`
`Case 2:21-cv-09005 Document 1 Filed 11/17/21 Page 1 of 57 Page ID #:1
`
`Jennifer Hinds (CA Bar No. 301804)
`Jennifer.hinds@huschblackwell.com
`HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
`300 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1500
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (213) 337-6567
`Facsimile: (213) 337-6551
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`Conagra Brands, Inc. and
`ConAgra Foods Packaged Foods LLC
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`HILDA ALVAREZ, individually
`Case No.:
`and on behalf of all others similarly
`
`situated,
`
`
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION
`TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
`COURT FOR THE CENTRAL
`DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`PURSUANT TO THE CLASS ACTION
`FAIRNESS ACT, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441
`AND 1446; DECLARATION OF
`JENNIFER HINDS
`
`(Filed concurrently with the Notice of
`Interested Parties; Notice of Pendency of
`Other Action; and the Civil Cover Sheet)
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`CONAGRA BRANDS, INC., a
`Delaware corporation; CONAGRA
`FOODS PACKAGED FOODS,
`LLC., a Delaware limited liability
`company; and DOES 1 through 50,
`inclusive,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HB: 4883-6524-0323.1
`
`1
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`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 2:21-cv-09005 Document 1 Filed 11/17/21 Page 2 of 57 Page ID #:2
`
`
`TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants Conagra Brands, Inc. (“Conagra”)
`and ConAgra Foods Packaged Foods LLC (“CFPF”) (collecti vely “Defendants”)
`by and through their counsel, invoke this Court’s jurisdiction under the provisions
`of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 (as amended by the Class Action Fairness Act 2005, Pub. L.
`No. 109-2, § 4(a) (“CAFA”)), 1441(a) and (b) and 1446, and remove this action from
`the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles.
`As grounds for removal, Defendants state as follows:
`1.
`On October 12, 2021, Plaintiff Hilda Alvarez filed a civil complaint
`against Defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the
`County of Los Angeles, Hilda Alvarez v. Conagra Brands, Inc. and ConAgra Foods
`Packaged Foods LLC, Case No. 21STCV37375, which sets forth the following eight
`causes of action: (i) failure to pay minimum wages; (ii) failure to pay overtime
`compensation; (iii) failure to provide meal periods; (iv) failure to authorize and
`permit rest breaks; (v) failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; (vi) failure
`to timely pay final wages at termination; (vii) failure to provide accurate itemized
`wage statements; and (viii) unfair business practices (the “Complaint”).
`2.
`Plaintiff served the Summons and Complaint and all of the other related
`court documents on Defendants on October 18, 2021. Copies of the Notice of
`Service, the Summons, Complaint, and all other related court documents received
`by Defendants are attached to the Declaration of Jennifer Hinds as “Exhibit A.”
`3.
`The state court filed an Initial Status Conference Order on October 15,
`2021. Hinds Decl.
`4.
`On November 17, 2021, Defendants filed their Answer to Plaintiff’s
`Complaint with the superior court.
`
`HB: 4883-6524-0323.1
`
`2
`
`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 2:21-cv-09005 Document 1 Filed 11/17/21 Page 3 of 57 Page ID #:3
`
`5.
`Other than the documents included in Exhibit A, no other documents
`have been filed with the superior court in this action. Hinds Decl.
`6.
`The undersigned counsel certifies that a copy of this Notice of Removal
`and all supporting documents will be served on Plaintiff’s counsel and filed with the
`Clerk of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, as required by 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1446(d).
`7.
`Venue for this action lies in the United States District Court for the
`Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 because this is the
`judicial district in which the action was filed and where the case is pending.
`8.
`This Notice of Removal has been filed within thirty (30) days after
`Defendants were served with a copy of the Summons and Complaint upon which
`this action is based. This Notice of Removal therefore is filed within the time period
`provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).
`CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT
`Jurisdiction Pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act
`9.
`Under CAFA, a defendant has a right to remove a state court action to
`a federal district court where the district court has original jurisdiction over the
`action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441.
`10. The district courts have original jurisdiction over any civil action in
`which the “matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000.00,
`exclusive of interest and costs, and is a class action in which any member of a class
`of plaintiffs is a citizen of a state different from any defendant.” 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1332(d)(2).
`11. The district courts have original jurisdiction where the proposed class
`involves 100 or more members or where the primary defendants are not States, State
`Officials, or other governmental entities. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(5).
`
`A.
`
`HB: 4883-6524-0323.1
`
`3
`
`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 2:21-cv-09005 Document 1 Filed 11/17/21 Page 4 of 57 Page ID #:4
`
`B. Diversity of Citizenship Under the Class Action Fairness Act
`12. Under CAFA, diversity of citizenship is met when any member of the
`class is a citizen of a state different from any defendant. 28. U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(a).
`13. Citizenship of the parties is determined by their citizenship status at the
`commencement of the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(7).
`14. At the time of filing the Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that he is a resident
`of the state of California. Compl. ¶ 7.
`15. A corporation is a citizen of any state where it is incorporated and where
`its principal place of business is located. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c).
`16. A corporation’s principal place of business is determined by the “nerve
`center” test, which looks to where the corporation maintains its corporate
`headquarters and where the corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the
`corporation’s activities. Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 90 (2010).
`17. Defendant Conagra, both at the time this action was commenced and at
`the time it was removed, was a citizen of Delaware and Illinois. Conagra is
`incorporated in the state of Delaware. Conagra’s principal place of business is
`Illinois, where its corporate headquarters are located.
`18. Defendant CFPF is a Delaware limited liability company. The sole
`member of CFPF is ConAgra Foods Packaged Foods Holdings, Inc., a Delaware
`corporation with its corporate headquarters in Illinois. ConAgra Foods Packaged
`Foods Holdings, Inc.’s parent company is Conagra Brands, Inc.
`19. The presence of Doe defendants does not impact diversity for removal
`purposes. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).
`20. Accordingly, CAFA’s diversity of citizenship requirement is satisfied
`because Plaintiff is a citizen of California, Defendant Conagra is a citizen of Illinois
`and Delaware, and Defendant CFPF is a citizen of Illinois and Delaware.
`
`HB: 4883-6524-0323.1
`
`4
`
`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 2:21-cv-09005 Document 1 Filed 11/17/21 Page 5 of 57 Page ID #:5
`
`C. Amount in Controversy Under the Class Action Fairness Act
`21. Pursuant to CAFA, the amount in controversy must exceed the value of
`$5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (d)(2).
`22. The Ninth Circuit recently affirmed once again that when determining
`whether the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, “‘a defendant’s notice of
`removal need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy
`exceeds the jurisdictional threshold,’ and need not contain evidentiary submissions.”
`Salter v. Quality Carriers, Inc., 974 F.3d 959, 963 (9th Cir. 2020); see also Ibarra
`v. Manheim Invs., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Dart Cherokee
`Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S.Ct. 547, 554 (2014)). Evidence establishing
`the amount is only required when the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the
`defendant’s allegation. Dart, 135 S.Ct. at 554.
`23. Stated differently, the amount in controversy is the “amount at stake in
`the underlying litigation.” Greene v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 965 F.3d 767, 772 (9th
`Cir. 2020) (quoting Gonzales v. CarMax Auto Superstores, LLC, 840 F.3d 644, 648
`(9th Cir. 2016) (emphasis added)). “‘Amount at stake’ does not mean likely or
`probable liability; rather, it refers to possible liability.” Id.
`24.
`In measuring the amount in controversy, a court must assume that the
`Plaintiff will prevail on each of his claims. Roth v. Comerica Bank, 799 F. Supp. 2d
`1107, 1117 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (“The ultimate inquiry is what amount is put ‘in
`controversy’ by the plaintiff’s complaint, not what a defendant will actually owe.”
`(quotation omitted)).
`25. Here, the Complaint is silent as to the amount in controversy for each
`claim, and Defendants must only make a plausible allegation of the amount in
`controversy. Defendants deny that they owe Plaintiff any damages alleged in her
`Complaint.
`(i) Plaintiff’s Proposed Class
`
`HB: 4883-6524-0323.1
`
`5
`
`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 2:21-cv-09005 Document 1 Filed 11/17/21 Page 6 of 57 Page ID #:6
`
`26. Plaintiff’s proposed putative class is defined as “[a]ll persons who
`worked for any Defendant in California as an hourly, non-exempt employee at any
`time during the period beginning four years before the filing of the initial complaint
`in this action and ending when notice to the Class is sent.” Compl. ¶ 24. Defendants
`will refer to the proposed putative class as the “Class Members.”
`27. Most of the Class Members’ claims are covered by a consolidated class
`action currently pending before Judge Olguin for the United States District Court in
`the Central District of California. See Moises Negrete, et al., on behalf of themselves
`and others similarly situated, v. Conagra Brands, Inc. (f/k/a ConAgra Foods, Inc.),
`et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-631-FMO-AJW (the “Negrete Action”).
`28. The claims in the Negrete Action have settled and are pending final
`approval. Therefore, for purposes of removal, Defendants will only consider the
`time period that is not covered by the Negrete Action: January 16, 2021 through the
`date of removal (the “Relevant Period”).
`29. From January 16, 2021 to November 17, 2021, Defendants employed
`approximately 902 non-exempt employees at their facility in Oakdale, California.
`The employees’ average hourly wage was approximately $23.42 per hour.
`30. For these months, the employees worked approximately 28,876
`workweeks. Employees were scheduled for 8-hour shifts.
`(ii) Meal Periods
`31. California law dictates the number, length, and timing of meal periods
`that employers must provide. Cal. Lab. Code § 512(a). For every meal period that
`an employer fails to provide in accordance with the requirements of the labor code
`or applicable wage orders, the employer must pay one additional hour of pay at the
`employee’s regular rate of compensation. Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7(c).
`32. Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants regularly failed to provide Plaintiff
`and the Class with both meal periods as required by California law.” Compl. ¶ 52.
`
`HB: 4883-6524-0323.1
`
`6
`
`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 2:21-cv-09005 Document 1 Filed 11/17/21 Page 7 of 57 Page ID #:7
`
`Plaintiff seeks one additional hour of compensation at each employee’s regular rate
`of pay for each workday that a meal period was not provided. Compl. ¶ 53.
`33. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to allege how often Defendants failed to
`provide Plaintiff and Class Members meal periods. For purposes of example only,
`assuming that each putative class member failed to receive at least one required meal
`break on at least one of their shifts per week during the Relevant Period, the amount
`in controversy for this allegation is approximately $676,275.92 (28,876 workweeks
`x $23.42 average hourly rate x 1 meal period violation per workweek).
`(iii) Rest Breaks
`34. Like meal periods, California law dictates the number, length, and
`timing of rest periods that employers must provide for their employees. IWC Order
`1-2001, § 12(A).
`35. Also like meal periods, for every rest period that an employer fails to
`provide in accordance with the requirements of the labor code or applicable wage
`orders, the employer must pay one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular
`rate of compensation. Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7(c).
`36. Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants failed to authorize Plaintiff and the
`Class to take rest breaks[.]” Compl. ¶ 56. Plaintiff seeks one additional hour of
`compensation at each employee’s regular rate of pay for each workday that a rest
`break was not provided. Compl. ¶ 57.
`37. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to allege how often Defendants failed to
`authorize and permit Plaintiff and Class Members rest periods. For purposes of
`example only, assuming that each putative class member failed to receive at least
`one required rest break on at least one of their shifts per week during the Relevant
`Period, the amount in controversy for this allegation is approximately $676,275.92
`(28,876 workweeks x $23.42 average hourly rate x 1 meal period violation per
`workweek).
`
`HB: 4883-6524-0323.1
`
`7
`
`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 2:21-cv-09005 Document 1 Filed 11/17/21 Page 8 of 57 Page ID #:8
`
`(iv) Itemized Wage Statements and Required Records
`38. Employers are required to provide an accurate, itemized statement in
`writing each pay period detailing, among other things, all wages earned, hours
`worked, and all applicable hourly rates in effect during that period. Cal. Lab. Code
`§ 226(a). If an employer violates any of the provisions in § 226, each individual
`employee is entitled to $50.00 for the initial pay period in which a violation occurred
`and $100.00 for each violation in a subsequent pay period, not exceeding an
`aggregate penalty of $4,000.00 per employee. Cal. Lab. Code § 226(e)(1). An
`individual employed for at least 41 pay periods wherein each wage statement
`contained inaccurate information would be entitled to a statutory maximum penalty
`of $4,000.00. Moppin v. Los Robles Reg’l Med. Ctr., 2015 WL 5618872, at *2 (C.D.
`Cal. May 21, 2015).
`39. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff and Class
`Members with wage statements containing all the statutorily required information.
`Compl. ¶ 71. Accordingly, a one hundred percent (100%) violation rate for
`inaccurate wage statements is appropriate, because the wage statement claims are
`derivative of other wage violations that are alleged to have occurred at least once a
`pay period.
`40. During the Relevant Period, approximately 609 Class Members
`received forty-one or more allegedly deficient wage statements and are therefore
`entitled to a maximum penalty of $4,000.00. Another 293 Class Members received
`at least one but fewer than forty-one allegedly deficient wage statements. Those 293
`Class Members received a total of 4,203 statements. Thus, Plaintiff’s third cause of
`action places at least $2,841,650.00 in controversy ((609 employees with maximum
`violations x $4,000.00 maximum violation penalty = $2,436,000.00) + (293
`additional first-time violations x $50.00 per violation = $14,650.00) + (3,910
`additional subsequent violations x $100.00 per violation = $391,000.00)).
`
`HB: 4883-6524-0323.1
`
`8
`
`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 2:21-cv-09005 Document 1 Filed 11/17/21 Page 9 of 57 Page ID #:9
`
`(v) Wages Paid Upon Termination of Employment
`41. California Labor Code § 203 provides that if an employer willfully fails
`to pay any wages owed to an employee who is discharged or who quits, the wages
`of the employee shall continue to accrue as a penalty from the date due up to and
`including thirty days.
`42. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Class
`Members all of their final wages, and accordingly, Plaintiff and the Class Members
`seek waiting time penalties from the dates that their final wages have first become
`due until paid, up to a maximum of 30 days. Compl. ¶¶ 64-67.
`43.
` During the Relevant Period, the employment of at least 189 Class
`Members was terminated more than 30-days before the date of removal. Those
`employees earned an average hourly rate of compensation of $22.11 per hour at the
`time of termination. Another 15 Class Members had their employment terminated
`within 30 days of removal. These Class Members have been discharged for a
`collective 350 days as of the date of removal. Their average hourly rate of
`compensation was $23.22 at the time of termination. Thus, assuming each
`terminated class member would be entitled to an eight-hour day for each day
`following their discharge, up to 30-days, this cause of action places $1,067,925.60
`in controversy. ((189 employees x $22.11 average hourly rate x 8 hours x 30 days
`= $1,002,909.60) + (350 days x $23.22 x 8 hours = $65,016.00).
`(vi) Overtime
`44.
` Plaintiff alleges that at “all relevant times hereto, Plaintiff and the
`Class have worked more than eight hours in a workday, as employees of
`Defendants.” Compl. ¶ 44. Plaintiff fails to allege the specific amount of unpaid
`overtime she seeks but alleges that “Plaintiff and the Class are regularly required to
`work overtime hours” and that “Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class
`overtime compensation for the hours they have worked in excess of the maximum
`
`HB: 4883-6524-0323.1
`
`9
`
`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 2:21-cv-09005 Document 1 Filed 11/17/21 Page 10 of 57 Page ID #:10
`
`
`
`hours permissible by law as required by California Labor Code § 510 and 1198.”
`Compl. ¶ 45. Conservatively assuming that Plaintiff and the Class Members worked
`at least one hour of unpaid overtime per workweek, the amount of controversy for
`this allegation is approximately $1,014,413.88 (28,876 workweeks x $35.15 average
`OT rate x 1 OT hour per workweek = $1,014,413.88).
`45. Using only the truncated Relevant Period, Plaintiff’s second, third,
`fourth, sixth, and seventh causes of action on their own establish that the amount in
`controversy here is $6,276,541.32—well over $5,000,000.00, without even adding
`in damages alleged in the first, fifth, and eighth causes of action.
`(vii) Plaintiff’s Request for Attorneys’ Fees
`46. Further, Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges a claim for “reasonable attorneys’
`fees” under California law. See generally, Complaint.
`47. Ninth Circuit law firmly establishes that statutory attorneys’ fees will
`be included as a basis for determining the jurisdictional amount in controversy.
`Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 700 (9th Cir. 2007).
`48. Ninth Circuit law permits the inclusion of attorneys’ fees equal to 25%
`of the potential recovery, based on the benchmark rate for reasonable attorneys’ fees
`awards in class actions. See Garibay v. Archstone Communities LLC, 539 F. App’x
`763, 764 (9th Cir. 2013).
`49. Given the calculations described above, and considering only the
`Relevant Period, Plaintiff places at least $6,276,541.32 in controversy before adding
`attorneys’ fees. Thus, Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees places an additional
`$1,559,135.33 in controversy. (0.25 x $6,276,541.32 = $1,559,135.33).
`50. The Class Members’ claims place more than $5,000,000 in controversy.
`Without considering Plaintiff’s first cause of action for failure to pay minimum
`wages, Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action for failure to reimburse, and Plaintiff’s eighth
`cause of action for unfair business practices, Plaintiff’s second, third, fourth, sixth,
`
`HB: 4883-6524-0323.1
`
`10
`
`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 2:21-cv-09005 Document 1 Filed 11/17/21 Page 11 of 57 Page ID #:11
`
`
`
`and seventh causes of action alone place at least $6,276,541.32 in controversy, and
`Plaintiff’s claim for attorneys’ fees on those causes of action alone places an
`additional $1,559,135.33 in controversy, for a sum total of $7,882,405.23 in
`controversy. Notably, this amount in controversy considers only the time period of
`January 16, 2021 to the date of removal, and thus disregards more than three years’
`worth of alleged damages. The amount in controversy requirement is satisfied.
`CONCLUSION
`51. Accordingly, the parties are diverse, the proposed class includes more
`than 100 individuals, Defendant is not a State, State Official or other governmental
`entity, and the Class Members’ claims place well over $5,000,000.00 in controversy.
`For these reasons, this case is properly removed to this Court pursuant to CAFA.
`
`DATED: November 17, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`BY: /s/ Jennifer Hinds
`JENNIFER HINDS, SBN: 301804
`HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
`
`Attorney for Defendants ConAgra
`Brands, Inc. and Conagra Foods
`Packaged Foods, LLC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HB: 4883-6524-0323.1
`
`11
`
`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 2:21-cv-09005 Document 1 Filed 11/17/21 Page 12 of 57 Page ID #:12
`
`DECLARATION OF JENNIFER N. HINDS
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Jennifer N. Hinds, do declare as follows:
`1.
`I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law before the Courts of the
`State of California, and all federal courts, including the Central District of California.
`I am counsel of record for Defendants Conagra Brands, Inc. (“Conagra”) and
`ConAgra Foods Packaged Foods, LLC (“CFPF”) (collectively “Defendants”).
`2.
`I know the following facts of my own personal knowledge in this
`matter, and, if called to testify as a witness, I could and would testify competently.
`3.
`Upon information and belief, Plaintiff served the Summons and
`Complaint and all other related court documents on Defendants on October 18, 2021.
`4.
`Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a true and correct copy of the
`Summons and Complaint, Hilda Alvarez v. Conagra Brands, Inc., et al., Case No.
`21STCV37375 served by Plaintiff upon the Defendants on March 26, 2021.
`5.
`Exhibit A also includes the remaining documents issued and served in
`this case, including but not limited to Defendants’ Answer.
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
`the foregoing is true and correct.
`Executed this 17th day of November, 2021 at Los Angeles, California.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jennifer Hinds
`JENNIFER HINDS, Declarant
`
`HB: 4883-6524-0323.1
`
`12
`
`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 2:21-cv-09005 Document 1 Filed 11/17/21 Page 13 of 57 Page ID #:13
`Case 2:21-cv-09005 Document1 Filed 11/17/21 Page 13o0f57 Page ID#:13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT “A”
`EXHIBIT “A”
`
`

`

`YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
`(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
`HILDA ALVAREZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
`situated,
`
`Case 2:21-cv-09005 potion? Nidahaazi21 Page 14 0f57 Page ID #:14
`(
`v
`Case 2:21-cv-09005 Document 1 Filed 11/17/21 Page 14 of 57 Page ID #:14
`Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on -10/13/2824-\3:-D0-4M Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by R. Lozano,Deputy Clerk
`t
`t
`SUM-100
`FOR COURT USE ONLY
`
`SUMMONS
`(SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORTE)
`
`
`(CITACION JUDICIAL)
`NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
`
`
`(AVISO AL DEMANDADO):
`
`CONAGRA FOODS PACKAGED FOODS, LLC, a limited liability company;
`
`CONAGRABRANDS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES | through 10, inclusive,
`
`
`
`
`
`
` NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information
`below.
`You have 30 CALENDAR DAYSafter this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy
`
`served ontheplaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response mustbe in properlegal form if you want the court to hear your
`
`case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and moreinformation at the California Courts
`Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot paythefiling fee, ask
`
`the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do notfile your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property
`
`maybetaken without further warning from the court.
`
`There are other legal requirements. You may wantto call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may wantto call an attorney
`
`referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may beeligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate
`
`these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Website (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center
`
`(www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfheip), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and
`
`costs on any settlementor arbitration award of $10,000 or morein a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
`
`jAVISO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la informacion a
`
`continuacion.
`
`Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de quele entreguen esta citacion y papeles legales para presentar una respuesta porescrito en esta
`
`corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefonica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar
`
`en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso enla corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta.
`
`Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas informacion en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la
`
`biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en fa corte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagarla cuota de presentacion, pida al secretario de la corte
`
`que le dé un formulario de exencién de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corte le
`
`podra quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.
`
`Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que flame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de
`
`remision a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado,es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un
`
`programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupossin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services,
`
`(www lawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov) o poniéndose en contacto con la corte o el
`
`colegio de abogadoslocales. AVISO:Porley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamarlas cuotas y los costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobre
`
`cualquier recuperacién de $10,000 6 mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesion de arbitraje en un caso de derechocivil. Tiene que
`
`pagar el gravamende la corte antes de que /a corte pueda desecharel caso.
`
` The name and addressof the court is:
`CASE NUMBER:
`(El nombrey direccién de la corte es): Los Angeles
`{Numero del Caso).
`111 N. Hill Street
`2185TCV3"3"5
`Los Angeles, CA 90012
`The name, address, and telephone number ofplaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney,is:
`(El nombre, la direccién y el numero de teléfono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es):
`Kane Moon, MOON & YANG APC, 1055 W. 7th Street, Suite 1880, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 232-3128
`DATE:
`Clerk, by Sherri R. Carter Executive Officer Clerk of Court Deputy
`
`
`(Fecha) (Secretarioc)SsORLozano (Aunt)1012/2021
`(For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).)
`(Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)).
`NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served
`1. [__] as anindividual defendant.
`2. [__] as the person sued underthefictitious name of (specify):
`CONAGRA BRANDS, INC,
`3. BZ) on behalfof (specify): A DELANAIZECORPORATION
`under: (x CCP 416.10 (corporation)
`[__] CCP 416.60 (minor)
`[__] CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation)
`[_] CCP 416.70 (conservatee)
`(__] CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) [__] CCP 416.90 (authorized person)
`{__] other (specify):
`4. (XI by personaldelivery on (date):
`Page 1 of
`
`Form Adopted for Mandatory Use
`SUMMONS
`Code ofCivil Procedure §§ 412.20, 465
`Judicial Council of California
`www.courtinfo.ca.gov
`SUM-100 [Rev. July 1, 2009]
`
`
`
`[SEAL]
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09005 Document 1 Filed 11/17/21 Page 15 of 57 Page ID #:15
`Case 2:21-cv-09005 Document1 Filed 11/17/21 Page 15of57 Page ID #:15
`21STCV37375
`
`Assignedfor all purposes to: Spring Street Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Carolyn Kuhl
`
`Electronically FAILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 10/12/2021 12:00 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by R. Lozano,Deputy Clerk
`
`‘Kane Moon (SBN 249834)
`E-mail: kane. moon@moonyanglaw.com
`Allen Feghali (SBN 301080)
`E-mail: allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com
`Edwin Kamarzarian (SBN 327830)
`' E-mail: edwin.kamarzarian@moonyanglaw.com
`MOON & YANG, APC
`1055 W. SeventhSt., Suite 1880
`Los Angeles, California 90017
`Telephone: (213) 232-3128
`Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Hilda Alvarez
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
`
`HILDA ALVAREZ,individually, and on behalf|CaseNo.. 2ISTCY3 "35
`of all others similarly situated,
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT:
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`VS,
`
`CONAGRA FOODS PACKAGED FOODS,
`LLC, a limited liability company; CONAGRA
`BRANDS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and
`DOES | through 10, inclusive,
`
`Defendants
`
`1. Failure to Pay Minimum Wages [Cal. Lab.
`Code §§ 204, 1194, 1194.2, and 1197];
`2. Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation
`[Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194 and 1198];
`3. Failure to Provide Meal Periods [Cal. Lab.
`Code §§ 226.7, 512];
`. Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest
`Breaks [Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7];
`. Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business
`Expenses [Cal. Lab. Code § 2802];
`. Failure to Timely Pay Final Wagesat
`Termination [Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201-203];
`. Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized
`Wage Statements [Cal. Lab. Code § 226];
`and
`. Unfair Business Practices [Cal. Bus. &
`Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.].
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09005 Document1 Filed 11/17/21 Page 16 of 57 Page ID #:16
`Case 2:21-cv-09005 Document 1 Filed 11/17/21 Page 16 of 57 Page ID #:16
`Y
`t
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION & PRELIMINARY STATEMENT......c-ss:ssssessssesssseesssesceseessseesssnetteveeesneeee |
`
`THE PARTIES.ncescssccesssesseseesesseeseseesesseeen«cssuusessusesensusessayesesstessussestesesnsesivesiieesssessasitseseeeseesen 3
`A. Plaintiff... ccc ccccccccccessssscccccevessceeceeesseeeessencsteseesessseaeesesesseeaseeeeeesessennadeseteneeoe 3
`
`B.
`
`Defendants ......... ce eecccccccccccssccscesssscceccessccecccsesseceseeessssseeesesseaneeeeserseseeeceeeeesestiisssaseneeea 3
`
`ALLEGATIONS COMMONTO ALL CAUSESOF ACTION o..cscccsscccssstessstessssesssnecesetseseneeee 4
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS .....cscssssssssssssssseesessvesssvesssssessssecsssesssucessscesssecsaecesnseesnveeseeeen 8
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION ....-cssssesssevssssussssvessssuvesssseesssuvsssssssssssessssssustaseccassesssieecsnsctsveeeseeees 12
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION .icecsscsssscssssscssesssssessssssssusessesssecssrerssectssesssecsssessvscaseceesetenneeenees 13
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION scesscscssssscsscsssvsssssenssssssnensnstnetnanensiaetinernenneenetiesine 14
`
`FOURTH CAUSE-OF ACTION .u.cccsssssssssevsssssesssseesssssessssstissesssssssuusesssssesvecasvessvieessnsetsuseseiees 15
`
`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION. ..vscsssssssssessseesvssvesssvecsssveesssvestisessusssessssesusecssvcesnvessnseccanectenneesevees 16
`
`SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION ....cssssecsssevsssessessssessssecsssvvsssstsssesssssesssssssssessssessvessuneecensatesnesstess 16
`
`SEVEN