QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES

Transcription

1

2 1 RICHARD E. QUINTILONE II (SBN 0) QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES EL TORO ROAD SUITE 0 LAKE FOREST, CA 0-1 TELEPHONE NO. () - FACSIMILE NO. () - REQ@QUINTLAW.COM JOHN D. TRIEU (SBN ) LAW OFFICES OF JOHN D. TRIEU, APC 1 BOLSA AVE., SUITE WESTMINSTER, CA TELEPHONE NO.:.. FACSIMILE NO.:.. JOHN@TRIEULAW.COM Attorneys for Plaintiff, HUEY NGUYEN on behalf of himself and on behalf of a Class of all other persons similarly situated SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT HUEY NGUYEN, behalf of himself and on behalf of a Class of all other persons similarly situated Plaintiff, vs. PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, an unknown business entity; PHILIPS LIGHTING ELECTRONICS COMPANY, an unknown business entity, and DOES 1 through 0, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: CLASS ACTION Assigned For All Purposes To: Judge: Dept.: FOR: 1. FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME:. FAILURE TO PAY ALL WAGES DUE;. FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIODS;. FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST PERIODS;. FAILURE TO PROVIDE PROPER ITEMIZED STATEMENTS;. FAILURE TO PAY WAGES TWICE MONTHLY;. FAILURE TO PAY WAGES FOR HOURS WORKED;. FAILURE TO PAY WAGES UPON TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT;. UNLAWFUL COMPETITION AND UNLAWFUL BUSINESS PRACTICES;. VIOLATION OF THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 0 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL -1-

3 1 All allegations in this Complaint are based upon information and belief except for those allegations, which pertain to the PLAINTIFF named herein and PLAINTIFF S counsel. Each allegation in this Complaint either has evidentiary support or is likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation and discovery. 1. INTRODUCTION 1. This is a class action, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section, on behalf of Plaintiff and all non-exempt employees employed by, or formerly employed by, PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, an unknown business entity, and PHILIPS LIGHTING ELECTRONICS COMPANY, an unknown business entity, and DOES 1 thorough 0 ( Defendants ), within the State of California. The non-exempt employees employed by, or formerly employed by, Defendants within the State of California are hereinafter referred to individually as Class Members and collectively as the Class or Classes.. For at least four years prior to the filing of this action and through to the present, Defendant consistently maintained and enforced against Defendant s non-exempt employees, among others, the following unlawful practices and policies, in violation of California state wage and hour laws: (a) DEFENDANTS have had a consistent policy of requiring employees to work more than eight () hours in any given day and/or more than forty (0) hours in any given week, and not pay overtime compensation pursuant to applicable California Labor Code requirements; (b) DEFENDANTS have had a consistent policy of rounding work hours that benefited defendant while resulted in underpayment of wages to including overtime pay to employees over a period of time; (c) DEFENDANTS have had a consistent policy of requiring Class Members within the State of California, including Plaintiff, to work at least five () hours without a lawful meal period or adding a meal period punch where none existed and failing to pay such employees one (1) hour of pay at the --

4 1 employees regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal period is not provided, as required by California state wage and hour laws. (d) DEFENDANTS have had a consistent policy of failing to provide Class Members within the State of California, including Plaintiff, rest periods of at least () minutes per. hours worked and failing to pay such employees one (1) hour of pay at the employees regular rate of compensation for each workday that the rest period is not provided, as required by California state wage and hour laws. (e) With respect to Class Members who either were discharged, laid off, or resigned, DEFENDANTS failed to pay them in accordance with the requirements of Labor Code sections 1,, ; and (f) Defendant failed to maintain accurate records of Class Members earned wages and work periods.. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other Class Members, brings this action pursuant to California Labor Code sections 1,,,,.,,.,, 1,, 1,, and California Code of Regulations, Title, section 000 et seq., seeking unpaid meal and rest period compensation, penalties, injunctive, and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys fees and costs.. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all Class Members, pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections 0-, also seeks injunctive relief and restitution for the unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent practices alleged in this Complaint.. PARTIES. PLAINTIFF HUEY NGUYEN is a resident and citizen of California. At relevant times herein, he was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt employee.. PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION ( PENNAC ) and PHILIPS LIGHTING ELECTRONICS COMPANY ( PLEC ) (collectively referred to as DEFENDANTS ) are unknown business entities conducting business within the State of California. DEFENDANTS are the leading producer of Digital Xenon Cinemas lamps used for cinema projectors --

5 1 in major movie theatre chains. Each lamp is sold for about $1,000 each. DEFENDANTS own and operate a manufacturing plant located 00 Live Oak Ave., Baldwin Park, California, 0, Los Angeles County.. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of DEFENDANTS sued herein as DOES 1 to 0, inclusive, are currently unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues DEFENDANTS by such fictitious names under California Code of Civil Procedure. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each of the DEFENDANTS designated herein as a DOE is legally responsible in some manner for the unlawful acts referred to herein. PLAINTIFF will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to reflect the true names and capacities of the DEFENDANTS designated hereinafter as DOES when such identities become known.. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each DEFENDANTS acted in all respects pertinent to this action as the agent of the other DEFENDANTS, carried out a joint scheme, business plan or policy in all respects pertinent hereto, and the acts of each defendant are legally attributable to the other DEFENDANTS. Furthermore, DEFENDANTS in all respects acted as the employer and/or joint employer of Plaintiff and the Class Members.. Venue as to each DEFENDANT is proper in this judicial district, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure. On information and belief, DEFENDANTS operate and are doing business in Los Angeles County, and each DEFENDANT is within the jurisdiction of this Court for service of process purposes. The unlawful acts alleged herein have a direct effect on PLAINTIFF and those similarly situated within the State of California. DEFENDANTS employ numerous Class Members in its Los Angeles County location.. FACTUAL BACKGROUND. PLAINTIFF and the Class Members are, and at all times pertinent hereto have been, non-exempt employees within the meaning of the California Labor Code and the implementing rules and regulations of IWC California Wage Orders. DEFENDANTS hire hourly employees who work in non-exempt positions in the State of California. --

6 1. Upon information and belief, DEFENDANTS maintain a manufacturing facility that operates hours a day with three work shifts of :00 a.m. :0 p.m., :00 p.m. :0 p.m., and :00 p.m. :0 a.m. 1. PLAINTIFF and the DEFENDANTS non-exempt employees were not properly paid for all wages earned when working more than eight () hours in any given day and/or more than forty (0) hours in any given week due to the DEFENDANTS unwritten policy of only paying eight () hours of work per day.. PLAINTIFF and other Class Members who worked certain second and third shift hours received a shift differential of.0 cents or. cents for each hour of work which, upon information and belief, was not calculated into PLAINTIFF S or Class Members regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating overtime compensation.. Upon information and belief, during the relevant time frame, DEFENDANTS maintained and enforced a production schedule and policies that requires the production of a certain amount of lamps for each work shift and therefore, defendants production demands often required PLAINTIFFS and Class Members to interrupt or shorten their lawful meal periods of thirty (0) uninterrupted minutes relieved of all duty.. PLAINTIFF and other Class members never received a second meal period when they worked a shift that last longer than ten () hours, and they in fact did not know they were entitled to an additional meal break or one hour of pay since DEFENDANTS never informed them of this law.. Neither PLAINTIFF nor other Class Members ever signed a meal break waiver form.. DEFENDANTS failed to record meal periods as required by the Labor Code and Wage Orders.. Neither PLAINTIFF nor other Class Members ever received a meal break premium for a missed, shortened or late meal period.. Neither PLAINTIFF nor other Class Members ever received a rest break premium for a missed, shortened or late rest period. --

7 1. PLAINTIFF and the DEFENDANTS non-exempt employees were not provided lawful meal periods, and were not provided with one hour s wages in lieu thereof, in one or more of the following manners: (a) employees were not provided full thirty-minute duty free meal periods for work days in excess of five hours and were not compensated one hour s wages in lieu thereof, all in violation of, among others, Labor Code., 1, and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order(s); (b) employees were required to work through at least part of their daily meal period(s); and (c) employees were restricted in their ability to take a full thirty-minute meal period.. PLAINTIFF and the DEFENDANTS non-exempt employees were not provided lawful rest periods, and were not provided with one hour s wages in lieu thereof, in one or more of the following manners: (d) employees were required to work without being provided a minimum ten minute rest period for every. hours worked and were not compensated one hour of pay at their regular rate of compensation for each workday that a rest period was not provided; and (e) employees were restricted in their ability to take their full ten minutes net rest time.. As a result of these illegal policies and practices, DEFENDANTS engaged in and enforced the following additional unlawful practices and policies against PLAINTIFF and the Class Members he seeks to represent: (f) failing to pay Class Members who either were discharged, laid off, or resigned in accordance with the requirements of Labor Code 1,, ; and (g) failing to maintain accurate records of Class Members earned wages and work periods in violation of Labor Code and 1(d) and Section of the applicable IWC Wage Orders. --

8 1. DEFENDANTS non-exempt employees spend the majority of their time doing routine non-discretionary tasks. These duties occupy more than 0% of their work time.. At relevant times herein, the named PLAINTIFF and the Class Members were employed by DENFENDANTS and were paid, on information and belief, predominantly on an hourly basis.. PLAINTIFF and the DEFENDANTS employees were not paid for all hours worked, whether regular time or overtime.. On information and belief, PLAINTIFF alleges that DEFENDANTS' actions as described throughout this Complaint were willful.. DEFENDANTS have made it difficult to account with precision for the unlawfully withheld meal and rest period compensation owed to DEFENDANTS non-exempt employees, including PLAINTIFF, during the liability period, because they did not implement and preserve a record-keeping method as required for non-exempt employees by California Labor Code, 1(d), and section 1 of the California Wage Orders. DEFENDANT has failed to comply with Labor Code section (a) by accurately reporting total hours worked by PLAINTIFF and the Class Members. PLAINTIFF and Class Members are therefore entitled to penalties not to exceed $,000 for each employee pursuant to Labor Code (b).. DEFENDANTS has failed to comply with section 1 of the California IWC Wage Orders by failing to maintain time records showing when the employee begins and ends each work period, meal periods, wages earned pursuant to Labor Code., and total daily hours worked by itemizing in wage statements all deductions from payment of wages and accurately reporting total hours worked by the Class Members.. CLASS ALLEGATIONS. PLAINTIFF brings this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated as a class action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure. PLAINTIFF seeks to represent a Class composed of and defined as: --

9 1 as follows: All persons who are employed or have been employed by Defendant in the State of California who, for the four years prior to the filing of this class action to the present, have worked as non-exempt employees. Further, Plaintiff seeks to represent the following subclasses composed of and defined (a) Subclass 1. Overtime Subclass. All persons who are employed or have been employed by Defendant in the State of California who, for the four years prior to the filing of this class action to the present, have worked as non-exempt employees and were not paid overtime for hours worked beyond eight () hours in a single day or for hours worked beyond 0 in a single week pursuant to Labor Code sections,, and. (b) Subclass 1.1. Unpaid Wages Subclass. All persons who are employed or have been employed by Defendants in the State of California who, within four () years of the filing of this Complaint, have worked as non-exempt employees and were not paid all lawful wages, including, but not limited to, all regular time and/or overtime. (c) Subclass 1.. Shift Differential Overtime Subclass. All persons who are employed or have been employed by Defendant in the State of California who, for the four years prior to the filing of this class action to the present, have worked as non-exempt employees and received shift differential pay that was not properly calculated into their regular rate of pay and accompanying overtime pay. (d) (e) Subclass. Meal Break Subclass 1. All persons who are employed or have been employed by Defendant in the State of California who, for the four years prior to the filing of this class action to the present, have worked as non-exempt employees and have not been provided a meal period for every five hours or major fraction thereof worked per day, and were not provided one hour s pay for each day on which such meal period was not provided pursuant to Labor Code section. and 1. Subclass.1 Meal Break Subclass. All persons who are employed or have been employed by Defendant in the State of California who, for the four years prior to the filing of this --

10 1 (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) class action to the present, have worked as non-exempt employees and who worked over hours in a shift and did not receive a second meal period and were not provided one hour s pay for each day on which such meal period was not provided pursuant to Labor Code section. and 1. Subclass. Rest Period Subclass. All persons who are employed or have been employed by Defendant in the State of California who, for the four years prior to the filing of this class action to the present, have worked as non-exempt employees and have not been provided a rest period for every. hours of work per day, and were not provided compensation of one hour s pay for each day on which such rest period was not provided pursuant to Labor Code section. and 1. Subclass. Paystub Subclass. All persons who are employed or have been employed by Defendant in the State of California who, for the four years prior to the filing of this class action to the present, have worked as non-exempt employees and were not provided an itemized statement accurately showing total hours worked, the applicable hourly rates in effect during each pay period and the corresponding hours worked at each rate pursuant to Labor Code section. Subclass. Wage Statement Twice Monthly Subclass. All persons who are employed or have been employed by Defendants in the State of California who, for the four years prior to the filing of this class action to the present, have worked as non-exempt employees and were not provided wages twice monthly pursuant to Labor Code section. Subclass. Termination Pay Subclass. All persons who are employed or have been employed by Defendants in the State of California who, for the four years prior to the filing of this class action to the present, have worked as non-exempt employees and were not provided all wages due upon termination or resignation pursuant to Labor Code sections 0 through. Subclass. B&PC 0 Subclass. All persons who are employed or have been employed by Defendant in the State of California who, since February 0, have worked as nonexempt employees and who were subjected to Defendant s unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts or practices in the form of Labor Code violations regarding overtime, meal --

11 1 periods, rest periods, expense reimbursement or minimum wages and/or waiting time penalties. 0. PLAINTIFF reserves the right under Rule (b), California Rules of Court, to amend or modify the class descriptions with greater specificity or to provide further division into subclasses or limitation to particular issues. 1. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action under the provisions of section of the California Code of Civil Procedure because there is a welldefined community of interest in the litigation and the proposed Classes are easily ascertainable. A. Numerosity. The potential members of each Class as defined are so numerous that joinder of all the members of the Class is impracticable. PLAINTIFF estimates there are more than 0 class members. While the precise number of Class Members has not been determined at this time, Plaintiff is informed and believes that DEFENDANTS currently employ, and during the relevant time periods employed, hundreds of employees in positions as DEFENDANTS non-exempt employees in California, who are or have been affected by Defendants unlawful practices as alleged herein.. Employee turnover during the relevant time period will increase this number substantially. Upon information and belief, PLAINTIFF alleges DEFENDANTS employment records would provide information as to the number and location of all Class Members. Joinder of all members of the proposed Classes is not practicable. B. Commonality. There are questions of law and fact common to each Class predominating over any questions affecting only individual Class Members. There are also common answers demonstrating class certification is proper. These common questions of law and fact include, without limitation: (a) Whether DEFENDANTS violated the Labor Code, the applicable IWC Wage Orders, and Cal. Code Rags., Title, section 000 et seq. by failing to pay overtime after eight () hours of work in one day or forty (0) hours of work in one work week; --

12 1 (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) What were and are the policies, programs, practices, procedures and protocols of DEFENDANTS regarding recording of all hours worked for Class Members; What were and are the policies, programs, practices, procedures and protocols of DEFENDANTS regarding rounding of all hours worked for Class Members; Whether DEFENDANTS failed to accurately incorporate shift differentials into the regular rate of pay for overtime calculation purposes to PLAINTIFF and Class Members for hours PLAINTIFF and Class Members worked in excess of eight () hours per day and/or forty (0) hours per week; Whether DEFENDANTS violated Labor Code sections. and 1, section 1 of the IWC Wage Orders, and Cal. Code Regs., Title, section 000 et seq. by failing to provide a meal period to non-exempt employees on days they worked work periods in excess of five hours and failing to compensate said employees one hour s wages in lieu of meal periods; Whether DEFENDANTS violated Labor Code. and section 1 of the IWC Wage Orders, and Cal. Code Regs., Title, section 000 et seq. by failing to provide daily ten-minute rest periods to non-exempt employees for every. hours of work and failing to compensate said employees one hour s wages in lieu of rest periods; Whether DEFENDANTS violated sections and 1 of the Labor Code and section 1 of the IWC Wage Orders by failing to maintain accurate records of Class Members earned wages and work periods; Whether DEFENDANTS violated Labor Code sections by failing to compensate all employees during the relevant time period for all hours worked, whether regular or overtime; Whether DEFENDANTS are liable to pay penalties under Labor Code section for failing to pay all wages upon termination of Class Members. --

13 1 (j) Whether DEFENDANTS violated section 0 et seq. of the Business and Professions Code by failing to provide meal and rest periods without compensating non-exempt employees one hour s pay for every day such periods were not provided, failing to pay compensation for denied meal and rest periods due and owing at the time a Class Member s employment with DEFENDANTS terminated, and failing to keep accurate records; (k) Whether DEFENDANTS violated section 0 et seq. of the Business and Professions Code, Labor Code 1-,., 1, 1, and applicable IWC Wage Orders, which violation constitutes a violation of fundamental public policy; (l) Whether PLAINTIFF and the Class Members are entitled to equitable relief pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 0 et seq,; and (m) Whether PLAINTIFF and the Class Members are entitled to penalties pursuant to Labor Code and, affectionately known as PAGA penalties. C. Typicality. The claims of the named PLAINTIFF are typical of the claims of the Class Members. Plaintiff and all members of each Class sustained injuries and damages arising out of and caused by DEFENDANTS common course of conduct in violation of California laws, regulations, and statutes as alleged herein. D. Adequacy of Representation. PLAINTIFF will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the members of each Class. Counsel who represents PLAINTIFF is competent and experienced in litigating large employment class actions. E. Superiority of Class Action. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Individual joinder of all Class Members is not practicable, and questions of law and fact common to each Class predominate over any questions affecting only -1-

14 1 individual members of the Class. Each member of the Class has been damaged and is entitled to recovery by reason of DEFENDANTS unlawful policies and practices alleged in the Complaint.. Class action treatment will allow those similarly situated persons to litigate their claims in the manner that is most efficient and economical for the parties and the judicial system. Plaintiff is unaware of any difficulties that are likely to be encountered in the management of this action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action.. Class PLAINTIFF contemplates the eventual issuance of notice to the proposed Class Members of each PLAINTIFF Classes that would set forth the subject and nature of the instant action. The DEFENDANTS own business records can be utilized for assistance in the preparation and issuance of the contemplated notices. To the extent that any further notices may be required, Class PLAINTIFF would contemplate the use of additional media and/or mailings.. DELAYED DISCOVERY 0. DEFENDANTS, as a prospective and actual employer of non-exempt, hourly employees, had a special fiduciary duty to disclose to prospective PLAINTIFF Classes the true facts surrounding PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION s and PHILIP LIGHTING ELECTRONIC COMPANY s pay practices, policies and working conditions imposed upon non-exempt, hourly employees, especially the refusal to pay all hours worked. 1. PLAINTIFF and PLAINTIFF Classes did not discover the fact that they were entitled to overtime wages, meal and rest breaks until shortly before the filing of this lawsuit. As a result, the applicable statutes of limitation were tolled until such time as PLAINTIFFS discovered their claims. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME COMPENSATION [CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE and ] (Against All Defendants). PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES re-allege and incorporate by reference, the paragraphs previously alleged in this Complaint. --

15 1. Labor Code and provide that employees in California shall not be employed more than eight hours in any work day, and/or more than forty hours in any workweek, or work a seventh ( th ) day in a work week unless they receive additional compensation beyond their regular wages in amounts specified by law.. Labor Code provides that an employee who has not been paid overtime compensation as required by Section may recover the unpaid balance of the full amount of such overtime compensation, together with costs of suit, as well as liquidated damages in an amount equal to the overtime compensation unlawfully withheld, and interest thereon, in a civil action. The action may be maintained directly against the employer in his name without first filing a claim with the Department of Labor Standards and Enforcement.. At all times relevant hereto, IWC Wage Order No applied, and applies, to PLAINTIFF S and the CLASS employment with DEFENDANTS.. At all times relevant hereto, IWC Wage Order No ()(A) provides for payment of overtime wages equal to one and one-half times an employee s regular rate of pay for all hours worked over hours a day and/or forty (0) hours in a work week.. At all times relevant hereto, IWC Wage Order No () (A) provides for payment of overtime wage equal to one and one-half (1 ½) times an employee s regular rate of pay for all hours worked over eight () hours up to and including twelve (1) hours in any workday, and for the first eight () hours on the seventh ( th ) consecutive day of work in a work week.. At all times relevant hereto, IWC Wage Order No ()(A) provides for payment of overtime wage equal to double the employee s regular rate of pay for all hours worked over twelve (1) hours in any workday, and for all hours worked over eight () hours on the seventh ( th ) consecutive day of work in a work week.. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have intentionally and improperly rounded, changed, adjusted and/or modified certain employees hours, including PLAINTIFF S, that resulted in an underpayment of wages to employees over a period of time while benefiting Defendants and to avoid payment of overtime wages and other benefits in violation of California --

16 1 Code of Regulations and the guidelines set forth by the Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement. 0. At all times relevant hereto, from time to time, PLAINTIFF and aggrieved employees have worked more than eight () hours in a workday, and/or more than forty (0) hours in a workweek, as employees of DEFENDANT. 1. At all times relevant hereto, from time to time, PLAINTIFF and aggrieved employees have worked more than twelve (1) hours in a workday, and/or more than eight () hours on the seventh ( th ) consecutive workday in a workweek.. At all times relevant hereto, the DEFENDANTS, and each of them, failed to pay to PLAINTIFF and aggrieved employees overtime compensation for the hours they have worked in excess of the maximum hours permissible by law as required by Labor Code, and and the provisions of IWC order No. 1-01, Cal. Code of Regulations Title 0.. By virtue of the DEFENDANTS unlawful failure to pay additional compensation to Plaintiff and aggrieved employees for overtime hours, PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES have suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages in amounts which are presently unknown to PLAINTIFF, but which exceed the jurisdictional limits of this Court and which will be ascertained according to proof at trial.. DEFENDANT, and each of them, acted intentionally, oppressively and maliciously toward Plaintiff and similarly situated non-exempt, hourly employees with a conscious disregard of the PLAINTIFF CLASSES rights, or the consequences suffered by PLAINTIFF Classes, with the intent of depriving the PLAINTIFF Classes of property and legal rights and otherwise causing PLAINTIFF Classes injury.. PLAINTIFF, individually, and on behalf of members of the PLAINTIFF CLASSES, request recovery of overtime compensation according to proof, interest, attorneys fees and costs pursuant to Labor Code. and (a), as well as the assessment of any statutory penalties against these DEFENDANTS, and each of them, and any additional sums as provided by the Labor Code and/or other statutes. --

17 1. Further, PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES are entitled to seek and recover reasonable attorneys fees and costs pursuant to Labor Code 0 and. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY ALL WAGES DUE [CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE and ] (Against All Defendants). PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES re-allege and incorporate by reference, the paragraphs previously alleged in this Complaint.. At all times relevant, Labor Code and the IWC wage orders applicable to PLAINTIFF S and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES employment by DEFENDANTS provide that employees working for more than eight () hours in a day or forty (0) hours in a work week are entitled to overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of eight () hours in a day or forty (0) hours in a work week. An employee who works more than twelve (1) hours in a day or more than eight () hours on the seventh day in a workweek is entitled to overtime compensation at a rate of twice the regular rate of pay.. At all times relevant, PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES consistently worked in excess of eight () hours in a day and/or forty (0) hours in a week. 0. During the liability period, PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES worked certain second shift hours and earned a shift differential for those hours worked. 1. Defendants failed to incorporate PLAINTIFF S and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES shift differential into their regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating overtime. This failure led directly to DEFENDANTS under-compensating PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES for overtime hours worked.. At all times relevant, PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES regularly performed nonexempt work in excess of 0% of the time, and thus, were subject to the overtime requirements of the applicable IWC wage orders and the Labor Code. --

18 1. DEFENDANTS failure to pay PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES the unpaid balance of premium overtime compensation violates the provisions of Labor Code and and the applicable IWC wage orders, and is therefore unlawful.. Accordingly, DEFENDANTS owe PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES overtime wages, and have failed and refused, and continue to fail and refuse, to pay PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES their overtime wages owed.. Pursuant to Labor Code, PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES are entitled to recover their unpaid overtime compensation, as well as interest, costs, and attorneys fees. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIODS [CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE. and 1, and CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATION, Title, 0] (Against All Defendants). PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES (and subclasses) re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth herein, the paragraphs previously alleged in this Complaint.. Labor Code. and 1 and Cal. Code of Regulations, Title, 0()(A), provides that no employer shall employ any person for a work period of more than five () hours without a meal period of not less than thirty (0) minutes.. Pursuant to Labor Code 1, no employer shall employ an employee for a work period of more than five () hours without providing a meal break of not less than thirty (0) minutes in which the employee is relieved of all of his or her duties. An employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more than ten () hours per day without providing the employee with a second meal period of not less than thirty (0) minutes, except that if the total hours worked is no more than twelve (1) hours, the second meal period may be waived by mutual consent of the employer and the employee only if the first meal period was not waived.. Pursuant to the IWC wage orders applicable to PLAINTIFF S and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES employment by DEFENDANTS, in order for an on duty meal period to be permissible, --

19 1 the nature of the work of the employee must prevent an employee from being relieved of all duties relating to his or her work for the employer, and the employees must consent in writing to the on duty meal period. PLAINTIFF, on information and belief, believes that CLASS MEMBERS did not consent in writing to an on duty meal period. Further, the nature of the work of PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES was not such that they were prevented from being relieved of all duties. 0. Despite said requirements of the IWC wage orders applicable to PLAINTIFF S and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES employment by Defendants and Labor Code 1 and Labor Code., PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES were not provided with second meal periods and were not relieved of all duties during any meal periods they did take. 1. For the four () years preceding the filing of this lawsuit, DEFENDANTS failed to provide PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES, in their roles as non-exempt manufacturing employees, or equivalent positions with similar job duties, however titled, first and second uninterrupted meal periods of not less than thirty (0) minutes pursuant to the IWC wage orders applicable to their employment by DEFENDANTS. DEFENDANTS implemented and enforced policies and practices which pressured or required employees to work during their meal periods, to forego their meal periods, and/or to return to work from meal periods prior to thirty (0) uninterrupted minutes. As a proximate result of the violations, PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES have been damaged in an amount according to proof at time of trial.. Labor Code. and Cal. Code of Regulations, Title, 0()(D), provides that if an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period in accordance with this section, the employer shall pay the employee one (1) hour of pay at the employee s regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal period is not provided.. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have intentionally and improperly denied meal periods to the Plaintiff and PLAINTIFF CLASSES in violation of Labor Code. and 1 and Cal. Code of Regulations, Title, 0()(A) and other regulations and statutes.. At all times relevant hereto, PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES have worked more than five () hours in a workday. --

20 1. At all times relevant hereto, the DEFENDANT, and each of them, failed to provide meal periods and prevented the taking of meal periods as required by Labor Code. and 1 and Cal. Code of Regulations, Title, 0()(A).. By virtue of the DEFENDANT S unlawful failure to provide meal periods and prevention of same to PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES, PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES have suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages in amounts which are presently unknown to PLAINTIFF but which exceed the jurisdictional limits of this Court and which will be ascertained according to proof at trial.. The PLAINTIFF CLASSES are informed and believe, and based upon that information and belief allege, that DEFENDANTS, and each of them, purposely elected not to provide meal periods.. PLAINTIFF, individually, and on behalf of the PLAINTIFF CLASSES, requests recovery of meal period compensation pursuant to Labor Code. and Cal. Code of Regulations, Title, 0()(D), as well as the assessment of any statutory penalties against these DEFENDANTS, and each of them, in a sum as provided by the Labor Code and/or other statutes. Further, the PLAINTIFF CLASSES are entitled to seek and recover reasonable attorneys fees and costs pursuant to Labor Code. and. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO AUTHORIZE AND PERMIT REST PERIODS [CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE. and 1, and (Against All Defendants). PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES (and subclasses) re-allege and incorporate by reference the paragraphs previously alleged in this Complaint. 0. Labor Code. and Cal. Code of Regulations, Title, 0(1)(A), provides that employers authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods at the rate of ten () minutes net rest time per. hours worked. 1. Labor Code. and Cal. Code of Regulations, Title, 0(1)(D), provides that if an employer fails to provide an employee rest periods in accordance with this --

21 1 section, the employer shall pay the employee one (1) hour of pay at the employee s regular rate of compensation for each workday that the rest period is not provided.. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have intentionally and improperly denied rest periods to PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES in violation of Labor Code. and 1 and Cal. Code of Regulations, Title, 0(1)(A).. At all times relevant hereto, PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFFS CLASSES, have worked more than four hours in a workday.. At all times relevant hereto, the DEFENDANTS, and each of them, failed to provide rest periods and actually prevented rest periods as required by Labor Code. and Cal. Code of Regulations, Title, 0(1)(A).. By virtue of the DEFENDANT S unlawful failure to provide rest periods to the PLAINTIFF and PLAINTIFF CLASSES, PLAINTIFF and PLAINTIFF CLASSES have suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages in amounts which are presently unknown to the PLAINTIFF and PLAINTIFF CLASSES but which exceed the jurisdictional limits of this Court and which will be ascertained according to proof at trial.. PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES are informed and believe, and based upon that information and belief allege, that DEFENDANTS, and each of them, knew or should have known that PLAINTIFF was entitled to rest periods and purposely elected not to provide rest periods.. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, acted intentionally, oppressively and maliciously toward PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES with a conscious disregard of their rights, or the consequences to PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES, with the intent of depriving PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES of property and legal rights and otherwise causing the PLAINTIFF CLASSES injury.. PLAINTIFF, individually, and on behalf of employees similarly situated, requests recovery of rest period compensation pursuant to Labor Code. and Cal. Code of Regulations, Title, 0(1)(B), as well as the assessment of any statutory penalties against these DEFENDANTS, and each of them, in a sum as provided by the Labor Code and/or other --

22 1 statutes. Further, the PLAINTIFF CLASSES is entitled to seek and recover reasonable attorneys fees and costs pursuant to Labor Code. and. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO FURNISH PROPER ITEMIZED STATEMENTS [CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE ] (Against All Defendants). PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES (and subclasses) re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth herein, the paragraphs previously alleged in this Complaint. 0. Throughout the Class Period, DEFENDANT intentionally failed to furnish to PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES, upon each payment of wages, proper and lawful itemized statements accurately showing: meal periods taken, total hours worked, the applicable hourly rates in effect during each pay period and the corresponding hours worked at each hourly rate, amongst other statutory requirements of Labor Code and the applicable Wage Orders. 1. As a result of Defendant s conduct, PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES have suffered injury in that, among other things, the lack of the required information hindered them from determining the accurate amount of wages owed to them and led them to believe they were not entitled to be paid wages for overtime, missed meal and rest breaks, or for each hour of labor they performed, although they were so entitled. The absence of accurate wage statements has prevented timely challenges to DEFENDANTS unlawful pay practices, caused difficulty and expense in attempting to reconstruct time and pay records, and resulted in the submission by DEFENDANTS of inaccurate information about wages and deductions from wages to state and federal government agencies. PLAINTIFF S and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES entitlement to state benefits is based upon the total amount of wages earned and deductions from wages as reflected on his wage statements, and he is thereby injured by the DEFENDANTS failure to report the total amount of wages earned during each pay period on each paycheck stub. As a result of DEFENDANTS conduct, PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES have suffered injury because the legal right to receive accurate wage statements was violated. --

23 1. PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES are entitled to the amounts provided in Labor Code (e), plus costs and attorneys fees. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY WAGES DUE AND PAYABLE TWICE A MONTH [CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE ] (Against All Defendants). Labor Code requires that all wages are due and payable twice in each calendar month.. The wages required by Labor Code. and became due and payable to PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES in each month that the employee not provided with a meal period or rest period or paid straight or overtime wages to which he or he was entitled.. DEFENDANT violated Labor Code by systematically refusing to pay wages due under the Labor Code.. As a result of the unlawful acts of DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF and the CLASSES he seeks to represent have been deprived of wages in amounts to be determined at trial, and are entitled to recovery of such amounts, plus interest and penalties thereon, attorneys fees, and costs, pursuant to Labor Code. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY WAGES FOR HOURS WORKED [CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE,, and.1 (Unpaid Minimum Wages)] (Against All Defendants). PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASS re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth herein, the paragraphs previously alleged in this Complaint.. On information and belief, PLAINTIFF alleges that DEFENDANTS policy of failing to pay employees for all hours worked whether regular time or overtime off the clock violates the Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders.. As a result of the unlawful acts of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF and the CLASS have been deprived of wages in amounts to be determined at trial, and are entitled to recovery of such --

24 1 amounts, plus interest and penalties thereon, attorneys fees, and costs, pursuant to Labor Code section, et seq. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY ALL WAGES DUE UPON ENDING EMPLOYMENT [CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE 1-] (Against All Defendants) 0. PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES (and subclasses) re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth herein, the paragraphs previously alleged in this Complaint. 1. PLAINTIFF and many of the PLAINTIFF CLASSES quit or were discharged from their employment with DEFENDANTS within the applicable statute of limitations.. However, DEFENDANTS failed to pay them without abatement, all wages as defined by applicable California law. Among other things, these employees were not paid any of the overtime compensation or premium pay referred to in this Complaint. DEFENDANTS failure to pay said wages within the required time was willful within the meaning of Labor Code.. Therefore, each of these employees is entitled to one day s wages for each day he or he was not timely paid all said wages due, up to a maximum of thirty (0) days wages for each employee. Because none of the employees were ever paid the overtime wages to which they were entitled, referred to in this Complaint, each of the employees is entitled to thirty (0) days of wages. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNLAWFUL COMPETITION AND UNLAWFUL BUSINESS PRACTICES [CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE 0, et seq.] (Against All Defendants). PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES (and subclasses) re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth herein, the paragraphs previously alleged in this Complaint. --

25 1. At all times relevant hereto, from time to time, the PLAINTIFF CLASSES have worked more than eight () hours in a workday, and/or more than forty (0) hours in a workweek, as employees of DEFENDANTS. The representative PLAINTIFF herein and members of the PLAINTIFF CLASSES have had their hours adjusted, changed and/or modified to not reflect their actual number of hours worked per day and per pay period.. At all times relevant hereto, from time to time, PLAINTIFF and aggrieved employees have worked more than twelve (1) hours in a workday, and/or more than eight () hours on the seventh ( th ) consecutive workday in a workweek, as employees of DEFENDANT. The representative PLAINTIFF herein and members of the PLAINTIFF CLASSES have had their hours adjusted, changed and/or modified to not reflect their actual number of hours worked per day and per pay period as well not been paid the proper regular rate and overtime.. At all times relevant hereto, from time to time, PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES have been denied meal breaks by DEFENDANT.. At all times relevant hereto, from time to time, PLAINTIFF and the PLAINTIFF CLASSES have been denied rest breaks by DEFENDANT.. DEFENDANT is a person as defined under Business & Professions Code Since at least February 0 and at all times relevant hereto, by and through the conduct described herein, DEFENDANT has engaged in unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices, in violation of Business & Professions Code 0, et seq., and have thereby deprived PLAINTIFF, and all persons in interest, of fundamental rights and privileges guaranteed to all employees under California law. 1. DEFENDANT owns, operates and manages businesses manufacturing lighting and lamps in California which provides goods and services in California to the public as defined in Business & Professions Code 0 and 0.. DEFENDANT, as set forth in this Complaint, supra, engaged in false, unfair and misleading business practices, consisting of acts and omissions that include, but are not limited to: --

26 1 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) The fact that DEFENDANT required non-exempt, hourly employees to work more than forty (0) hours per week and then adjusted, altered and/or intentionally failed to pay for those overtime hours actually worked; The fact that DEFENDANT required non-exempt, hourly employees to work more than forty (0) hours per week and then adjusted, altered and/or changed the end date, or day, of the pay period to reflect that they had not worked overtime hours; The fact that DEFENDANTS failed to properly calculate overtime wages; The fact that DEFENDANTS failed to properly round employee punch times; The fact that DEFENDANT required non-exempt, hourly employees to work more than five () hour shifts without a thirty (0) minute meal period; The fact that DEFENDANT required non-exempt, hourly employees to work more than forty (0) hours per week and then adjusted, altered and/or intentionally failed to pay for those overtime hours actually worked; The fact that DEFENDANT required non-exempt, hourly employees to work more than forty (0) hours per week and then adjusted, altered and/or changed the end date, or day, of the pay period to reflect that they had not worked overtime hours; The fact that DEFENDANT required non-exempt, hourly employees to work more than. hours without a ten () minute rest period; The fact that DEFENDANT required non-exempt, hourly employees to work more than five () hours per week without a thirty (0) minutes rest period, and then adjusted, altered and/or changed schedules and/or time clocks to reflect that they had received a thirty (0) minute meal period; The fact that DEFENDANT kept no detailed records of non-exempt, hourly employees actual daily work activities, in part, to prevent PLAINTIFF CLASSES from recovering overtime wages from DEFENDANT after the --

27 (k) (l) (m) discovery of DEFENDANT S deceptive, fraudulent, false, unfair and unlawful conduct; The fact that DEFENDANT failed to pay all earned wages to PLAINTIFF and PLAINTIFF CLASS for all hours worked. Whether DEFENDANT S activities related to their failure to disclose material and relevant information constitutes violations of Business & Professions Code 0; and, The fact that non-exempt, hourly employees employed by DEFENDANT are entitled to overtime wages, as required by Labor Code and 1. The failure to pay overtime wages is unlawful pursuant to Business & Professions Code 0, et seq. 1. DEFENDANT has under reported to state authorities wages earned by nonexempt, hourly employees and, therefore, have underpaid state taxes, employer matching funds, unemployment premiums and Worker s Compensation premiums. The aforesaid conduct is criminal in nature and subjects the DEFENDANT to sanctions, fines and imprisonment, and is actionable under Business & Professions Code 000, et seq. and 0, et seq. 1. Pursuant to Business & Professions Code 01 and 0, the failure of DEFENDANT to pay overtime wages, related benefits, and employment taxes, is admissible as evidence of DEFENDANT S intent to violate Chapter of the Unfair Business Trade Act. 1. DEFENDANT S practices are unlawful, unfair, deceptive, untrue, and misleading. Non-exempt, hourly employees, including PLAINTIFF, are likely to be deceived by these practices. 1. As a direct and proximate result of these acts and omissions, PLAINTIFF, is informed and believes, and based upon that information and belief alleges, that the DEFENDANT was able to unfairly compete with other manufacturing facilities in the state of California by not paying overtime and wages in violation of Business & Professions Code Chapters and, et al. Due to this unfair business practice, DEFENDANT has been able to charge lower prices for its goods and services than the prices charged by other comparable --