (h) The members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS are readily ascertainable from the business records of DEFENDANT. The CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS consists of all CALIFORNIA CLASS Members who are or previously were employed by DEFENDANT in California and as non-exempt employees during the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS PERIOD; and, (i) Classtreatment provides manageable judicial treatment calculated to bring a efficient and rapid conclusion to all litigation of all wage and hour related claims arising out of the conduct of DEFENDANT as to the members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION For Unlawful Business Practices [Cal. Bus. And Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.) (By PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA CLASS and Against All Defendants) 41, PLAINTIFF, and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS, reallege and incorporate by this reference, as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 40 of this Complaint. 42. DEFENDANT is a “person” as that term is defined under Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code § 17021. 43. California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. (the “UCL”) defines rs) CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTRoe oe ne et unfair competition as any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice. Section 17203 authorizes injunctive, declaratory, and/or other equitable relief with respect to unfair competition as follows: Any person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in unfair competition may be enjoined in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court may make such orders or judgments, including ay eppointiment of s receiver wwidch constntee ania compotion, ae delined in te chapter, or poenay be necessary to restore to any person in interest any money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of such unfair competition. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203 44, By the conduct alleged herein, DEFENDANT has engaged and continues to engage in a business practice which violates California law, including but not limited to, the applicable Industrial Wage Order(s), the California Code of Regulations and the California Labor Code including Sections 204, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194 & 1198, for which this Court should issue declaratory and other equitable relief pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203 as may be necessary to prevent and remedy the conduct held to constitute unfair competition, including restitution of wages wrongfully withheld. 45. By the conduct alleged herein, DEFENDANT’s practices were unlawful and unfair in that these practices violate public policy, were immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to employees, and were without valid justification or utility for which this Court should issue equitable and injunctive relief pursuant to Section 17203 of the California Business & Professions Code, including restitution of wages wrongfully withheld. 46. By the conduct alleged herein, DEFENDANT’ practices were deceptive and fraudulent in that DEFENDANT?s uniform policy and practice failed to pay PLAINTIFF, and other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS, wages due for overtime worked, due to a systematic and uniform business practice of altering the actual time recorded and worked by PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA CLASS Members and requiring these employees to perform work off the clock, pursuant to the applicable Cal. Lab. Code, and Industrial Welfare Commission requirements in violation of Cal. Bus. Code §§ 17200, et seq., and for which this 24 ‘CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 Court should issue injunctive and equitable relief, pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203, including restitution of wages wrongfully withheld. 47. By the conduct alleged herein, DEFENDANT’s practices were also unlawful, unfair and deceptive in that DEFENDANT’ s employment practices caused PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS to be underpaid during their employment with DEFENDANT. 48. By the conduct alleged herein, DEFENDANT’s practices were also unlawful, unfair and deceptive in that DEFENDANT’s uniform policies, practices and procedures failed to provide all legally required uninterrupted meal breaks to PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS as required by Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7 and 512. 49. Therefore, PLAINTIFF demands on behalf of himself and on behalf of each CALIFORNIA CLASS member, one (1) hour of pay for each workday in which an off-duty meal period was not timely provided for each five (5) hours of work, and/or one (1) hour of pay for each workday in which a second off-duty meal period was not timely provided for each ten (10) hours of work. 50. PLAINTIFF further demands on behalf of himself and on behalf of each CALIFORNIA CLASS member, one (1) hour of pay for each workday in which a rest period was not timely provided as required by law. 51. By and through the unlawful and unfair business practices described herein, DEFENDANT has obtained valuable property, money and services from PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS, including earned wages for overtime worked, and has deprived them of valuable rights and benefits guaranteed by law and contract, all to the detriment of these employees and to the benefit of DEFENDANT so as to allow DEFENDANT to unfairly compete against competitors who comply with the law. 52. All the acts described herein as violations of, among other things, the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, the California Code of Regulations, and the California Labor Code, were unlawful and in violation of public policy, were immoral, unethical, oppressive and unscrupulous, were deceptive, and thereby constituted unlawful, unfair and 25 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 deceptive business practices in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. 53. PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS were further entitled to, and do, seek a declaration that the described business practices were unlawful, unfair and deceptive, and that injunctive relief should be issued restraining DEFENDANT from engaging in any unlawful and unfair business practices in the future. 54. - PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS have no plain, speedy and/or adequate remedy at law that will end the unlawful and unfair business practices of DEFENDANT. Further, the practices herein alleged presently continue to occur unabated, Asa result of the unlawful and unfair business practices described herein, PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable legal and economic harm unless DEFENDANT is restrained from continuing to engage in these unlawful and unfair business practices. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION For Failure To Pay Overtime Compensation [Cal. Lab. Code §§ 510, ef seq.] (By PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS and Against All Defendants) 58. PLAINTIFF, and the other members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS, reallege and incorporate by this reference, as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 53 of this Complaint. 56. PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS. bring a claim for DEFENDANT’s willful and intentional violations of the California Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission requirements for DEFENDANT’s failure to pay these employees for all overtime worked, including, work performed in excess of eight (8) hours in a workday, and/or twelve (12) hours in a workday, and/or forty (40) hours in any workweek. 57. Pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code § 204, other applicable laws and regulations, and 26 ‘CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT.public policy, an employer must timely pay its employees for all hours worked. 58. Cal. Lab. Code § 510 further provides that employees in California shall not be employed more than eight (8) hours per workday and more than forty (40) hours per workweek unless they receive additional compensation beyond their regular wages in amounts specified by law, 59. Cal. Lab. Code § 1194 establishes an employee’s right to recover unpaid wages, including minimum wage and overtime compensation and interest thereon, together with the costs of suit. Cal. Lab. Code § 1198 further states that the employment of an employee for longer hours than those fixed by the Industrial Welfare Commission is unlawful. 60. During the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS PERIOD, PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members were required by DEFENDANT to work off- the-clock and were not paid for all the off-the-clock time they worked, including overtime work. In addition to altering the actual time recorded and worked by PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA CLASS Members these employees were also required to work after clocking out by DEFENDANT. This off-the-clock time caused PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members who had already worked an eight (8) hourshift and/or atwelve (12) hour shift to work overtime off-the-clock. However, DEFENDANT did not pay the required overtime compensation for this off-the-clock work. 61. | DEFENDANT’ uniform pattern of unlawful wage and hour practices manifested, without limitation, applicable to the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS as a whole, as a result of implementing a uniform policy and practice that failed to accurately record overtime worked by PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members and denies accurate compensation to PLAINTIEF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS for overtime worked, including, the overtime work performed in excess of eight (8) hours in a workday, and/or twelve (12) hours in a workday, and/or forty (40) hours in any workweek. 62. In committing these violations of the California Labor Code, DEFENDANT inaccurately records overtime worked and consequently underpays the overtime worked by 27 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA LABOR-SUB CLASS Members. DEFENDANT acted in an illegal attempt to avoid the payment of all earned wages, and other benefits in violation of the California Labor Code, the Industrial Welfare Commission requirements and other applicable laws and regulations. 63. Asa direct result of DEFENDANT’s unlawful wage practices as alleged herein, the PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS do not receive full compensation for overtime worked. 64. Cal. Lab. Code § 515 sets out various categories of employees who are exempt from the overtime requirements of the law. None of these exemptions are applicable to the PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS. Further, PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS were not subject to a valid collective bargaining agreement that would preclude the causes of action contained herein this Complaint. Rather, PLAINTIFF brings this Action on behalf of himself and the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS based on DEFENDANT’s violations of non- negotiable, non-waiveable rights provided by the State of California. 65. During the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS PERIOD, PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS have been paid less for overtime worked that they are entitled to, constituting a failure to pay all earned wages. 66. DEFENDANT fails to accurately pay the PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS overtime wages for the time they worked which was in excess of the maximum hours permissible by law as required by Cal. Lab. Code §§ 510, 1194 & 1198, even though PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB- CLASS were required to work, and did in fact work, overtime as to which DEFENDANT failed to accurately record and pay as evidenced by DEFENDANTs business records and witnessed by employees. 67. By virtue of DEFENDANT's unlawful failure to accurately pay all camed compensation to PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB- CLASS for the true amount of time they worked, PLAINTIFF and the other members of the 28 ‘CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTCALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS have suffered and will continue to suffer an economic injury in amounts which are presently unknown to them and which will be ascertained according to proof at trial. 68. DEFENDANT knew or should have known that PLAINTIEF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS were under compensated for all overtime worked, DEFENDANT systematically elected, either through intentional malfeasance or gross nonfeasance, to not pay employees for their labor as a matter of uniform company policy, practice and procedure, and DEFENDANT perpetrated this systematic scheme by refusing to pay PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS for overtime worked, 69. _ Inperforming the acts and practices herein alleged in violation of California labor laws, and refusing to compensate the members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS for all overtime worked and provide them with the requisite overtime compensation, DEFENDANT acted and continues to act intentionally, oppressively, and maliciously toward PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS with a conscious of and utter disregard for their legal rights, or the consequences to them, and with the despicable intent of depriving them of their property and legal rights, and otherwise causing them injury in order to increase company profits at the expense of these employees. 70. | PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS. therefore request recovery of all overtime wages, according to proof, interest, statutory costs, as well as the assessment of any statutory penalties against DEFENDANT, ina sum as provided by the California Labor Code and/or other applicable statutes. To the extent minimum and/or overtime compensation is determined to be owed to the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS ‘Members who have terminated their employment, DEFENDANT’s conduct also violates Labor Code §§ 201 and/or 202, and therefore these individuals are also be entitled to waiting time penalties under Cal. Lab. Code § 203, which penalties are sought herein on behalf of these CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members. DEFENDANT’s conduct as alleged herein was willful, intentional and not in good faith. Further, PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA a CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTSow aan ewn ui LABOR SUB-CLASS Members are entitled to seek and recover statutory costs. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION For Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements [Cal. Lab. Code § 226] (By PLAINTIFF and the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS and Against All Defendants) 71. PLAINTIFF, andthe other members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS, reallege and incorporate by this reference, as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 70 of this Complaint. 72. Cal. Labor Code § 226 provides that an employer must furnish employees with an “accurate itemized” statement in writing showing: (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee, except for any employee whose compensation is solely based on a salary and who is exempt from payment of overtime under subdivision (a) of Section 515 or any applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, (3) the number of piecerate units eamed and any applicable piece rate if the employee is paid on a piece-rate basis, (4) all deductions, provided that all deductions made on written orders of the employee may be aggregated and shown as one item, (5) net wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the name of the employee and his or her social security number, except that by January 1, 2008, only the last four digits of his or her social security number or an employee identification number other than a social security number may be shown on the itemized statement, (8) the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer, and (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding 30 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTnumber of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee. 73. When PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were required to work off the clock and/or DEFENDANT required these employees to record fictitious meal periods and they were thus not actually provided a full thirty (30) minute off-duty meal period, DEFENDANT violated Cal. Lab. Code § 226 in that DEFENDANT failed to provide an accurate wage statement in writing that properly and accurately itemized all time worked by the PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS and thereby also fails to set forth the correct overtime wages earned and meal penalties owed to these employees. 74. DEFENDANT knowingly and intentionally failed to comply with Cal. Lab. Code § 226, causing injury and damages to PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS. These damages include, but are not limited to, costs expended calculating the correct rates for the overtime worked and the amount of employment taxes which were not properly paid to state and federal tax authorities. These damages are difficult to estimate. Therefore, PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS may elect to recover liquidated damages of fifty dollars ($50.00) for the initial pay period in which the violation occurred, and one hundred dollars ($100.00) for each violation in a subsequent pay period pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code § 226, in an amount according to proof at the time of trial (but in no event more than four thousand dollars ($4,000.00) for PLAINTIFF and each respective member of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS herein). FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION For Failure to Pay Wages When Due [ Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201, 202, 203] (By PLAINTIFFS and the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS and Against All Defendants) 75. PLAINTIFF, and the other members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS, reallege and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 74 31 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTScwrxaaune wn 28 of this Complaint. 76. Cal. Lab. Code § 200 provides that: As used in this article: a) "Wages" includes all amounts for labor performed by employees of every jescription, whether the amount is fixed or ascertained by the standard of time, task, piece, Commission basis, or other method of calculation. (b) "Labor" includes labor, work, or service whether rendered or performed under contract, subcontract, partnership, station plan, or other agreement if the labor to be paid for is performed personally by the person demanding payment. 71. Cal. Lab. Code § 201 provides, in relevant part, that “If an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge are due and payable immediately.” 78. Cal. Lab. Code § 202 provides, in relevant part, that: If an employee not having a written contract for a definite period quits his or her employment, his or her wages shall become due and payable not later than 72 hours thereaiter, unless the employee has given 72 hours previous notice of his or her intention fo quit, in which case the employee is entitled to his or her wages at the time of quitting. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an employee who quits without providing a 72-hour notice shall be entitled to receive payment by mail if he or she so requests and designates a mailing address. The date of the mailing shall constitute the date of payment for purposes of the requirement to provide payment within 72 hours of the notice of quitting. 79. ‘There wasno definite term in PLAINTIFF’s or any CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB- CLASS Members’ employment contract. 80. Cal. Lab. Code § 203 provides: If an employer willfully fails to pay, without abatement or reduction, in aecordance with Sections 201, 201.5, 202, and 205.5, any wages of an employee who is discharged or who quits, the wages of the employee shall continue as @ penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or until an action therefor is commenced; but the wages shall not continue for more than 30 days. 81. | Theemploymentof PLAINTIFF and many CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS. Members has terminated and DEFENDANT has not tendered payment of overtime wages, to these employees who actually worked overtime, as required by law. 82. Therefore, as provided by Cal Lab. Code § 203, on behalf of himself and the members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS whose employment has terminated, PLAINTIFF demands up to thirty days of pay as penalty for not paying all wages due at time of termination for all employees who terminated employment during the CALIFORNIA. 32 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTROKR Scwra) LABOR SUB-CLASS PERIOD, and demands an accounting and payment of all wages due, plus interest and statutory costs as allowed by law. PRAY! R RELIEF WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment against each Defendant, jointly and severally, as follows i On behalf of the CALIFORNIA CLASS: A) _ That the Court certify the First Cause of Action asserted by the CALIFORNIA CLASS as a class action pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382; B) _ Anorder temporarily, preliminarily and permanently enjoining and restraining DEFENDANT from engaging in similar unlawful conduct as set forth herein; ©) Anorder requiring DEFENDANT to pay all wages and all sums unlawfuly withheld from compensation due to PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS; and, D) __Restitutionary disgorgement of DEFENDANT'S ill-gotten gains into a fluid fund for restitution of the sums incidental to DEFENDANT’s violations due to PLAINTIFF and to the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS. On behalf of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS: A) That the Court certify the Second, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action asserted by the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS as a class action pursuant to Cal, Code of Civ. Proc. § 382; B) — Compensatory damages, according to proof at trial, including compensatory damages for minimum and overtime compensation due PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS, during the applicable CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS PERIOD plus interest thereon at the statutory rate; C) The greater of all actual damages or fifty dollars ($50) for the initial pay period in which a violation occurs-and one hundred dollars ($100) per each 33 ‘CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTS cw raanunar wn 12 13 14 oe le 18 19 21 22 '23 34 va) 26 vy & 28 member of the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS for each violation in a subsequent pay period, not exceeding an aggregate penalty of four thousand dollars ($4,000), and an award of costs for violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 226; and, D) The wages of all terminated employees from the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or until an action therefore is commenced, in accordance with Cal. Lab. Code § 203. 3. Onall claims: A) — Anaward of interest, including prejudgment interest at the legal rate; B) Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable; and, C) _ Anaward of penalties, attorneys’ fees and cost of suit, as allowable under the law, including, but not limited to, pursuant to Labor Code §218.5, §226, and/or §1194. Dated: October 15, 2015 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK By: Norman B* Blumenthal Attomeys for Plaintiff 34 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTScwe rads ween DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL PLAINTIFF demands a jury trial on issues triable to a jury. Dated: October 15, 2015 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK Ne forman B. Blumenthal ‘Attorneys for Plaintiff KAD\Dropbox\Pending Litigation\Space Exploration - Saporito\p-Complaint-FINAL.wpd 35 ‘CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT7 2. 7 (Srman 8 Blumenthal "(Sar 488685} "sere PORCOURTUSE ONY Kyle Nordrehaug (Bar #205975) Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik FILED 2255 Calle Clara, La Jolla, CA 92037 Sore coer or Cali tals Teuervene no (858) 381-1223 xno: (858) $51-1232 uperior Co ATTORNEY FOR (Nanas Plaintiff Stan Saporito. County of Los Angeles [SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY oF LOS ANGELES svreet oonss TTT N. Hill St OCT 19 2015 snssooness: 11] N. Hill St cmrmonrcooe Los Angeles 50012 sherri R. Lanter, Executive OficeriClerk seen Central - Stanley Mosk Courthouse. by, » Deputy ‘CASE NAME Tshayla Chambers SAPORITO v. SPACE EXPLORATION CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation ene 5982 97 Unlimited (_) Lites B — el counter) seiner | — demanded demandedis | Fledwith frst appearance by defendant exceeds $25,000) _ $25,000 or less) (Cal Rules of Cour, ie 3.402) | cern items 1-6 below must be compieted (see instructions on page 2) Fi" Gheck one box below forthe case type that best describes this case ‘auto Tort Contract Provsionaly Complex Civil Ligation ‘to 2) [eT bres ot conractwarranty (9) (Cal Rules of Cour, rule 3400-2403) Uninsured motor (4) [5] rues 70 cotecions (09) J nt trade equation (0) Other PUPONWD (Personal injun/Property [_] ter eaectons (8) constuction stet 10 DamagelWrongful Death) Tort Insurance coverage (18) [ itass tor 40) asbestos (4) tne contract (97 1) secures gaten 28) ‘Product Kabitty (24) Real Property (J EnvironmentairToxic tort (30) Medical malpractice (45) CO) Eminent domaininverse (1 insurance coverage claims arising rom the Toner ruromo 2 tondenmaton (1) [ae led event amos ene Non-PUPOMWD (Other) Tort [21 wrong eviction (33) ‘ypes (At) {a easiness toatuntar business practice (7) [—} Omer ral property (26) Enforcement of Judgment 1 civrignts (08) Unlawful Detainor (1 Entorcement of judgment (20) [E) petemation (13) ‘Commercial (34) Miscollaneous Civil Complaint ED Frawa (16) 2) Residential (22) DC aco [F) inetectual property (19) 1 oaugs (38) [1 otter compisnt not specited above) (42) 11 Protessiontnegience (25) dial Review iaeaaeeee cai voae oterronPiro wo et 8 FET rset) Pomp od sorte genera) Employment (5 Peston: aration avers) =) Quer pemon nat pooner aber) 2) ‘Wrongful termination (36) 2 wit ot mandate 2) Other employment (15) [77 other judicial review (39) 2 Thiscase LX is L_Jisnot complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court Ifthe case is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management: Large number of separately represented parties d. [X] Large number of witnesses Extensive motion practice raising dificult or novel__@. [_] Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, orn a federal court Substantial amount of documentary evidence __¢. [_] Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision 3. Remedies sought (check althat apply): aL] monetary b.[3X] nonmenetary; declaratory or injunctive reef ¢ [punitive 4. Number of causes of action (speci): FOUR (4) s.Hthiscase Lx]is (Jisnot aciass action suit 6 if there are any known elated cases, fie and serve a notice of elated as Date: October 14, 2015 man B. Blumenthal a G NOTICE «Paint must fle this cover sheet withthe fist paper fied in the action or proceeding (except smal claims cases or cases fled ‘under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Insitutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Cour, rule 3.220.) Failure to fle may result in sanctions, 4 File this cover sheet in adcition to any cover sheet required by local cour rule. ction 5 Brac of Canacd Waray | ggg Connery rac Sale Pad rust) 5 (rotinsurance) | ry Ag019 Negligent Breach of ConracuWaranty (0 favs) Lee (© A8028 ner Breach of ConracyWaanty (oo aud or neptgence) 1.2.8 g 1D. 6002 Collections Case-Sellr Paintif 2.5.6. z Collections (09) 3 1D 2012 Other Promissory NoteCobectons Case 5 Insurance Coverage (16) ABOIS Insurance Coverage (na comes) 1.2.5.8 1D 48009 Contractual Froud 1.2.3.5 omer contacan | AG091 Torus Irene 1.2.3.5 12 A802 Omer Contact spue(not teachirsuranceftaudnepigence) 1.2 riper: Domamrnws™® ]G A7300 EminentDomainondemnaton Number of pares 2 & [wong eveton as) AB029 wong Evezon case 2.6 : 8 AG018 Mortgage Forecosure 8 © | omer ReatPropety 26) | 6082 Quiet Tite 6 fe 1148060 Other Real Property (noteminent domain, lanalordtenant frectsue) | 2,6 s_ [UMM Dotan Commeret V5 a6s21. UnlawisDeliner Commerc (ot rugs or wrong eviction) 2.6 Z| UnswOuageresidonts! | g5r20 unin Detiner Residential (nt rug wrong! eveton 2.8 3 Uniawtat Deane. 5 pulawta Deane, | AS020FUnawlOetane-PostForecosue 2.8 ‘nian DetanerOrugs 28) | C1 AB022 Unto! Deaier-Orugs 2.6 LACH 109 (Rev. 03/11) ASC Approved 03-04 AND LexisNexis® Automated Calforia Coun Farms CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM STATEMENT OF LOCATION {Local Rule 2.0 Page 204SAPORITO v. SPACE EXPLORATION A B c Ci Case Cover Sheet Type of Acton Agpicable Reasons - Category No (Check oly one) See Step 3 Above ase Foret (05) | AB108 Asset Forenie Case 2.8 3 | _Petonre avivaton (1) [1 AGH Pelton o CompelContnvecate Arraton 2.5 5 @ OASIS) Wht Administrative Mandamss 2.8 8 rit of Mandate (02) | 0 A61S2 Wht- Mandamus on Lites Court Case Matter 2 3 A659 W-Cther Lites Cut Case Review 2 (tre sil Review 99) | ABIEO Otrer Wit ual Review 2.8 g_[AminvtiaceReguaten ©] AE008 Anitstrade Reguaion 1.2.8 B | contusion owt 10) [© 6007 Constucton Oeect 128 [Gam iowng ase Tor a : ane ©. 6006 Cims ivaing Mass Trt 1.2.8 S [securities uiigation 26) [1226005 Secutes Ligation Case 1.2.8 z Tone Tor : Emin ag) |. 6096 Toxic TontEnironment 1.2.3.8 é Inaurance Coverage Cains | agora Insurance CoveragetSubrogatn (complex case on) 1.2.5.6 AG} Site Sate Judgment 2.8 EE 1 A6160 Aste! of Jodgent 2.8 ce Enforcement 1D. 6107 Confession of Judgment (non-domestic relations) 2.8 3 of Judgment (20) 1D. AB140 Administrative Agency Award (not unpas taxes) 2.8 os A614 Petition/Certifcate for Entry of Judgment on Unpaid Tax 2.8 © AG1T2 ihe Enorcement of dome! Case 2.8.8 ‘ RIGO(@7) {_AGOGS Racketeering (RIGO) Case 1.2.8 zg 3 1B AG030 Dedratory Rete Oly 1.2.8 F | oneccanpune | ASD ince Rta ny dmestonaresnen 28 = | (Not Species Above) (42) | cy ago1s otner Commercial Complaint Case (nontotinon-complex) 1.2.8. ° (D_A6000 Other Civil Complaint (non-torvnon-complex) 1.2.8. ormerieCapaaien. ag119 parrarnp and Corporate Govrance Cate 28 n © 6121 Ch Harassment, 2.3.8 8 © A8123 Wrilace Harassment 2.3.9 z comer Pettorg | ASI24 EldertDependen Adu Abuse Case 2.3.9 (Net Spected Above) | ABI90 Electon Contest 2 % i 1 ASt10 Pelion or Change of Name 27 ~ ASITO Pelion for Reet rm Late Clam Lew 2.3.4.8 Nw 1 ASI00 Other Ca Petition 28 @ LACrO9 (Rev. 03/11) LASC Approved 03.04 LexisNexis® Automated California Couny Forms CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Local Rule 2.0 Page 3 of 4w SAPORITO v. SPACE EXPLORATION Item III. Statement of Location: Enter the address of the accident, party's residence or place of business, performance, or other circumstance indicated in tem I, Step 3 on Page 1, as the proper reason for filing in the court location you selected. REASON: Check the appropriate boxes fr the numbers shown er Cotunn forte ype af acon hat you have stecteaor|Class action brought by individual residing in Los 'Angeles County against corporation located in 1.02. 03.04.05.08.07.08 C9. C10, fHawthome, CA 90250. [Long Beach cA __[g08is Item Iv. Declaration of Assignment: | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of California that the foregoing is true land correct and that the above-entiled matter is properly fled for assignment to the __Staley Mosk __ courthouse in the Central Distnct of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles [Code Civ. Proc, § 382 et seq, and Local Rule 2.0, subds. (0), (c) and (d), pated: _*?| vt | VY PLEASE HAVE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS COMPLETED AND READY TO BE FILED IN ORDER TO PROPERLY COMMENCE YOUR NEW COURT CASE: 1. Original Complaint or Petition. IF fling a Complaint, a completed Summons form for issuance by the Clerk. Civil Case Cover Sheet, Judicial Council form CM-010. Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Location form, LACIV 109, LASC Approved 03-04 (Rev. 03/14) Payment in full ofthe fling fee, unless fees have been waived 6 Assigned order appointing the Guardian ad Litem, Judicial Council form CIV-010, ifthe plaintiff or petitioner is a minor under 18 years of age will be required by Court in order to issue a summons, 7. Additional copies of documents to be conformed by the Clerk. Copies of the cover sheet and this addendum must be served along with the summons and complaint, or other inating pleading in the case ken Lenaexis®Automened Coformia County Forms LAGI T09 (Rev. 03/11) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.0 LSC Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 40f 4