Taco Bell Court Complaint

Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 1 of 21

1 Mark Yablonovich (SBN 186670) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Marc Primo (SBN 216796) Joseph Cho (SBN 198844) Gregory Yu (SBN 230520) Initiative Legal Group LLP nd 1800 Century Park East, 2 Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-5637 Facsimile: (310) 861-9051 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs

9 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO DIVISION

11 12

SANDRIKA MEDLOCK and LISA 13 HARDIMAN, individually, and on behalf 14 of other members of the general public similarly situated,

Case Number:

15

(1) Violation of California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198 (Unpaid Overtime);

Plaintiffs,

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

vs. TACO BELL CORP., a California corporation; TACO BELL OF AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation; TACO BELL FOUNDATION, INC., a California corporation; NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TACO BELL ASSOCIATION, INC., a California corporation; TACO BELL, a business entity form unknown; YUM!, a business entity form unknown; YUM! BRANDS, INC., a business entity form unknown; YUM! BRANDS, a business entity form unknown; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

COMPLAINT FOR CLASS ACTION

(2) Violation of California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202 (Wages not Paid Upon Termination); (3) Violation of California Labor Code §§ 226.7(a) and 512(a) (Denial of Meal Breaks); (4) Violation of California Labor Code § 226.7(a) (Denial of Rest Breaks); (5) Violation of California Labor Code § 226(a) (Improper Wage Statements);

28 -1CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT


1

Defendants.

(6) Violation of California Labor Code §§ 2800 and 2802 (Unpaid BusinessRelated Expenses); and

2 3

(7) Violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.

4 5

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

6 7 8 9

Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all other members of the public similarly situated, allege as follows:

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1.

This Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331-1332. 1331-1332. The Court has supplemental supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. U.S.C. § 1367. Plaintiffs allege, allege, on information and belief, that the aggregate amount in controversy for this class action exceeds five million dollars ($5,000,000.00) exclusive of interest and costs, that the class is greater than one-hundred (100) members, and that any one plaintiff is a citizen of a state different different from that of any defendant. defendant. See Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), Pub. L. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005). 2.

Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) and (b)

because Defendants maintain offices, offices, have agents and are licensed licensed to and do transact transact business in this district. district.

23 24 25 26 27 28

THE PARTIES

3.

Plaintiffs SANDRIKA MEDLOCK and LISA HARDIMAN

(hereinafter “Medlock” and “Hardiman” respectively, collectively “Plaintiffs”) are residents of Fresno County in the State of California. 4.

Defendant TACO BELL CORP. was and is, upon information and -2CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT


1 belief, a California California corporation, corporation, and at all times hereinafter hereinafter mentioned, mentioned, an employer 2 whose employees are engaged throughout this county, the State of California, or the 3 various states of the United States of America. 4

5.

Defendant TACO BELL OF AMERICA, INC. was and is, upon

5 information and belief, a Delaware corporation doing business, and at all times 6 hereinafter mentioned, an employer whose employees are engaged throughout this 7 county, the State of California, or the various states of the United States of America. 8

6.

Defendant TACO BELL FOUNDATION, INC. was and is, upon

9 information and belief, a California corporation, and at all times hereinafter 10 mentioned, an employer whose employees are engaged throughout this county, the 11 State of California, or the various states of the United States of America. 12

7.

Defendant NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TACO BELL

13 ASSOCIATION, INC. was and is, upon information and belief, a California 14 corporation, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, an employer whose employees 15 are engaged throughout this county, the State of California, or the various states of 16 the United States of America. 17

8.

Defendant TACO BELL was and is, upon information and belief, a

18 business entity form unknown, doing business, business, and at all times times hereinafter 19 mentioned, an employer whose employees are engaged throughout this county, the 20 State of California, or the various states of the United States of America. 21

9.

Defendant YUM! was and is, upon information and belief, a business

22 entity form unknown, doing business, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, an 23 employer whose employees are engaged throughout this county, the State of 24 California, or the various states of the United States of America. 25

10.

Defendant YUM! BRANDS, INC. was and is, upon information and

26 belief, a business entity entity form unknown, unknown, doing business, and and at all times hereinafter hereinafter 27 mentioned, an employer whose employees are engaged throughout this county, the 28 State of California, or the various states of the United States of America. -3CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT


1

11.

Defendant YUM! BRANDS was and is, upon information and belief, a

2 business entity form unknown, doing business, business, and at all times times hereinafter 3 mentioned, an employer whose employees are engaged throughout this county, the 4 State of California, or the various states of the United States of America. 5

12.

Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names or capacities of the Defendants

6 sued herein under the fictitious names DOES 1-10, but pray for leave to amend and 7 serve such fictitiously named Defendants once their names and capacities become 8 known. 9

13.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that DOES 1-10

10 are the partners, agents, owners, shareholders, s hareholders, managers or employees of TACO 11 BELL CORP., TACO BELL OF AMERICA, INC., TACO BELL FOUNDATION, 12 INC., NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TACO BELL ASSOCIATION, INC., TACO 13 BELL, YUM!, YUM! BRANDS, INC., and/or YUM! BRANDS, and were acting 14 on behalf of TACO BELL CORP., TACO BELL OF AMERICA, INC., TACO 15 BELL FOUNDATION, INC., NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TACO BELL 16 ASSOCIATION, INC., TACO BELL, YUM!, YUM! BRANDS, INC., and/or 17 YUM! BRANDS. 18

14.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each and all

19 of the acts and omissions alleged herein was performed by, or is attributable to, 20 TACO BELL CORP., TACO BELL OF AMERICA, INC., TACO BELL 21 FOUNDATION, INC., NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TACO BELL 22 ASSOCIATION, INC., TACO BELL, YUM!, YUM! BRANDS, INC. and/or 23 YUM! BRANDS and DOES 1-10 (collectively “Defendants”), each acting as the 24 agent for the other, with legal authority authority to act on the other’s behalf. The acts of any 25 and all Defendants were in accordance with, and represent the official policy of, 26 Defendants. 27

15.

At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, ratified

28 each and every act or or omission complained complained of herein. At all times herein herein -4CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT


1 mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, aided and abetted the acts and omissions 2 of each and all the other Defendants in proximately causing the damages herein 3 alleged. 4

16.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each of said

5 Defendants is in some manner intentionally, negligently, or otherwise responsible 6 for the acts, omissions, o missions, occurrences, and transactions alleged herein. 7 8

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

17.

Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf, as well as on behalf of

9 each and all other persons similarly situated, and thus, seek class certification under 10 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3). 11

18.

All claims alleged herein arise under California law for which Plaintiffs

12 seek relief authorized by California law. 13

19.

The proposed class consists of and is defined as:

14

All non-exempt or hourly paid employees who have been employed by

15

Defendants in the State of California within four years prior to the

16

filing of this complaint until resolution of this lawsuit.

17

20.

There is a well defined community of interest in the litigation and the

18 class is easily ascertainable: 19

a.

subclass, if Numerosity: Numerosity: The members of the class (and each subclass,

20 any) are so numerous that joinder of all members would be unfeasible and 21 impractical. The membership of the entire class is unknown unknown to Plaintiffs Plaintiffs at this 22 time, however, the class is estimated to be greater than one-hundred (100) 23 individuals and the identity of such membership is readily ascertainable by 24 inspection of Defendants’ employment records. 25

b.

Typicality: Plaintiffs are qualified qualified to, and will, will, fairly and

26 adequately protect the interests of each class member with whom they have a well 27 defined community of interest, and Plaintiffs’ claims (or defenses, if any) are typical 28 of all class members’ as demonstrated herein. -5CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT


1

c.

Adequacy: Plaintiffs are qualified to, and will, fairly and

2 adequately, protect the interests of each class member with whom they have a well3 defined community of interest interest and typicality of claims, as alleged herein. herein. Plaintiffs 4 acknowledge that they have an obligation to make known to the Court any 5 relationship, conflicts, conflicts, or differences with any class member. member. Plaintiffs’ attorneys attorneys 6 and the proposed class counsel are versed in the rules governing class action 7 discovery, certification, certification, and settlement. Plaintiffs have incurred, incurred, and throughout the 8 duration of this action will continue to incur costs and attorneys’ fees that have 9 been, are, and will be necessarily expended expended for the prosecution prosecution of this action action for the 10 substantial benefit of each class member. 11

d.

Superiority: The nature of this action makes the use of class

12 action adjudication superior to other other methods. Class action will achieve achieve economies 13 of time, effort and expense as compared with separate lawsuits, and will avoid 14 inconsistent outcomes because the same issues can be adjudicated in the same 15 manner and at the same time for the entire class. 16

e.

Public Policy Considerations: Employers of the State violate

17 employment and labor laws laws every day. Current employees employees are often afraid to assert 18 their rights out of fear of direct direct or indirect retaliation. retaliation. Former employees employees are fearful 19 of bringing actions because they believe their former employers may damage their 20 future endeavors endeavors through negative negative references and/or and/or other means. Class actions 21 provide the class members members who are not named in the complaint complaint with a type type of 22 anonymity that allows for the vindication of their rights at the same time as their 23 privacy is protected. protected. 24

21.

There are common questions of law and fact as to the class (and each

25 subclass, if any) that predominate over questions affecting only individual members, 26 including but not limited to: 27

a.

Whether Defendants required Plaintiffs and the other class

28 members to work over eight (8) hours per day, over twelve (12) hours per day, or -6CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT


1 over forty (40) hours per week and failed to pay legally required overtime 2 compensation to Plaintiffs and the other class members; 3

b.

Whether Defendants’ Defendants’ failure to pay wages, without abatement abatement or

4 reduction, in accordance with the California Labor Code, was willful; 5

c.

Whether Defendants deprived Plaintiffs and the other class

6 members of meal periods or required Plaintiffs and the class members to work 7 during meal periods without compensation; 8

d.

Whether Defendants deprived Plaintiffs and the other class

9 members of rest periods or required Plaintiffs and the class members to work during 10 rest periods without compensation; 11

e.

Whether Defendants complied with wage reporting as required

12 by the California Labor Code; Code; including but not limited to § 226; 13

f.

Whether Defendants failed to promptly pay all wages due to

14 Plaintiffs and the other class members upon their discharge or resignation; 15

g.

Whether Defendants made unlawful deductions from the wages

16 of Plaintiffs and other class members; 17

h.

Whether Defendants failed to indemnify Plaintiffs and other

18 class members for necessary and required business expenditures and losses incurred 19 by them in the scope of their employment employment; 20

i.

Whether the Defendants failed to reimburse for employee

22

j.

Whether Defendants’ conduct was willful willful or reckless;

23

k.

Whether Defendants engaged in unfair business practices in

21 expenses;

24 violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq .; and 25

l.

The appropriate amount of damages, restitution, or monetary

26 penalties resulting from from Defendants’ violations of California California law. 27 \\ 28 \\ -7CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT


1 2

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

22.

At all times set forth, Defendants employed Plaintiffs and other persons

3 as non-exempt or hourly paid employees. 4

23.

Defendants employed Plaintiff Medlock as a Shift Manager, which is a

5 non-exempt or hourly paid position, from on or about October 25, 2005 to on or 6 about July 9, 2007, at Fresno, California business locations. 7

24.

Defendants employed Plaintiff Hardiman as a Crew Member, which is

8 a non-exempt or hourly paid position, from on or about August 10, 2005 to on or 9 about May 30, 2007, at Fresno, California business locations. 10

25.

Defendants continue to employ non-exempt or hourly paid employees

11 within California. 12

26.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at all times

13 herein mentioned, Defendants were advised by skilled lawyers and other 14 professionals, employees, employees, and advisors knowledgeable knowledgeable about California and federal federal 15 labor and wage law and employment and personnel practices, and about the 16 requirements of California and federal law. 17

27.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that Defendants

18 knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and other members of the class were 19 entitled to receive certain wages for overtime compensation and that they were not 20 receiving certain wages for overtime compensation. 21

28.


22 knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and other class members were entitled to 23 receive complete and accurate wage statements in accordance with California law. 24

29.


25 knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and other class members were entitled to 26 receive all the wages owed to them upon discharge. 27

30.


28 knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and other class members were entitled to -8CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT


1 receive all meal breaks or payment of one hour of pay at Plaintiffs’ and class 2 members’ regular rate of pay when a meal break was missed. 3

31.


4 knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and other class members were entitled to 5 receive all rest breaks or payment of one hour of pay at Plaintiffs’ and class 6 members’ regular rate of pay when a rest break was missed. 7

32.


8 knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and the other class members were 9 entitled to receive full reimbursement for all business-related expenses and costs 10 they incurred during the course and scope of their employment, and that they did not 11 receive full reimbursement of applicable business-related expenses and costs they 12 incurred. 13

33.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that at all times

14 herein mentioned, Defendants knew or should have known that they had a duty to 15 compensate Plaintiffs and other class members, and that Defendants had the 16 financial ability to pay such compensation, but willfully, knowingly, and 17 intentionally failed to do so, and falsely represented to Plaintiffs and other class 18 members that they were properly denied wages, all in order to increase Defendants’ 19 profits. 20

34.

California Labor Code § 218 states that nothing in Article 1 of the

21 Labor Code shall limit the right of any wage claimant to “sue directly...for any 22 wages or penalty due him [or her] under this article.” 23 24

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

25

Violation of California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198

26

(Against all Defendants)

27

35.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege as if fully stated herein

28 the material allegations set out in paragraphs 1 through 34. -9CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT


1

36.

California Labor Code § 1198 and the applicable Industrial Welfare

2 Commission Wage Order provides that it is unlawful to employ persons without 3 compensating them at a rate of pay either time-and-one-half or two-times that 4 person’s regular rate rate of pay, depending depending on the number of hours worked worked by the 5 person on a daily or weekly basis. 6

37.

Specifically, the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage

7 Order provides that Defendants are and were required to pay Plaintiffs and the other 8 class members employed by Defendants, and working more than eight (8) hours in a 9 day or more than forty (40) hours in a workweek, at the rate of time-and-one-half for 10 all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a day or more than forty (40) hours 11 in a workweek. 12

38.

The applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order further

13 provides that Defendants Defendants are and were required to pay Plaintiffs and the other class 14 members employed by Defendants, and working more than twelve (12) hours in a 15 day, overtime compensation at a rate of two times their regular rate of pay. 16

39.

California Labor Code § 510 codifies the right to overtime

17 compensation at one-and-one-half times the regular hourly rate for hours worked in 18 excess of eight (8) hours in a day or forty (40) hours in a week or for the first eight 19 (8) hours worked on the seventh day of work, and to overtime compensation at 20 twice the regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of twelve (12) hours in a 21 day or in excess of eight (8) hours in a day on the seventh day of work. 22

40.

During the relevant time period, Plaintiffs and the other class members

23 consistently worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a day, in excess of twelve (12) 24 hours in a day, or in excess of forty (40) hours in a week. 25

41.

During the relevant time period, Defendants willfully failed to pay all

26 overtime wages owed to Plaintiffs and the other class members. 27

42.


28 regularly received incentives in the form of bonuses which were not incorporated in -10CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT


1 Plaintiffs’ and the other class members’ overtime. 2

43.

Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs and the other class members the

3 unpaid balance of overtime compensation, as required by California laws, violates 4 the provisions of California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198, and is therefore unlawful. 5

44.

Pursuant to California Labor Code § 1194, Plaintiffs and other class

6 members are entitled to recover their unpaid overtime compensation, as well as 7 interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. 8 9

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

10


11


12

45.


13 the material allegations set out in paragraphs 1 through 44. 14

46.

At all times herein set forth, California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202

15 provide that if an employer discharges discharges an employee, the the wages earned and unpaid unpaid at 16 the time of discharge are due and payable immediately, and that if an employee 17 voluntarily leaves his or her employment, his or her wages shall become due and 18 payable not later than than seventy-two (72) (72) hours thereafter, thereafter, unless the employee employee has 19 given seventy-two (72) hours previous notice of his or her intention to quit, in which 20 case the employee is entitled to his or her wages at the time of quitting. 21

47.

During the relevant time period, Defendants willfully failed to pay

22 Plaintiffs and the other class members who are no longer employed by Defendants 23 their wages, earned and unpaid, either at the time of discharge, or within seventy24 two (72) hours of their leaving Defendants’ employ. 25

48.

Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs and those class members who are

26 no longer employed by Defendants their wages earned and unpaid at the time of 27 discharge, or within seventy-two (72) hours of their leaving Defendants’ employ, is 28 in violation of California Labor Code §§ Code §§ 201 and 202. -11CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT


1

49.

California Labor Code § 203 provides that if an employer willfully

2 fails to pay wages owed, in accordance with §§ 201 and 202, then the wages of the 3 employee shall continue as a penalty from the due date, and at the same rate until 4 paid or until an action is commenced; commenced; but the wages shall not not continue for more more than 5 thirty (30) days. 6

50.

Plaintiffs and the other class members are entitled to recover from

7 Defendants the statutory penalty for each day they were not paid, at their regular 8 hourly rate of pay, up to a thirty (30) day maximum pursuant to California Labor 9 Code § 203. 10 11

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

12

Violation of California Labor Code §§ 226.7(a) and 512(a)

13


14

51.



52.

At all times herein set forth, the California Industrial Welfare

17 Commission Order and California Labor Code §§ 226.7(a) and 512(a) were 18 applicable to Plaintiffs’ and the other class members’ employment employment by Defendants. 19

53.

At all times herein set s et forth, California Labor Code § Code § 226.7(a) provides

20 that no employer shall require an employee to work during any meal period 21 mandated by an applicable order of the California Industrial Welfare Commission. 22

54.

At all times herein set forth, California Labor Code § 512(a) provides

23 that an employer may not require, cause or permit an employee to work for a period 24 of more than five (5) hours per day without providing the employee with a meal 25 period of not less less than thirty (30) (30) minutes, except that that if the total work work period per 26 day of the employee is not more than six (6) hours, the meal period may be waived 27 by mutual consent of both the employer employer and the employee. employee. 28

55.

At all times herein set forth, California Labor Code § 512(a) further -12CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT


1 provides that an employer employer may not require, cause or permit permit an employee employee to work for 2 a period of more than ten (10) hours per day without providing the employee with a 3 second meal period of not less than thirty (30) minutes, except that if the total hours 4 worked is no more than twelve (12) hours, the second meal period may be waived 5 by mutual consent of the employer and the employee only only if the first meal meal period 6 was not waived. 7

56.

During the relevant time period, Plaintiffs and the other members of the

8 class who were scheduled to work for a period of time no longer than six (6) hours, 9 and who did not waive their legally-mandated meal periods by mutual consent, were 10 required to work for periods longer than five (5) hours without a meal period of not 11 less than thirty (30) minutes. 12

57.


13 who were scheduled to work for a period of time in excess of six (6) hours were 14 required to work for periods longer than five (5) hours without a meal period of not 15 less than thirty (30) minutes. 16

58.

During the relevant time period, Plaintiffs and other members of the

17 class who were scheduled to work in excess of ten (10) hours but not longer than 18 twelve (12) hours, and who did not waive their legally-mandated meal periods by 19 mutual consent were required to work in excess of ten (10) hours without receiving 20 a second meal period of not less than thirty (30) minutes. 21

59.


22 who were scheduled to work for a period of time in excess of twelve (12) hours 23 were required to work for periods longer than ten (10) hours without a meal period 24 of not less than thirty (30) minutes. 25

60.

During the relevant time period, Defendants willfully required

26 Plaintiffs and other members of the class to work during meal periods and failed to 27 compensate Plaintiffs and members of the class for work performed during meal 28 periods. -13CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT


1

61.

Defendants’ conduct violates applicable Industrial Welfare

2 Commission Wage Orders, and California Labor Code §§ 226.7(a) and 512(a). 3

62.

Pursuant to California Labor Code § 226.7(b), Plaintiffs and other

4 members of the class are entitled to recover from Defendants one additional hour of 5 pay at the employees’ employees’ regular hourly hourly rate of compensation compensation for each work work day that 6 the meal period was not provided. 7 8

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

9

Violation of California Labor Code § 226.7(a)

10


11

63.



64.

At all times herein set forth, the California Industrial Welfare

14 Commission Order and California Labor Code § 226.7(a) was applicable to 15 Plaintiffs’ and other class members’ employment by Defendants. 16

65.

At all times herein set s et forth, California Labor Code § 226.7(a) provides

17 that no employer shall require an employee to work during any rest period mandated 18 by an applicable order order of the California California Industrial Industrial Welfare Commission. Commission. 19

66.

During the relevant time period, Defendants required Plaintiffs and

20 other members of the class to work in excess of four (4) hours without providing a 21 ten (10) minute rest period. 22

67.

During the relevant time period, Defendants required Plaintiffs and

23 other members of the class to work an additional four (4) hours without providing a 24 second ten (10) minute rest period. 25

68.

During the relevant time period, Defendants willfully required

26 Plaintiffs and other members of the class to work during rest periods and failed to 27 compensate Plaintiffs and members of the class for work performed during rest 28 periods. -14CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT


1

69.

Defendants’ conduct violates applicable Industrial Welfare

2 Commission Wage Orders, and California Labor Code § 226.7(a). 3

70.

Pursuant to California Labor Code § 226.7(b), Plaintiffs and other

4 members of the class are entitled to recover from Defendants one additional hour of 5 pay at the employee’s employee’s regular hourly hourly rate of compensation compensation for each work work day that 6 the rest period was not provided. 7 8

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

9

Violation of California Labor Code § 226(a)

10


11

71.



72.

Defendants have intentionally and willfully failed to provide employees

14 with complete and accurate wage statements that include, among other things, 15 Plaintiffs’ and other class members’ proper social security number and total hours 16 worked. 17

73.

As a result of Defendants’ violation of California Labor Code § 226(a),

18 Plaintiffs and the other class members have suffered injury and damage to their 19 statutorily-protected statutorily-protected rights. 20

74.

Specifically, Plaintiffs and the other class members have been injured

21 by Defendants’ intentional violation of California Labor Code § 226(a) because they 22 were denied both their legal right to receive, and their protected interest in receiving, 23 accurate, itemized wage statements under § 226(a). 24

75.

Plaintiffs and the other class members are entitled to recover from

25 Defendants the greater of their actual damages caused by Defendants’ failure to 26 comply with California Labor Code § Code § 226(a), or an aggregate penalty not exceeding 27 four thousand dollars. 28

76.

Plaintiffs and the other class members are also entitled to an award of -15CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT


1 costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Labor Code § 226(e). 2

77.

Plaintiffs and the other class members are also entitled to injunctive

3 relief to ensure compliance with this section, pursuant to California Labor Code § 4 226(g). 5 6

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

7


8


9

78.



79.

At all times herein set forth California Labor Code §§ 2800 and 2802

12 provide that an employer employer must reimburse reimburse employees for for all necessary expenditures. expenditures. 13

80.

Plaintiffs and other class members incurred necessary business-related

14 expenses and costs that were not fully reimbursed by Defendants, including and 15 without limitation, required shoes, required clothing and related fees and deposits 16 that resulted from their employment employment with Defendants. Defendants. Specifically, Defendants Defendants had, 17 and continue to have, a policy and practice of requiring employees, including 18 Plaintiffs and class members, to pay for purchase and maintenance of shoes and 19 other required clothing clothing out of their own funds. Defendants had, and continue continue to 20 have, a policy of not reimbursing employees, including Plaintiffs and class 21 members, for said business-related expenses and costs. 22

81.

Defendants have intentionally and willfully failed to fully reimburse

23 Plaintiffs and other class members for necessary business-related expenses and 24 costs. 25

82.

Plaintiffs and other class members are entitled to recover from

26 Defendants their business-related expenses incurred during the course and scope of 27 their employment, plus interest and an award of costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees 28 pursuant to California California Labor Code §§ Code §§ 2800 and 2802. -16CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT


1

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

2

Violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.

3


4

83.



84.

Defendants’ conduct, as alleged herein, has been, and continues to be,

7 unfair, unlawful, and harmful to Plaintiffs, the other class members, and to the 8 general public. Plaintiffs seek to enforce important important rights affecting the the public 9 interest within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5. 10

85.

Defendants’ activities as alleged herein are violations of California law,

11 and constitute unlawful business acts and practices in violation of California 12 Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. 13

86.

A violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et

14 seq. may be predicated predicated on the violation violation of any state or federal federal law. In the instant 15 case, Defendants’ policy and practice of requiring their non-exempt or hourly paid 16 employees, including Plaintiffs and class members, to work in excess of forty (40) 17 hours per week without paying them proper overtime compensation violates the Fair 18 Labor Standards Act, codified codified at 29 U.S.C. § 207. Additionally, Defendants’ Defendants’ policy 19 and practice of requiring non-exempt or hourly paid employees, including Plaintiffs 20 and class members, to work overtime without paying them proper compensation 21 violates California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198. Defendants’ policy and and practice of 22 requiring non-exempt or hourly employees, including Plaintiffs and class members, 23 to work through their meal and rest breaks without paying them proper 24 compensation violates California California Labor Code §§ 226.7(a) and and 512(a). Moreover, 25 Defendants’ policy and practice of not reimbursing non-exempt or hourly 26 employees, including Plaintiffs and class members, for business related expenses 27 and costs violates California Labor Code §§ 2800 and 2802. 28

87.

Plaintiffs and the putative class members have been personally -17CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT


1 aggrieved by Defendants’ unlawful business acts and practices as alleged herein, 2 including but not necessarily limited to by the loss of money or property. 3

88.

Pursuant to California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.,

4 Plaintiffs and the putative class members are entitled to restitution of the wages 5 withheld and retained by Defendants during a period that commences four years 6 prior to the filing filing of this complaint; complaint; a permanent injunction requiring requiring Defendants to 7 pay all outstanding wages wages due to Plaintiffs Plaintiffs and class members; members; an award of 8 attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and other 9 applicable laws; and an award of costs. 10 11

REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs request a trial by jury.

12 13

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiffs, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, prays for relief and

14 judgment against Defendants, Defendants, jointly and and severally, as follows: follows: 15

Class Certification

16

1.

That this action be certified as a class action;

17

2.

That Plaintiffs be appointed as the representative of the Class; and

18

3.

That counsel for Plaintiffs be appointed as Class counsel.

19

As to the First Cause of Action

20

1.

For general unpaid wages at overtime wage rates and such general and

21

2.

special damages as may be appropriate;

22

3.

For pre-judgment interest on any unpaid overtime compensation from

23

the date such amounts were due;

24

4.

25

pursuant to California California Labor Code § 1194(a); and

26

5.

27

appropriate.

For reasonable attorneys’ fees and for costs of suit incurred herein

For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and

28 \\ -18CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT


1

As to the Second Cause of Action

2

1.

3

according to proof;

4

2.

5

Plaintiffs and all other class members who have left Defendants’ employ;

6

3.

For reasonable attorneys’ fees and for costs of suit incurred herein; and

7

4.


8

appropriate.

For all actual, consequential and incidental losses and damages,

For statutory penalties pursuant to California Labor Code § 203 for

9

As to the Third Cause of Action

10

1.

11

according to proof;

12

2.

For wages pursuant to California Labor Code § Code § 226.7(b);

13

3.

For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit incurred herein; and

14

4.

For such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

For all actual, consequential, and incidental losses and damages,

15

As to the Fourth Cause of Action

16

1.

17

according to proof;

18

2.

For wages pursuant to California Labor Code § 226.7(b);

19

3.


20

4.

For such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

For all actual, consequential, and incidental losses and damages,

21

As to the Fifth Cause of Action

22

1.

23

according to proof;

24

2.

For statutory penalties pursuant to California Labor Code § 226(e);

25

3.

For injunctive relief to ensure compliance with this section, pursuant to

26

California Labor Code § Code § 226(g);

27

4.

28

to California Labor Code § 226(e); and


For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit incurred herein pursuant -19CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT


1

5.

2

appropriate.


3

As to the Sixth Cause of Action

4

1.

5

appropriate;

6

2.

7

amounts were due;

8

3.

9

according to proof;

For unpaid wages and such general and special damages as may be

For pre-judgment interest on any unpaid wages from the date such


10

4.

11

2802;

12

5.


13

6.


14

appropriate.

15

For statutory penalties pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 2800 and

As to the Seventh Cause of Action

16

1.

17

prejudgment interest interest from the day such amounts were were due and payable;

18

2.

19

and all funds disgorged from Defendants and determined to have been

20

wrongfully acquired by Defendants as a result of violations of California

21

Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.;

22

3.

23

Plaintiffs and other class members are entitled to recover under California

24

Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5;

25

4.

26

California Business & Professions Code §§ Code §§ 17200 et seq.; and

For restitution of unpaid wages to Plaintiffs Plaintiffs and all class class members and

For the appointment of a receiver to receive, manage and distribute any

For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit incurred herein that

For injunctive relief to ensure compliance with this section, pursuant to

27 \\ 28 \\ -20CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT


1

5.

2

appropriate.


3 4 Dated: September 7, 2007

Respectfully submitted, Initiative Legal Group LLP

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

By:

/s/ Joseph Cho ____________ Mark Yablonovich Marc Primo Joseph Cho Gregory Yu Shawn Westrick Attorneys for Plaintiffs

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -21CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Taco Bell Court Complaint

Recommend Documents