themselves and all others similarly situated, complain and allege as follows: INTRODUCTION

Transcription

1

2 Plaintiffs Greg McGrath, Timothy Bludworth, and Elias Ruiz ( Plaintiffs ), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, complain and allege as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. This is a class action against Defendants MarketStar Corp. ( MarketStar ), Pierce Promotions and Event Management, LLC ( Pierce ), and Defendants DOES 1-0 inclusive (collectively referred to as Defendants ). Defendants each operate store-in-store and pop-up retail environments ( kiosks ) throughout California on behalf of their clients. Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves and all other individuals employed by Defendants as store managers and sales representatives at one of Defendants kiosks in California at any time during the four years preceding the filing of this action through such time as this action is pending (the Classes ).. Beginning at least four years prior to the filing of this action and continuing through to the present, Plaintiffs and members of the Classes have regularly performed work for which they have not been compensated, in part due to Defendants failure to pay Plaintiffs and members of the Classes for all hours worked and all the commissions and bonuses they have earned. Defendants have also encouraged and pressured Plaintiffs and members of the Classes to perform work during meal and rest periods or otherwise skip, delay, or cut short meal and rest periods. Though Defendants maintain policies against such conduct, Defendants condone the behavior and do not enforce their paper policies.. By virtue of the off-the-clock work by Plaintiffs and members of the Classes, the deficient commission payments, and the skipped or improper meal and rest periods, Defendants owe Plaintiffs and members of the Classes wages that Defendants have failed to report on the wage statements provided Plaintiffs and members of the Classes. Defendants have also failed to pay Plaintiffs and members of the Classes all wages earned in a timely manner upon their termination or resignation.. The foregoing acts and practices violate the California Labor Code and constitute unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business acts and practices under Business & Professions Code section 0, et seq., in that they have allowed Defendants to gain an unfair competitive

3 advantage over their competitors while depriving Plaintiffs and members of the Classes money and property.. Plaintiffs seek full restitution and compensation on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated for unpaid wages and commissions, including meal and rest period premiums, overtime premiums, penalties, and interest. Plaintiffs also seek declaratory and injunctive relief. Finally, Plaintiffs seek reasonable attorneys fees and costs under the Labor Code and Code of Civil Procedure section.. PARTIES. Plaintiff GREG MCGRATH is an individual over the age of eighteen () and at all relevant times a resident of Riverside County, California. Plaintiff McGrath worked for Pierce from December until November as a sales representative. Plaintiff McGrath then worked for MarketStar as a store manager from November until December,. Plaintiff McGrath worked for Defendants at kiosks inside Verizon stores located in Temecula, Murrieta, and Menifee.. Plaintiff TIMOTHY BLUDWORTH is an individual over the age of eighteen () and at all relevant times a resident of Riverside County, California. Plaintiff Bludworth worked for Pierce from January until November as a sales representative. Plaintiff Bludworth then worked for MarketStar from November to April as a sales representative and later a store manager. Defendant Bludworth worked for Defendants at kiosks inside Verizon stores located in Temecula, Murrieta, and Menifee.. Plaintiff ELIAS RUIZ is an individual over the age of eighteen () and at all relevant times a resident of Riverside County, California. Plaintiff Ruiz worked for Pierce from November to November as a sales representative. Plaintiff Ruiz then worked for MarketStar from November until June first as a sales representative and later as a store manager. Plaintiff Ruiz worked for Defendants at kiosks inside Verizon stores located in Murrieta, Montclair, Menifee, and Victorville.. Defendant MarketStar is a national sales, marketing and business process outsourcing agency. MarketStar is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Ogden, Utah.

4 MarketStar contracts with retail stores throughout California to operate in-store kiosks that drive sales and customer support of particular items and services on behalf of its clients.. Defendant Pierce is a national sales, marketing and business process outsourcing agency. Pierce is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in Portland, Maine. Pierce contracts with retail stores throughout California to operate in-store kiosks that drive sales and customer support of particular items and services on behalf of its clients.. Plaintiffs do not know the true names and capacities of Defendants sued herein as DOES 1-0 and therefore sue these Defendants by fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend the complaint to state the true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that each of the fictitiously-named Defendants are responsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged herein, and thereby proximately caused Plaintiffs injuries alleged herein. JURISDICTION AND VENUE. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims herein for unpaid wages because Defendants are qualified to do business, and regularly conduct business, in California, and because the violations of law alleged herein occurred in California.. Venue is proper in this Court and the County of Alameda because, while Defendants are registered in and regularly conduct business in California, they have not designated with the Secretary of State a principal place of business within the State of California pursuant to Corporations Code section 0(a)(). Accordingly, Defendants may be sued in any County in California, including Alameda County. (Civ. Proc. Code.) Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis also allege, that some of the violations alleged herein occurred in Alameda County. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS. Defendants provide outsourced sales, marketing, and customer support services on behalf of their clients, like Verizon, Sony, Microsoft, and Canon. Defendants typically perform this service by setting up kiosks within retail stores at which Plaintiffs and members of the Classes work. For instance, Defendants have operated kiosks in Verizon stores throughout

5 California at which Plaintiffs were employed to sell and provide customer support for Verizon FiOS services, such as home phone, internet, and television.. Defendants kiosks operate seven days a week and are open to the public anywhere from approximately 0-0 hours per week. The kiosks are staffed by full-time and part-time sales representatives and store managers.. The central duty for a sales representative is selling the target products or services. The duties of a sales representative include greeting customers, demonstrating and explaining services and products, and closing sales. Sales representatives are supposed to demonstrate sales leadership by driving daily, weekly, and monthly sales goals. Sales representatives are each held accountable for their performance, and Defendants expect sales representatives to achieve their goals. Disciplinary action can be initiated whenever performance falls below Defendants minimum expectations. The sales representatives have at all relevant times been non-exempt employees within the meaning of the California Labor Code and Wage Order -01. At all relevant times, sales representatives were paid on an hourly basis and a majority of their time spent working is devoted to sales.. Store managers are responsible for managing the operations and sales goals in a single assigned retail store. Their essential duties and responsibilities entail selling the designated services and/or products and maintaining their personal sales numbers, training new employees, preparing the weekly schedules of sales representatives, managing their assigned store s sales goals, attending weekly phone meetings, disciplining, reviewing and terminating employees, providing customers with answers to product questions, performing register operations, preparing end of day reports and completing daily register and store open/close functions. Though store managers perform certain managerial duties, store managers have at all relevant times been nonexempt employees within the meaning of the California Labor Code and Wage Order -01. Store managers were paid on an hourly basis and a majority of their time spent working is devoted to sales.. In order to make good on their promises to their clients, Defendants require Plaintiffs and members of the Classes to meet sales quotas. Store managers and sales

6 representatives are reminded during weekly phone meetings of the primary importance of meeting individual and store-wide sales goals; their primary job expectation is to achieve 0% of their sales quotas, which can include specific goals for each hour worked. Employees that miss their sales quotas and goals are required to provide a lengthy written explanation for the shortfall. Underperforming employees are told that they must meet their quotas or else. If the problem persists, employees get written up for not meeting their quota and are placed on a performance improvement plan, or PIP. Under a PIP, the employee is given a near impossible sales goal for one month that, when it is not achieved, justifies the termination of that employee. The pressure placed on store managers to hit personal as well as store-wide sales quotas is even greater.. At the same time, Defendants reward Plaintiffs and members of the Classes for achieving and even exceeding their sales goals. A substantial portion of the compensation Defendants pay Plaintiffs and members of the Classes consists of sales-based commissions. These commission plans reward high sales and retention. For example, the commission plan effective February, involved a long list of various products, each tied to a different commission payment. In addition to the commission payment grid, employees could also qualify for retention bonuses, including an accelerated bonus that doubles the retention bonus for employees that achieve 1% or greater of their personal monthly quota across all services and meet the first retention minimum qualifiers.. Though Defendants may have maintained policies prohibiting working off the clock and skipping, delaying, or otherwise cutting short meal and rest periods, Defendants have not enforced their otherwise paper policies. In fact, Defendants have actively encouraged noncompliance with their paper policies. For instance, though Defendants have maintained policies prohibiting outbound marketing an activity that ranges from the distribution of flyers and pamphlets in the area, to leaving business cards with condo and apartment complex managers the practice was actively encouraged by Defendants during weekly phone meetings as a way to increase sales. Indeed, when Plaintiffs and members of the Classes were struggling to meet sales quotas, they felt compelled to conduct outbound marketing. Because Plaintiffs and

7 members of the Classes would spend their scheduled 0 hours devoted to sales in the store, outbound marketing was often performed off the clock as a last ditch effort to meet sales goals.. The practical reality of Defendants expectations is that Plaintiffs and members of the Classes have been pressured and/or provided incentives to skip, delay, or otherwise cut short meal and rest periods and otherwise work off the clock. For instance, Plaintiffs and members of the Classes were often not permitted to leave the store during lunch, or if they had to leave to get food, they were required to promptly return. Plaintiffs and members of the Classes were often the sole employee at the kiosk, which could not be left unattended. Defendants did not post their own meal and rest break posters in the stores and location at which they operated kiosks and Defendants did not consistently enforce the policies prohibiting such conduct. With the weight of Defendants success squarely on their shoulders, Plaintiffs and members of the Classes did whatever it took to ensure that they met their personal sales quotas even if it meant working off the clock or skipping or delaying meal and rest periods. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section for violations of California s Labor Code and Business & Professions Code section 0, et seq. Plaintiffs seek to represent the following classes of employees: MarketStar Class: All persons currently or formerly employed by MarketStar in the State of California, as sales representatives, kiosk managers, and/or retail sales managers on behalf of Defendants client, Verizon Communications, Inc., at any time from four years prior to the filing of this action. Pierce Class: All persons currently or formerly employed by Pierce in the State of California, as sales representatives, kiosk managers, and/or retail sales managers on behalf of Defendants client, Verizon Communications, Inc., at any time from four years prior to the filing of this action.. Defendants are nationwide companies that conduct extensive amounts of business with retailers throughout California. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that each Defendant has employed at least 0 individuals in California as sales representatives and/or store managers in kiosks. Accordingly, the members of each of the proposed classes are so

8 numerous that joinder of all members would be impracticable. The disposition of their claims through this class action will benefit both the parties and the Court. The exact number and identity of the members of the proposed classes are readily ascertainable through inspection of Defendants records.. Common questions of law and fact exist as to members of the Classes that include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) Whether Defendants compensated Plaintiffs and members of the Classes for all hours worked; Whether Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and members of the Classes were working off the clock; Whether Defendants provided Plaintiffs and members of the Classes meal and rest periods as required by California law or otherwise provided them with premium wages; Whether Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and members of the Classes all wages due upon the end of their employment; Whether Defendants provided Plaintiffs and members of the Classes accurate wage statements showing all hours worked; Whether Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiffs and members of the Classes for all commissions earned; Whether Defendants engaged in unfair competition proscribed by the Business and Professions Code by engaging in the conduct described hereinabove as to members of the Classes; The scope and type of injunctive relief necessary to prevent the wage and hour violations described herein; The measure of restitution and damages to compensate Plaintiffs and members of the Classes for the violations alleged herein;. Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the members of the classes that Plaintiffs seek to represent. Plaintiffs and members of the Classes were not properly paid for all

9 hours worked as required by California law, provided proper meal and rest periods, or paid all their commissions owed. Defendants common course of conduct with respect to Plaintiffs and members of the Classes has caused Plaintiffs and members of the Classes to sustain the same or similar injuries and damages.. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the members of the Classes. Plaintiffs are members of each Class and do not have any conflict of interest with other members of the Classes. Plaintiffs have retained and are represented by competent counsel that are experienced in complex class action litigation, including wage and hour class actions such as the present action.. The nature of this action and California law make a class action the superior and appropriate procedure to afford relief for the wrongs alleged herein. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Pay Overtime Wages (On behalf of the Classes against each Defendant). Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.. California Labor Code section provides that [a]ny work in excess of eight hours in one workday and any work in excess of 0 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. states: 0. IWC Wage Order -01()(A)(1), Cal. Code Regs., tit., 00()(A)(1), Employees shall not be employed more than eight () hours in any workday or more than 0 hours in any workweek unless the employee receives one and one-half (1½) times such employee s regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 0 hours in the workweek. 1. Beginning at least four years preceding the filing of this action, Plaintiffs and members of the Classes have worked more than eight hours a day on certain days and more than

10 0 hours a workweek during certain workweeks. Plaintiffs and members of the Classes were subject to a corporate culture that caused them to do whatever it took to meet their sales quotas and succeed within Pierce and MarketStar, which sometimes required them to perform work outside their scheduled shift. Defendants actively encouraged such off the clock work, were aware that such work was being performed, and even instructed Plaintiffs and members of the Classes to delete overtime that was recorded.. California Labor Code section 1, subd. (a) provides that any employee receiving less than... the legal overtime compensation applicable to the employee is entitled to recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount of this... overtime compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable attorney s fees, and costs of suit. Defendants have deprived Plaintiffs and members of the Classes their rightfully earned overtime premium wages as a direct and proximate result of Defendants policies and failure and refusal to pay that compensation. Plaintiffs and members of the Classes are entitled to recover such amounts, plus interest, attorneys fees and costs, and all other relief as hereinafter provided. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Pay Commission Wages Earned (On behalf of the Classes against each Defendant). Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.. Plaintiffs and members of the Classes have each entered into written agreements with Defendants that entitled Plaintiffs and members of the Classes to certain commission wages and other bonuses. Thereafter, these agreements were periodically modified.. Plaintiffs and members of the Classes have performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required by them in accordance with the terms and conditions of their contracts of employment with Defendants. Specifically, Plaintiffs and members of the Classes routinely met and/or exceeded their sales quotas and/or retention goals set forth in the commission and bonus schedules.

11 . Despite the performance by Plaintiffs and members of the Classes, Defendants have failed to pay all of the commissions owed.. By reason of Defendants breach of the contracts of employment, Plaintiffs and members of the Classes have been deprived the full amounts of their rightfully earned compensation for commissions and bonuses earned as a result of Defendants failure and refusal to pay that compensation. Plaintiffs and members of the Classes are entitled to recover such amounts that have been withheld including interest and attorneys fees and costs. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (On behalf of the Classes against each Defendant). Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.. Implied in every contract for employment, including the contracts between Defendants and Plaintiffs and members of the Classes, is a covenant of good faith and fair dealing that neither party will do anything that will injure the right of the other to receive the benefits of the agreement. (Comunale v. Traders & General Ins. Co. () 0 Cal.d,.) The covenant of good faith and fair dealing is particularly applicable in situations where one party is invested with a discretionary power affecting the rights of another. Such discretion must be exercised in good faith. (Carma Developers (Cal.), Inc. v. Marathon Development California, Inc. () Cal.th, 1.) 0. In the four years preceding the filing of this action, Defendants have at times reduced commissions and bonuses otherwise earned by Plaintiffs and members of the Classes as set forth in Defendants commission and bonus schedules pursuant to an exercise by Defendants of discretion. Notwithstanding the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in each contract of employment between Defendants and Plaintiffs and members of the Classes, Defendants exercise of discretion has included such impermissible considerations such as violations of company policy or subjective evaluation. As the California Supreme Court noted in Kerr s Catering Serv. v. Dep t of Indus. Relations, Cal.d (), subject[ing]...

12 compensation to unanticipated or undetermined deductions is to impose a special hardship on the employee. ( Cal.d at p..) Despite full performance by Plaintiffs and members of the Classes, Defendants unfairly and impermissibly interfered with the right of Plaintiffs and members of the Classes to receive the wages accruing to them pursuant to the written agreements between Defendants and Plaintiffs and members of the Classes. 1. In depriving Plaintiffs and members of the Classes the full amounts of their rightfully earned compensation for commissions and bonuses, Defendants have breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs and members of the Classes are entitled to recover such amounts that have been withheld including interest and attorneys fees and costs. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Provide Meal Periods (On behalf of the Classes against each Defendant). Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.. Section (A) of Wage Order -01 (Cal. Code Regs., tit., 00()(A)) reiterates the legislative mandate set out in Labor Code section, subdivision (a), and provides that [n]o 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. During such a meal period, the employee is to be relieved of all duty such that they can freely attend to personal pursuits, including leaving the job site for 0 minutes.. During the four years preceding the filing of this action and continuing to the present, Plaintiffs and members of the Classes worked shifts of five hours or longer. Plaintiffs and members of the Classes were subject to a corporate culture that caused them to do whatever it took to service customers and maintain their sales quotas, which meant skipping or delaying meal periods, and not being able to leave the job site during meals that were taken. By virtue of Defendants culture and expectations, Defendants have impeded, discouraged, and/or dissuaded Plaintiffs and members of the Classes from sometimes taking lawful meal periods.

13 . Section (D) of Wage Order -01 (Cal. Code Regs., tit., 00()(D)) provides that [i]f an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period in accordance with the applicable provisions of this order, the employer shall pay the employee one (1) hour of pay at the employee s regular rate of compensation for each work day that the meal period was not provided. This parallels the requirement in Labor Code section., subdivision (b), that an employee be paid one additional hour of pay at the employee s regular rate of compensation for each work day that a legal meal period is not provided.. Under Wage Order -01 and Labor Code section., subdivision (b), Plaintiffs and members of the Classes are entitled to one hour of pay at their regular rate for each shift during which they were not provided off duty 0-minute meal periods. Notwithstanding this requirement, Defendants have never paid Plaintiffs or members of the Classes the premium set out in section.. Plaintiffs and members of the Classes have been deprived of their rightfully earned compensation for missed, improper or untimely off-duty meal periods as a direct and proximate result of Defendants practices and failure and refusal to pay that compensation. Plaintiffs and members of the Classes are therefore entitled to recover such amounts that have been withheld including interest and attorneys fees and costs. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Provide Rest Periods (On behalf of the Classes against each Defendant). Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.. Section (A) of Wage Order -01 (Cal. Code Regs., tit., 00()(A)) provides that [e]very employer shall authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods, which insofar as practicable shall be in the middle of each work period. The authorized rest period time shall be based on the total hours worked daily at the rate of ten (1) minutes net rest time per four () hours or major fraction thereof. During such a rest period, the employee is to be relieved of all duty.

14 0. In the four years preceding the filing of this action and continuing to the present, Plaintiffs and members of the Classes worked shifts of four hours or longer. Plaintiffs and members of the Classes were subject to a corporate culture that caused them to do whatever it took to meet sales quotas, which meant skipping or delaying rest periods. By virtue of Defendants culture, Defendants have impeded, discouraged, and/or dissuaded Plaintiffs and members of the Classes from sometimes taking timely rest periods. 1. Section (B) of Wage Order -01 (Cal. Code Regs., tit., 00()(B)) provides that [i]f an employer fails to provide an employee a rest period in accordance with the applicable provisions of this order, the employer shall pay the employee one (1) hour of pay at the employee s regular rate of compensation for each work day that the rest period was not provided. This parallels the requirement in Labor Code section., subdivision (b), that an employee be paid one additional hour of pay at the employee s regular rate of compensation for each work day that a legal rest period is not provided.. Under Wage Order -01 and Labor Code section., subdivision (b), Plaintiffs and members of the Classes are entitled to one hour of pay at their regular rate for each shift during which they were not provided rest periods. Notwithstanding this requirement, Defendants have never paid Plaintiffs or members of the Classes the premium set out in section... Plaintiffs and members of the Classes have been deprived of their rightfully earned compensation for missed or untimely rest periods as a direct and proximate result of Defendants practices and failure and refusal to pay that compensation. Plaintiffs and members of the Classes are therefore entitled to recover such amounts that have been withheld including interest and attorneys fees and costs. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements (On behalf of the Classes against each Defendant). Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

15 . Labor Code section requires that employers provide their employees timely and accurate statements showing, inter alia, gross wages earned and total hours worked, all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period, and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee.. The Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement ( DLSE ) has stated that [t]he purpose of the wage statement requirement is to provide transparency as to the calculation of wages. (DLSE, Opinion Letter (July, 0), p..) Accordingly, a complying wage statement accurately reports most of the information necessary for an employee to verify if he or she is being properly paid in accordance with the law and that deductions from wages are proper.. At all relevant times, the wage statements for Plaintiffs and members of the Classes have not included all the time they spent working, including the overtime hours worked that were never entered or were deleted, earned commissions, and premium wages owed for improper meal and rest periods.. Plaintiffs and members of the Classes have been injured by Defendants failure to include all wages earned on each wage statement because Plaintiffs and members of the Classes were not able to verify that they were paid the proper amount. Plaintiffs and members of the Classes have also been injured because they have had to conduct mathematical calculations particularly with regard to commissions to determine whether they were paid correctly. The need to conduct such calculations is contrary to the requirements of Labor Code section, subdivision (e).. At all times in the four years previous to the filing of this action, Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and members of the Classes were entitled to accurate and complete wage statements and that Plaintiffs and members of the Classes were working more hours than reflected on their wage statements and were earning commissions and bonuses not reflected on their wage statements. Defendants also knew or should have known that they were denying Plaintiffs and members of the Classes meal and rest periods and/or denying Plaintiffs and members of the Classes with premium wages for meal/rest period violations. Despite this,

16 Defendants did not supply Plaintiffs and members of the Classes with complete and accurate wage statements showing all hours worked, the corresponding hourly rate, and all wages earned. 0. As a consequence of Defendants actions, Plaintiffs and members of the Classes have been injured and are entitled to all available statutory penalties, costs and reasonable attorneys fees, including those provided in Labor Code section, subdivision (e). Plaintiffs also seek an injunction pursuant to Labor Code section, subdivision (g), to ensure compliance with the requirements of section and to enjoin Defendants unlawful conduct. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Waiting Time Penalties (On behalf of the Classes against each Defendant) 1. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.. California Labor Code section provides that if an employer willfully fails to pay, without abatement or reduction, in accordance with California Labor Code sections 1, 1., and., any wages of an employee who is discharged or who resigns, the wages of the employee shall continue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid up to a maximum of thirty (0) days.. Defendants had and continue to have a consistent and uniform policy, practice and procedure of willfully failing to pay members of the Classes, including Plaintiffs, at the termination of their employment their earned wages owed for all work performed, including all earned commissions, all in violation of California Labor Code sections 1 and.. Plaintiffs and certain members of the Classes are no longer still employed by Defendants in that they were either discharged from or resigned from Defendants employ.. By virtue of implementing their various policies and practices alleged above, Defendants have willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs and members of the Classers who left their employ a sum certain for earned wages, at the time of their termination or within seventy-two () hours of their resignation. Defendants knew or should have known that wages were due, but nevertheless failed to pay them.

17 . Plaintiffs and members of the Classes who left Defendants employ are entitled to penalties pursuant to California Labor Code section, in the amount of each person s daily wage, multiplied by thirty (0) days. EIGHTHCAUSE OF ACTION Unfair Competition (On behalf of the Classes against each Defendant). Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.. The Unfair Competition Law ( UCL ), California Business & Professions Code section 0, et seq., prohibits unfair competition in the form of any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts or practices. The UCL provides that a court may enjoin acts of unfair competition, and order restitution to affected members of the public.. Beginning at an exact date unknown to Plaintiffs, but at least since four years prior to the filing of this suit, Defendants have committed acts of unfair competition as defined by the UCL, by engaging in the unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices and acts described in herein, including, but not limited to: (a) (b) Failing to maintain accurate records showing daily hours worked and wages paid, in violation of Labor Code section, subdivision (d) and Wage Order -01, Cal. Code Regs., tit., 00, subdivision (), which imposes a requirement on all employers to keep accurate information with respect to each employee, including [t]ime records showing when the employee begins and ends each work period as well as total daily hours worked. Failing to pay all wages, including overtime premiums and commissions to Plaintiffs and members of the Classes who were duly owed them for all time worked and sales made, in violation of California Labor Code section 1 and Wage Order -01;

18 (c) (d) (e) Failing to provide Plaintiffs and members of the Classes meal and rest periods during which they were relieved of all duty, in violation of Labor Code sections. and, and Wage Order -01; Failing to provide Plaintiffs and members of the Classes with accurate wage statements showing all hours worked, the corresponding hourly rate, and wages earned, in violation of California Labor Code section ; and Failing to pay all accrued wages and other compensation due immediately to each member of the Classes who was terminated or within hours to each member of the Classes who resigned, in violation of California Labor Code section. 0. The violations of these laws and regulations, as well as of the fundamental California public policies protecting wages and discouraging overtime labor underlying them, serve as unlawful predicate acts and practices for purposes of Business and Professions Code section 0, et seq. 1. The acts and practices described above constitute unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices, and unfair competition, within the meaning of Business and Professions Code section 0 et seq. Among other things, the acts and practices have taken from Plaintiffs and members of the Classes wages rightfully earned by them, while enabling Defendants to gain an unfair competitive advantage over law-abiding employers and competitors.. Business and Professions Code section provides that a court may make such orders or judgments as may be necessary to prevent the use or employment by any person of any practice which constitutes unfair competition. Injunctive relief is necessary and appropriate to prevent Defendants from repeating its unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business acts and business practices alleged above. If Defendants are not enjoined from this conduct, they will continue to engage in these unlawful practices. Monetary compensation alone will not afford adequate and complete relief to Plaintiffs and members of the Classes because it is impossible to determine the amount of damages that will compensate for Defendants actions in the future if such actions are

19 not enjoined now. Thus, without injunctive relief, a multiplicity of actions will result from Defendants continuing conduct.. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts and practices, Plaintiffs and members of the Classes have suffered a loss of money and property, in the form of unpaid wages that are due and payable to them.. Business and Professions Code section provides that the Court may restore to any person in interest any money or property that may have been acquired by means of such unfair competition. Plaintiffs and members of the Classes are entitled to restitution pursuant to Business and Professions Code section for all wages and payments unlawfully withheld from employees during the four-year period prior to the filing of this action.. Business and Professions Code section provides: Notwithstanding Section of the Civil Code, specific or preventive relief may be granted to enforce a penalty, forfeiture, or penal law in a case of unfair competition. Plaintiffs and members of the Classes are entitled to enforce all applicable penalty provisions of the Labor Code pursuant to Business and Professions Code section.. Plaintiffs request that the Court issue a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendants to advise all class members of their rights pursuant to the California Labor Code and Wage Order -01, and to provide Plaintiffs and members of the Classes all applicable benefits afforded by California s Labor Code and Wage Order -01, including but not limited to (a) payment of all commissions, bonuses and wages earned, including overtime wages; payment of all premium wages earned for improper meal and rest periods; (c) provision of (b) accurate wage statements; and (d) payment of all wages earned upon termination of employment.. Plaintiffs success in this action will enforce important rights affecting the public interest and in that regard Plaintiffs sue on behalf of themselves as well as others similarly situated. Plaintiffs and members of the Classes seek and are entitled to unpaid wages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and all other equitable remedies owing to them.. Plaintiffs herein take upon themselves enforcement of these laws and lawful claims. There is a financial burden involved in pursuing this action, the action is seeking to

20 vindicate a public right, and it would be against the interests of justice to penalize Plaintiffs by forcing them to pay attorneys fees from the recovery in this action. Attorneys fees are appropriate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section. and otherwise. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION Declaratory Relief (On behalf of the Classes against each Defendant). Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 0. An actual controversy has arisen between Plaintiffs and members of the Classes, on the one hand, and Defendants, on the other hand, as to their respective rights, remedies and obligations. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend and Defendants deny, that: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Defendants have failed and continue to fail to pay wages, including overtime wages, to Plaintiffs and members of the Classes that are duly owed them for all hours worked; Defendants have failed and continue to fail to pay wages, including premium wages, to Plaintiffs and members of the Classes that were duly owed them for Defendants failure to provide them proper meal and rest periods; Defendants have failed and continue to fail to compensate Plaintiffs and members of the Classes all commissions and bonuses earned; Defendants have failed and continue to fail to provide Plaintiffs and members of the Classes accurate wage and hour statements showing all hours worked, the corresponding hourly rate, and wages earned; and Defendants have failed and continue to fail to pay all accrued wages and other compensation due immediately to each member of the Classes who was terminated or within hours to each member of the Classes who resigned.

21 1. Plaintiffs further allege that members of the Classes are entitled to recover earned wages, liquidated damages, and penalties as alleged herein.. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek a declaration as to the respective rights, remedies, and obligations of the parties. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked in Violation of the U.S.C. (On behalf of the Classes against each Defendant). Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and the class members were non-exempt employees of Defendants covered by the Federal Labor Standards Act ( FLSA ), U.S.C., subdivision (e)(1), which states that an employer includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee.. Pursuant to U.S.C., Plaintiffs and the class members were entitled to receive at least a minimum wage for all hours worked. Pursuant to U.S.C., subdivision (g), hours worked includes all hours employees are suffered or permitted to work.. Defendants had a policy of willfully failing to pay Plaintiffs and other class members minimum wages for all hours worked in violation of U.S.C.. Defendants would often fail to account for all time which Plaintiffs and other class members worked.. As a result of Defendants willful and unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and other class members have suffered damages in an amount, subject to proof, to the extent they were not paid minimum wages for all hours actually worked.. Pursuant to U.S.C. and, subdivision (b), Plaintiffs are entitled to recover the full amount of unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, interest thereon, reasonable attorney s fees and costs of suit. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in Violation of U.S.C. (On behalf of the Classes against each Defendant). Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

22 0. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and the class members were non-exempt employees of Defendants covered by the Federal Labor Standards Act ( FLSA ), U.S.C., subdivision (e)(1), which states that an employer includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee. 1. Pursuant to U.S.C., Plaintiffs and other class members were entitled to receive overtime at a rate of 1. times their regular rate for any hours worked in excess of 0 hours in a week. During their employment for Defendants, Plaintiffs and other class members who were similarly situated worked in excess of 0 hours in a week.. Defendants had a policy and practice of willfully failing to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees applicable overtime wages for all overtime hours worked in accordance with U.S.C.. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all relevant times within the limitations period applicable to this cause of action, Defendants willfully maintained a policy or practice of not paying overtime wages to hourly employees for all the overtime hours they actually worked.. As a result of Defendants willful and unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees have suffered damages in an amount, subject to proof, to the extent they were not paid a proper overtime rate for all hours they worked in excess of 0 hours in a week.. Pursuant to U.S.C. and, subdivision (b), Plaintiffs are entitled to recover the full amount of unpaid overtime wages, interest thereon, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney s fees and costs of suit. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray for relief as follows: 1. For an order certifying this case as a class action, and appointing Plaintiffs as the representatives of the Class;. For declaratory relief as pled or as the Court may deem proper;. For preliminary, permanent and mandatory injunctive relief prohibiting

23 Defendants, their officers, agents and all those acting in concert with them, from committing in the future those violations of law herein alleged;. For an equitable accounting to identify, locate and restore to all current and former employees the wages they are due, with interest thereon;. For an order awarding Plaintiffs and members of the Classes compensatory damages, including lost wages, earnings and other employee benefits and all other sums of money owed to Plaintiffs and members of the Classes, together with interest on these amounts, according to proof;. For all unpaid wages pursuant to the FLSA;. For an award of reasonable attorneys fees as provided by applicable law;. For all costs of suit; and. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Dated: March, Respectfully submitted, CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP KALUDI INSDORF LAW GROUP By: Christian Schreiber Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes

24 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF MARIN ) PROOF OF SERVICE (C.C.P. a()) I am employed by Chavez & Gertler LLP in the County of Marin, State of California. I am over the age of years and not a party to the within action; my business address Miller Avenue, Mill Valley, CA 1. On March 0, I served the following documents: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE LABOR CODE AND BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE 0, et seq. on the interested parties in this action by electronically transmitting a true and correct copy thereof addressed to each as follows: Melinda S. Riechert Kathryn M. Nazarian MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market Street, Spear Tower San Francisco, CA mriechert@morganlewis.com; knazarian@morganlewis.com; Maureen McLoughlin Nirupama S. Hegde DAVIS & GILBERT LLP 0 Broadway New York, NY 0 nhegde@dglaw.com; mmcloughlin@dglaw.com; msilver@dglaw.com; jlevine@dglaw.com; Attorneys for Defendants MarketStar Corp. and Pierce Promotions and Event Management, LLC Edwin Aiwazian LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC Arden Ave, Suite Glendale, CA m.lurtz@gmail.com; edwin@lfjpc.com; Douglas Han JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION West Arden Ave., Suite Glendale, CA dhan@justicelawcorp.com; statavos@justicelawcorp.com; Attorneys for Plaintiff Malachi Smith and the Proposed Class [X] BY A copy of the above mentioned documents were served on the interested parties in this action by transmission via , addressed to the persons to be served at the addresses shown above. Executed on March 0,. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the above is true and correct. I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. Jenna Raden 1 PROOF OF SERVICE