`
`
`
`MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
`ROBERT J. WASSERMAN (SBN: 258538)
`rwasserman@mayallaw.com
`WILLIAM J. GORHAM (SBN: 151773)
`wgorham@mayallaw.com
`JENNY D. BAYSINGER (SBN: 251014)
`jbaysinger@mayallaw.com
`2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
`Stockton, California 95207-8253
`Telephone: (209) 477-3833
`Facsimile: (209) 473-4818
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Amber Pope and the Putative Class
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`AMBER POPE,
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`PRIME NOW, LLC; and DOES 1-100,
`inclusive,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No.:
`
`
`
`CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION
`COMPLAINT
`
`1. FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME
`2. FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL AND
`REST PERIODS
`3. FAILURE TO FURNISH ACCURATE
`ITEMIZED WAGE STATEMENTS
`4. UNLAWFUL BUSINESS PRACTICES
`5. CIVIL PENALTIES PURSUANT TO
`LABOR CODE SECTION 2698, ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Amber Pope brings this class action against Prime Now, LLC and Does 1 through
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`100, for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, and the Business and
`
`22
`
`Professions Code.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`1.
`
`Amber Pope (“Plaintiff”) is and at all times relevant herein was employed in Los
`
`PARTIES
`
`25
`
`Angeles County, California, and was an “employee” as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act
`
`26
`
`(“FLSA”), the California Labor Code (“Labor Code”), and the applicable California Industrial Wage
`
`27
`
`Commission (“IWC”) Order(s).
`
`28
`
`/ / /
`
`
`
`
`Class and Collective Action and Complaint – Page 1 of 15
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-10912 Document 1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 2 of 22 Page ID #:2
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`2.
`
`Prime Now, LLC (“Defendant” or “Prime”) is a limited liability company organized
`
`and existing under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business located at 410 Terry
`
`Avenue N, Seattle, Washington, which does business in California and throughout the United States.
`
`3.
`
`At all times relevant herein, Prime has been an “employer” as defined by the Fair Labor
`
`Standards Act (“FLSA”), the California Labor Code (“Labor Code”), and the applicable California
`
`Industrial Wage Commission (“IWC”) Order(s).
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Prime and Does 1-100 are collectively referred to as Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff is not aware of the true names and capacities of the Defendants sued herein as
`
`Does 1 through 100, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise and therefore sues such
`
`10
`
`Defendants by these fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege their true names
`
`11
`
`and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that
`
`12
`
`each of the fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein
`
`13
`
`alleged and that Plaintiff’s injuries and damages herein alleged were legally caused by such
`
`14
`
`Defendants. Unless otherwise indicated, each Defendant was acting within the course and scope of
`
`15
`
`said agency and/or employment, with the knowledge and/or consent of said co-Defendant.
`
`16
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that at all times mentioned
`
`17
`
`herein, each of the Defendants, including each Doe Defendant, was acting as the agent, servant,
`
`18
`
`employee, partner and/or joint venturer of and was acting in concert with each of the remaining
`
`19
`
`Defendants, including each Doe Defendant, in doing the things herein alleged, while at all times acting
`
`20
`
`within the course and scope of such agency, service, employment partnership, joint venture and/or
`
`21
`
`concert of action. Each Defendant, in doing the acts alleged herein, was acting both individually and
`
`22
`
`within the course and scope of such agency and/or employment, with the knowledge and/or consent of
`
`23
`
`the remaining Defendants.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`This Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and 29
`
`26
`
`U.S.C. § 216(b). This court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. This Court
`
`27
`
`further has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) as there is diversity of citizenship between
`
`28
`
`Prime and Pope and the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. Venue is proper in this court
`
`
`
`
`Class and Collective Action and Complaint – Page 2 of 15
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-10912 Document 1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 3 of 22 Page ID #:3
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the unlawful acts alleged herein took place in Los Angeles
`
`County, California and Plaintiff’s place of employment with Prime was within this District. Plaintiff
`
`hereby demands a jury trial.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`Plaintiff was hired by Prime in or around April 2020.
`
`Throughout her employment, Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee. As such, she was
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`entitled to be paid at least minimum wage for every hour she worked and overtime as appropriate
`
`based on her “regular rate of pay.”
`
`10.
`
`Throughout her employment, however, Plaintiff and Prime’s other non-exempt
`
`10
`
`employees were not paid for overtime based on the appropriate regular rate.
`
`11
`
`11.
`
`Pope and Prime’s other California non-exempt employees were often eligible for and at
`
`12
`
`times received non-discretionary bonuses, commissions, and other items of compensation (such as
`
`13
`
`“surge premiums” and other shift differentials). Exhibit A.
`
`14
`
`12.
`
`Specifically, Prime paid Pope an additional $2.00 per hour for certain shifts she worked
`
`15
`
`(identified as “Additionalpay” on her wage statements), along with providing “surge premiums” for
`
`16
`
`certain hours that were worked. These promised amounts were essentially shift premiums paid to
`
`17
`
`incentivize Plaintiff and Prime’s other non-exempt employees to work additional hours and/or less
`
`18
`
`desirable shifts.
`
`19
`
`13.
`
`Throughout Pope’s employment, Prime failed to properly calculate and pay the
`
`20
`
`overtime wages owed to Plaintiff and its other non-exempt employees.
`
`21
`
`14.
`
`Specifically, pursuant to its uniform policy, practice and procedure, Prime failed to
`
`22
`
`include commissions, non-discretionary bonuses and other items of compensation when determining
`
`23
`
`Plaintiff and its other non-exempt employees’ “regular rate of pay” for purposes of overtime.
`
`24
`
`15.
`
`For example, during the weekly pay period of May 17-23, 2020, Ms. Pope earned
`
`25
`
`“additional pay of $2.00 for each of the 37.97 hours she worked, earned a “surge premium” of $3.00 for
`
`26
`
`each of 13.50 hours worked, a “surge premium” of $5.00 for 4.50 hours she worked and a rate of
`
`27
`
`$30.00 for 2.83 hours that she worked. Exh. A. Pope had a total of $750.79 in earnings for 37.97 hours
`
`28
`
`of work, equating to a regular rate of $19.77 and an overtime premium of $9.88 per hour. Prime Now,
`
`
`
`
`Class and Collective Action and Complaint – Page 3 of 15
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-10912 Document 1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 4 of 22 Page ID #:4
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`however, only paid Pope at the “overtime premium” rate of $5.63 per hour, significantly less than the
`
`premium required by her regular rate. Id.
`
`Pope and Prime’s other non-exempt employees were frequently denied the opportunity to take
`
`off-duty meal periods of at least thirty (30) minutes because job responsibilities would not allow for
`
`such. The fact meal periods were not provided is underscored by Prime’s payment of meal period
`
`premiums to Pope on occasion. Under California law, there is no lawful choice between providing the
`
`opportunity for meal periods and paying meal period premiums. Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc.
`
`53 Cal.4th 1244 (2012).
`
`16.
`
`Because of the violations set forth above, and as evidenced in the sample of Plaintiff’s
`
`10
`
`wage statements attached hereto as Exhibit A, the wage statements furnished by Prime to its non-
`
`11
`
`exempt California employees violated California Labor Code section 226(a) insofar as they failed to
`
`12
`
`accurately show:
`
`a. The gross wages earned, in violation of section 226(a)(1);
`b. The total hours worked by the employee in violation of section 226(a)(2);
`c. The net wages earned, in violation of section 226(a)(5); and
`d. All applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding
`number of hours worked at each hourly rate in violation of section 226(a)(9).
`
`
`Prime was, at all times relevant herein, aware of the requirements of California Labor
`
`17.
`
`Code section 226.
`
`18.
`
`Prime has, at all times relevant herein, furnished wage statements to each of its non-
`
`exempt California employees pursuant to an established set of policies, procedures and practices.
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff and Prime’s other non-exempt California employees, both current and former,
`
`have suffered injury as a result of Prime’s knowing and intentional failure to comply with California
`
`Labor Code section 226(a).
`
`20.
`
`Plaintiff and Prime’s other non-exempt California employees, both current and former,
`
`were unable to promptly and easily determine their gross wages earned from the wage statements
`
`furnished by Prime.
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiff and Prime’s other non-exempt California employees, both current and former,
`
`have suffered injury as a result of Prime’s knowing and intentional failure to furnish wage statements
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`Class and Collective Action and Complaint – Page 4 of 15
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-10912 Document 1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 5 of 22 Page ID #:5
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`accurately showing the gross wages earned by them in violation of California Labor Code section
`
`226(a)(1).
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiff and Prime’s other non-exempt California employees, both current and former,
`
`who worked overtime, were unable to promptly and easily determine their total hours worked from the
`
`wage statements furnished by Prime.
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiff and Prime’s other non-exempt California employees, both current and former,
`
`who worked overtime, have suffered injury as a result of Prime’s knowing and intentional failure to
`
`furnish wage statements accurately showing their total hours worked in violation of California Labor
`
`Code section 226(a)(2).
`
`10
`
`24.
`
`Plaintiff and Prime’s other non-exempt California employees, both current and former,
`
`11
`
`were unable to promptly and easily determine their net wages earned from the wage statements
`
`12
`
`furnished by Prime.
`
`13
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiff and Prime’s other non-exempt California employees, both current and former,
`
`14
`
`have suffered injury as a result of Prime’s knowing and intentional failure to furnish wage statements
`
`15
`
`accurately showing the net wages earned by them in violation of California Labor Code section
`
`16
`
`226(a)(5).
`
`17
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiff and Prime’s other non-exempt California employees, both current and former,
`
`18
`
`were unable to promptly and easily determine all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay
`
`19
`
`period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate from the wage statements
`
`20
`
`furnished by Prime.
`
`21
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiff and Prime’s other non-exempt California employees, both current and former,
`
`22
`
`have suffered injury as a result of Allen Distribution’s knowing and intentional failure to furnish wage
`
`23
`
`statements accurately showing all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the
`
`24
`
`corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate in violation of section 226(a)(9).
`
`25
`
`28.
`
`As a result of the failure to properly calculate and pay overtime and doubletime
`
`26
`
`premiums, Prime failed to pay Pope and its other current and former employees whose employment
`
`27
`
`has ended all wages due and owing at the time of separation within the time parameters mandated by
`
`28
`
`Labor Code sections 201 and 202.
`
`
`
`
`Class and Collective Action and Complaint – Page 5 of 15
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-10912 Document 1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 6 of 22 Page ID #:6
`
`
`
`29.
`
`From at least four years prior to the filing of this action, Prime has adopted and
`
`employed unfair business practices. These unfair business practices include, but are not limited to,
`
`failing to pay employees for all hours worked, failing to pay for all overtime hours worked, failing to
`
`properly calculate and pay all overtime wages and sick pay due, and failing to provide compliant meal
`
`and rest breaks, or to pay the premiums associated therewith, and failure to reimburse for all business
`
`expenses.
`
`COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`30.
`
`Plaintiff seeks to maintain the second cause of action as an “opt-in” collective action
`
`pursuant to 29 U.S.C section 216(b) as to claims for overtime, liquidated damages (or, alternatively,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`interest) and attorneys’ fees under the FLSA. In addition to Plaintiff, numerous other current and
`
`11
`
`former hourly, non-exempt employees of Defendant were not paid all the overtime they are owed.
`
`12
`
`Plaintiff is a representative of those other current and former employees and are acting on behalf of
`
`13
`
`their interests as well as their own in bringing this action. These similarly situated employees are
`
`14
`
`known to Defendant, are readily identifiable, and may be located through Defendant’s records. These
`
`15
`
`similarly situated employees may be readily notified of this action, and allowed to opt in pursuant to
`
`16
`
`29 U.S.C. § 216(b), for purpose of collectively adjudicating their claims for overtime compensation,
`
`17
`
`liquidated damages (or, alternatively, interest), and attorneys’ fees under the FLSA.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`31.
`
`Plaintiff seeks to maintain this action as a class action as to the First through Fourth
`
`20
`
`Causes of Action. Plaintiff brings this action, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, as
`
`21
`
`a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The putative classes which
`
`22
`
`Plaintiff seeks to represent consist of the following:
`
`a.
`
`All current and former non-exempt employees of Prime who earned
`
`commissions, non-discretionary bonuses, or other items of compensation and
`
`worked overtime during one or more pay periods between December 1, 2016
`
`and the date of trial (the “Regular Rate Class”);
`
`b.
`
`All current and former non-exempt California employees of Prime who earned
`
`commissions, non-discretionary bonuses, or other items of compensation and
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`Class and Collective Action and Complaint – Page 6 of 15
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-10912 Document 1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 7 of 22 Page ID #:7
`
`
`
`worked overtime during one or more pay periods between December 1, 2016
`
`and the date of trial (the “California Regular Rate Class”);
`
`c.
`
`All members of the California Regular Rate Class whose employment with
`
`Prime ended at any time between December 1, 2017 and the date of trial (the
`
`“California Former Employee SubClass”); and
`
`d.
`
`All members of the California Regular Rate Class who received one or more
`
`wage statements between December 1, 2019 through the date of trial (the
`
`“California Wage Statement SubClass”).
`
`The Regular Rate Class, California Regular Rate Class, California Former Employee SubClass, and
`
`California Wage Statement SubClass are collectively referred to as the Class.
`
`32.
`
`The class of persons is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, and
`
`the disposition of their claims in a class action is a benefit to the parties and to the Court. Plaintiff is
`
`informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendant employ well over 5,000 employees
`
`who satisfy the class definition. Although the exact number and identity of class members is not
`
`presently known, they can be identified in Defendants’ records through coordinated discovery
`
`pursuant to this class action.
`
`33.
`
`This action may be maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure because the questions of law and fact which are common to class members
`
`clearly predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and because a class action
`
`is superior to other available methods for adjudicating the controversy.
`
`34.
`
`There are numerous common questions of law and fact arising out of Defendant’s
`
`conduct. This class action focuses on Defendant’s systematic: (a) failure to properly calculate and pay
`
`overtime/doubletime to their non-exempt employees, (b) failure to pay California employees all wages
`
`due and owing at separation; and (c) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements.
`
`35.
`
`Furthermore, common questions of fact and law predominate over any questions
`
`affecting only individual members of the class. The predominating common or class-wide questions
`
`of law and fact include the following:
`
`a.
`
`Whether Defendant failed to properly calculate and pay its non-exempt
`
`employees’ overtime pay in accordance with the requirements of the FLSA;
`
`
`Class and Collective Action and Complaint – Page 7 of 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-10912 Document 1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 8 of 22 Page ID #:8
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`b.
`
`Whether items of additional remuneration such as “surge premiums” and
`
`“additionalpay” were non-discretionary and thus needed to be included in
`
`“regular rate of pay”;
`
`c.
`
`Whether Defendant failed to properly calculate and pay its non-exempt
`
`California employees’ overtime pay;
`
`d.
`
`Whether the wage statements Defendant furnished to their California employees
`
`comply with Labor Code section 226;
`
`e.
`
`Whether the miscalculations in overtime pay rates resulted in outstanding wages
`
`due and owing at separation;
`
`f.
`
`Whether Defendant willfully withheld those wages that were due and owing at
`
`separation;
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`Whether the alleged violations constitute unfair business practices;
`
`Whether the Class is entitled to injunctive relief; and
`
`Whether the Class is entitled to unpaid wages, statutory penalties and/or
`
`restitutionary relief, and the amount of the same.
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class as a whole, all of
`
`17
`
`whom have sustained and/or will sustain damage and injury as a proximate and/or legal result of the
`
`18
`
`alleged violations of Defendant. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the Class because Defendant
`
`19
`
`subjected Plaintiff and each member of the Class to the same violations alleged herein.
`
`20
`
`37.
`
`The defenses of Defendant, to the extent that such defenses apply, are applicable
`
`21
`
`generally to the whole Class and are not distinguishable as to the proposed class members.
`
`22
`
`38.
`
`Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of all members of the Class, and
`
`23
`
`has retained attorneys with extensive experience in litigation, including class and representative
`
`24
`
`actions. Plaintiff has no interests that conflict with those of the Class. Plaintiff is able to fairly and
`
`25
`
`adequately protect the interests of all members of the class because it is in his best interest to prosecute
`
`26
`
`the claims alleged herein in order to obtain the full compensation due themselves and the other class
`
`27
`
`members.
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`Class and Collective Action and Complaint – Page 8 of 15
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-10912 Document 1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 9 of 22 Page ID #:9
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`39.
`
`A class action is superior to any other method available for fairly and efficiently
`
`adjudicating the controversy because 1) joinder of individual class members is not practicable, 2)
`
`litigating the claims of individual class members would be unnecessarily costly and burdensome and
`
`would deter individual claims, 3) litigating the claims of individual class members would create a risk
`
`of inconsistent or varying adjudications that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for
`
`Defendants, 4) class members still working for Defendants may be fearful of retaliation if they were to
`
`bring individual claims, 5) class members would be discouraged from pursuing individual claims
`
`because the damages available to them are relatively small, and 6) public policy encourages the use of
`
`the class actions to enforce employment laws and protect individuals who, by virtue of their
`
`10
`
`subordinate position, are particularly vulnerable.
`
`11
`
`40.
`
`Judicial economy will be served by maintenance of this lawsuit as a class action. To
`
`12
`
`process numerous virtually identical individual cases will significantly increase the expense on the
`
`13
`
`Court, the class members, and Defendant, all while unnecessarily delaying the resolution of this
`
`14
`
`matter. There are no obstacles to effective and efficient management of this lawsuit as a class action
`
`15
`
`by this Court and doing so will provide multiple benefits to the litigating parties including, but not
`
`16
`
`limited to, efficiency, economy, and uniform adjudication with consistent results.
`
`17
`
`41.
`
`Notice of a certified class action and any result or resolution of the litigation can be
`
`18
`
`provided to class members by mail, email, publication, or such other methods of notice as deemed
`
`19
`
`appropriate by the Court.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`VIOLATION OF FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AND
`CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §§ 510 & 1198
`(Failure to Pay Overtime)
`Against Defendant on Behalf of the Regular Rate Class and the California Regular Rate Class
`
`Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation set
`
`42.
`
`forth above as though fully set forth herein, except as said paragraphs are inconsistent with the
`
`allegations of this cause of action.
`
`43.
`
`The Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 USC §§ 201 et seq. and 29 CFR §§ 778 et seq.,
`
`requires time-and-a-half pay for the time an employee works over forty hours a week.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`Class and Collective Action and Complaint – Page 9 of 15
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-10912 Document 1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 10 of 22 Page ID #:10
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`44.
`
`Pursuant to California Labor Code section 510, any work in excess of eight hours in
`
`one workday and any work in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek and the first eight hours
`
`worked on the seventh day of work 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. Any work in excess of 12 hours
`
`in one day shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay for an
`
`employee. In addition, any work in excess of eight hours on any seventh day of a workweek shall be
`
`compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay of an employee.
`
`45.
`
`Pursuant to California Labor Code section 1198, the maximum hours of work and
`
`standard conditions of labor fixed by the commission shall be the maximum hours of work and the
`
`10
`
`standard conditions of labor for employees and the employment of any employee for longer hours than
`
`11
`
`those fixed by the commission or under conditions of labor prohibited by the order is unlawful.
`
`12
`
`46.
`
`During the relevant time period, Plaintiff and Defendant’s other non-exempt employees
`
`13
`
`regularly worked overtime.
`
`14
`
`47.
`
`During the relevant time period, Defendant intentionally and willfully failed to pay all
`
`15
`
`overtime wages due to Plaintiff and its non-exempt employees.
`
`16
`
`48. Wherefore, Plaintiff and the other members of the Regular Rate Class and California
`
`17
`
`Regular Rate Class have been injured as set forth above and request relief as hereafter provided.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §§ 201, ET SEQ.
`(Failure to Pay All Wages Due and Owing at End of Employment)
`Against Defendant on Behalf of the California Former Employee SubClass
`
`
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation set
`
`forth above as though fully set forth herein, except as said paragraphs are inconsistent with the
`
`allegations of this cause of action.
`
`50.
`
`California Labor Code section 201 provides that if an employer discharges an employee,
`
`the wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge are due and payable immediately.
`
`51.
`
`California Labor Code section 202 requires an employer to pay an employee all earned
`
`wages within 72 hours of the employee quitting his or her employment, or immediately at the time of
`
`quitting if the employee has given 72 hours previous notice of his or her intention to quit.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`Class and Collective Action and Complaint – Page 10 of 15
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-10912 Document 1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 11 of 22 Page ID #:11
`
`
`
`52.
`
`As set forth above, Plaintiff and the other members of the California Regular Rate Class
`
`were not properly paid all overtime wages due throughout their respective employments. As a result,
`
`members of the California Former Employee SubClass necessarily had outstanding wages due and
`
`owing at the time they separated from employment with Prime; those wages remain outstanding.
`
`53.
`
`As a result, members of the California Former Employee SubClass were not timely paid
`
`all of their earned but unpaid wages when their employment with Defendant ended
`
`54. Wherefore, Plaintiffs and the other members of the California Former Employee
`
`SubClass have been injured as set forth above and request relief as hereafter provided.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 226(a)
`(Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements)
`Against Defendants on behalf of the California Wage Statement Class
`
`Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation set
`
`55.
`
`forth above as though fully set forth herein, except as said paragraphs are inconsistent with the
`
`allegations of this cause of action.
`
`56.
`
`Pursuant to California Labor Code section 226(a) “every employer shall, semimonthly
`
`or at the time of each payment of wages, furnish each of his or her employees, either as a detachable
`
`part of the check, draft, or voucher paying the employee’s wages, or separately when the wages are
`
`paid by personal check or cash, an accurate itemized statement in writing showing (1) gross wages
`
`earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee [. . .], (3) the number of piece-rate units earned and
`
`any applicable piece rate if the employee is paid on a piece-rate basis, (4) all deductions, (5) net wages
`
`earned, (6) the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the name of the
`
`employee and only the last four digits of his or her social security number or an employee
`
`identification number, (8) the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer [. . .], (9) all
`
`applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and corresponding number of hours worked at
`
`each hourly rate by the employee and, if the employer is a temporary services employer [. . .], the rate
`
`of pay and the total hours worked for each temporary services assignment.”
`
`57.
`
`An employee suffering injury as a result of the knowing and intentional failure by an
`
`employer to comply with Labor Code section 226(a) is entitled to recover the greater of all actual
`
`
`Class and Collective Action and Complaint – Page 11 of 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-10912 Document 1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 12 of 22 Page ID #:12
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`damages or fifty dollars ($50) for the initial pay period in which a violation occurs and one hundred
`
`dollars ($100) per employee for each violation in a subsequent pay period, not to exceed the aggregate
`
`penalty of four thousand dollars ($4,000), and is entitled to an award of costs and reasonable
`
`attorney’s fees. Labor Code § 226(e)(1).
`
`58.
`
`An employee is deemed to suffer injury if the employer fails to provide a wage
`
`statement or if the employer fails to provide accurate and complete information as required by any one
`
`or more of the items (1) to (9), inclusive, of subdivision (a) and the employee cannot promptly and
`
`easily determine from the wage statement alone, i) the amount of gross/net wages paid to the employee
`
`during the pay period or any of the other information required to be provided pursuant to Labor Code
`
`10
`
`section 226(a) items (2) to (4), inclusive, (6) and (9), ii) deductions made by the employer, iii) the
`
`11
`
`name and address of the employer and iv) the name of the employee and the last four digits of his or
`
`12
`
`her social security number or employee identification number. Labor Code § 226(e)(2)(A) and (B)(i)-
`
`13
`
`(iv). “Promptly and easily determine” means a reasonable person would be able to readily ascertain
`
`14
`
`the information without reference to other documents or information. Labor Code § 226(e)(2)(C).
`
`15
`
`59.
`
`As set forth above, Defendant intentionally and willfully failed to furnish accurate
`
`16
`
`itemized wage statements which complied with Labor Code section 226.
`
`17
`
`60. Wherefore, Plaintiff and the other members of the California Wage Statement Class
`
`18
`
`have been injured as set forth above and request relief as hereafter provided.
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE §§ 17200 ET SEQ.
`(Unfair Business Practices)
`Against Defendant on behalf of the California Regular Rate Class
`
`
`
`61.
`
`Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation set
`
`forth above as though fully set forth herein, except as said paragraphs are inconsistent with the
`
`allegations of this cause of action.
`
`62.
`
`The statutory violations, as alleged above, are unfair business practices within the
`
`meaning of the Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq), and
`
`include, but are not limited to failing to properly calculate and pay all overtime wages.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`Class and Collective Action and Complaint – Page 12 of 15
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-10912 Document 1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 13 of 22 Page ID #:13
`
`
`
`63. Wherefore, Plaintiff and the other members of the California Regular Rate Class, the
`
`Regular Rate Class have been damaged as set forth above and request relief as hereafter provided.
`
`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE SECTION 2698 ET SEQ.
`(Private Attorneys General Act)
`Against Defendant
`
`Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation set
`
`64.
`
`forth above as though fully set forth herein, except as said paragraphs are inconsistent with the
`
`allegations of this cause of action.
`
`65.
`
`Pursuant to Labor Code section 2699(a), any provision of the Labor Code which
`
`provides for a civil penalty to be assessed and collected by the LWDA for violations of the Labor Code
`
`may, as an alternative, be recovered through a civil action brought by an aggrieved employee on behalf
`
`of himself or herself and other current or former employees pursuant to the procedures outlined in
`
`Labor Code section 2699.3.
`
`66.
`
`Plaintiff was employed by Defendant and the alleged violations were committed against
`
`her during her time of employment. Plaintiff is therefore aggrieved employees as defined by Labor
`
`Code section 2699(c). Other current and former employees are also aggrieved employees in that one or
`
`more of the alleged violations were also committed against them during their time of employment with
`
`Defendant.
`
`67.
`
`On June 8, 2020, Pope sent a letter to Prime and the LWDA identifying specific
`
`provisions of the Labor Code alleged to have been violated by Prime, along with the facts and theories
`
`supporting those alleged violations. See Exhibit B. Specifically, Pope asserted that Prime violated
`
`Labor Code sections 201-203, 204, 226, 226.7, 510, and 512.
`
`68.
`
`As of the filing of this Complaint, which is more than 65 days following June 8, 2020,
`
`the LWDA has not provided any indication of