Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 1-1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 1 of 145 Page ID #:26
`
`DANIELLE J. MOSS, PRO HAC VICE PENDING
`dmoss@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166-0193
`Telephone: 212.351.4000
`Facsimile: 212.351.4035
`MEGAN COONEY, SBN 295174
`mcooney@gibsondunn.com
`LAUREN M. FISCHER, SBN 318625
`lfischer@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`3161 Michelson Drive
`Irvine, CA 92612-4412
`Telephone: 949.451.3800
`Facsimile: 949.451.4220
`Attorneys for Defendant
`PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`WESTERN DIVISION
`2:22-cv-01425
`MARK COHEN, as an individual and
` CASE NO.
`on behalf of all others similarly situated,
`DECLARATION OF MEGAN
`COONEY IN SUPPORT OF
`Plaintiff,
`DEFENDANT PELOTON
`INTERACTIVE, INC.’S NOTICE OF
`REMOVAL OF CLASS ACTION
`(Los Angeles County Superior Court Case
`No. 22STCV00201)
`Action Filed: January 3, 2022
`
`v.
`PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC., a
`Delaware corporation; and Does 1
`through 50, inclusive,
`Defendants.
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`DECLARATION OF MEGAN COONEY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC.’S
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 1-1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 2 of 145 Page ID #:27
`
`
`I, Megan Cooney, hereby declare and state:
`I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law before all the courts of the
`1.
`State of California as well as the United States District Court for the Central District of
`California. I am a partner in the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, and am one
`of the attorneys representing Defendant Peloton Interactive, Inc. (“Peloton”) in the
`above-entitled action. Unless otherwise stated, I have personal knowledge of the matters
`stated herein, and if asked to testify thereto, I would do so competently.
`Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Summons
`2.
`issued on January 3, 2022 in Cohen v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., Case No.
`22STCV00201, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
`Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Class Action
`3.
`Complaint filed on January 3, 2022 in Cohen v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., Case No.
`22STCV00201, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
`Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the Civil Case
`4.
`Cover Sheet filed on January 3, 2022 in Cohen v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., Case No.
`22STCV00201, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
`Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the Civil Case
`5.
`Cover Sheet Addendum filed on January 3, 2022 in Cohen v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.,
`Case No. 22STCV00201, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
`Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the Notice of
`6.
`Posting Jury Fees filed on January 4, 2022 in Cohen v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., Case
`No. 22STCV00201, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
`Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of the First
`7.
`Amended Class Action Complaint filed on January 28, 2022 in Cohen v. Peloton
`Interactive, Inc., Case No. 22STCV00201, in the Superior Court of California, County
`of Los Angeles.
`Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of the Alternative
`8.
`Dispute Resolution (ADR) Information Package served on February 1, 2022 in Cohen
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`2
`DECLARATION OF MEGAN COONEY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC.’S
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 1-1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 3 of 145 Page ID #:28
`
`v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., Case No. 22STCV00201, in the Superior Court of
`California, County of Los Angeles.
`Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of the Notice of
`9.
`Service of Process Transmittal, reflecting that Plaintiff effected service of the Summons
`and First Amended Class Action Complaint on Peloton on February 1, 2022.
`10. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of the Proof of
`Service of Summons, reflecting that Plaintiff effected service of the Summons, First
`Amended Class Action Complaint, Civil Case Cover Sheet, Civil Case Cover Sheet
`Addendum, and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Information Package on Peloton
`on February 1, 2022 in Cohen v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., Case No. 22STCV00201, in
`the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, filed on February 7, 2022.
`11. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of the Initial Status
`Conference Order (Complex Litigation Program) issued on February 15, 2022 in Cohen
`v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., Case No. 22STCV00201, in the Superior Court of
`California, County of Los Angeles.
`12. Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of the Minute Court
`Order Re: Complex Determination and Initial Status Conference issued on February 15,
`2022 in Cohen v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., Case No. 22STCV00201, in the Superior
`Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
`13. Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of the Certificate
`of Mailing for Minute Order Re: Complex Determination and Initial Status Conference
`issued on February 15, 2022 in Cohen v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., Case No.
`22STCV00201, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
`14. Attached hereto as Exhibit M is a true and correct as-filed copy of
`Peloton’s Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Class Action Complaint filed and served
`on March 1, 2022 in Cohen v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., Case No. 22STCV00201, in the
`Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Peloton will supplement the
`record with a file-stamped copy when received.
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`3
`DECLARATION OF MEGAN COONEY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC.’S
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 1-1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 4 of 145 Page ID #:29
`
`15. Attached hereto as Exhibit N is a true and correct copy of the Filing
`Confirmation of Peloton’s Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Class Action Complaint
`filed on March 1, 2022 in Cohen v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., Case No. 22STCV00201,
`in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
`In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), Exhibits A through N include “all
`16.
`process, pleadings, and orders” available to Peloton in this action as of the date of this
`filing.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the law of the State of California and the
`United States of America that the forgoing is true and correct and that this declaration
`was executed on March 2, 2022 at Coto de Caza, California.
`
` /s/ Megan Cooney
`Megan Cooney
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`4
`DECLARATION OF MEGAN COONEY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC.’S
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 1-1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 5 of 145 Page ID #:30
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`Exhibit A, Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 1-1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 6 of 145 Page ID #:31
`SUM-100
`
`SUMMONS
`(CITACION JUDICIAL)
`NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
`(AVISO AL DEMANDADO):
`
`YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
`(LO ESTÁ DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
`
`FOR COURT USE ONLY
`(SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORTE)
`
`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 DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy
`served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal 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 more information at the California Courts
`Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law l brary, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask
`the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property
`may be taken without further warning from the court.
` There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney
`referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate
`these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center
`(www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and
`costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
`¡AVISO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 días, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su versión. Lea la información a
`continuación.
` Tiene 30 DÍAS DE CALENDARIO después de que le entreguen esta citación y papeles legales para presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta
`corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefónica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar
`en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta.
`Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y más información en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la
`biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en la corte que le quede más cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentación, pida al secretario de la corte
`que le dé un formulario de exención de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corte le
`podrá quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin más advertencia.
` Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que llame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de
`remisión 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 grupos sin 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 abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobre
`cualquier recuperación de $10,000 ó más de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesión de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que
`pagar el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar el caso.
`
`The name and address of the court is:
`(El nombre y dirección de la corte es):
`
`Los Angeles County Superior Court
`
`CASE NUMBER:
`(Número del Caso):
`
`The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is:
`(El nombre, la dirección y el número de teléfono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es):
`Chris L. Carnakis, Esq.; 19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 300, Newport Beach, CA 92612; (949) 224-3881
`
`January 3, 2022
`
`DATE:
`Clerk, by
`(Fecha)
`(Secretario)
`(For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).)
`(Para prueba de entrega de esta citatión use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)).
`NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served
`1.
`as an individual defendant.
`as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify):
`2.
`
`[SEAL]
`
`, Deputy
`(Adjunto)
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`on behalf of (specify):
`
`under:
`
`CCP 416.10 (corporation)
`CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation)
`CCP 416.40 (association or partnership)
`
`CCP 416.60 (minor)
`CCP 416.70 (conservatee)
`CCP 416.90 (authorized person)
`
`other (specify):
`by personal delivery on (date):
`
`SUMMONS
`
`Page 1 of 1
`
`Code of Civil Procedure §§ 412.20, 465
`www.courtinfo.ca.gov
`
`Form Adopted for Mandatory Use
`Judicial Council of California
`SUM-100 [Rev. July 1, 2009]
`
`Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 01/03/2022 07:31 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by R. Lozano,Deputy Clerk
`
`22STCV00201
`
`Exhibit A, Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 1-1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 7 of 145 Page ID #:32
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`Exhibit B, Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 1-1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 8 of 145 Page ID #:33
`
`
`
`Chris L. Carnakis, Esq. (SBN 219769)
`ccarnakis@bbclawyers.net
`Leah M. Beligan, Esq. (SBN 250834)
`lmbeligan@bbclawyers.net
`BELIGAN & CARNAKIS
`19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 300
`Newport Beach, CA 92612
`Telephone: (949) 224-3881
`Facsimile: (949) 724-4566
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Mark Cohen, as an individual and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`vs.
`
`Peloton Interactive, Inc., a Delaware
`corporation; and Does 1 through 50,
`inclusive,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
`
`CASE NO.:
`COMPLAINT FOR:
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR
`DAMAGES FOR:
`
`(1) FAILURE TO AUTHORIZE OR PERMIT
`MEAL PERIODS, OR TIMELY MEAL
`PERIODS, IN VIOLATION OF CAL.
`Labor CODE §§ 226.7 AND 512;
`(2) FAILURE TO AUTHORIZE OR PERMIT
`REST PERIODS, IN VIOLATION OF
`CAL. Labor CODE § 226.7;
`(3) FAILURE TO PROVIDE COMPLETE
`AND ACCURATE WAGE STATEMENTS
`IN VIOLATION OF CAL. Labor CODE §
`226;
`(4) FAILURE TO PAY ALL OVERTIME AND
`MINIMUM WAGES IN VIOLATION OF
`CAL. Labor CODE §§ 510, 558, AND 1194;
`(5) FAILURE TO PAY ALL WAGES FOR
`ALL TIME WORKED, INCLUDING
`MINIMUM WAGE IN VIOLATION OF
`Labor CODE §§ 204, 218, 1194, 1197 AND
`1198;
`(6) FAILURE TO PAY ALL ACCRUED AND
`VESTED VACATION/PTO WAGES IN
`VIOLATION OF Labor CODE § 227.3;
`(7) FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY
`INDEMNIFY EMPLOYEES FOR
`EMPLOYMENT-RELATED
`
`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
`
`
`1
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 01/03/2022 07:31 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by R. Lozano,Deputy Clerk
`
`Assigned for all purposes to: Spring Street Courthouse, Judicial Officer:
`
`22STCV00201
`
`Exhibit B, Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 1-1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 9 of 145 Page ID #:34
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`LOSSES/EXPENDITURES IN
`VIOLATION OF Labor CODE § 2802;
`(8) FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY ALL
`EARNED WAGES AND FINAL
`PAYCHECKS DUE AT THE TIME OF
`SEPARATION OF EMPLOYMENT IN
`VIOLATION OF Labor CODE §§ 201, 202,
`AND 203; AND
`(9) UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES, IN
`VIOLATION OF VIOLATION OF CAL.
`BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200, ET SEQ.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`DEMAND OVER $25,000.00
`
`2
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Exhibit B, Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 1-1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 10 of 145 Page ID #:35
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Mark Cohen hereby submits this Class Action Complaint (Complaint) against
`Defendant Peloton Interactive, Inc. (Peloton) and Does 1 through 50 (hereinafter collectively
`referred to as Defendants) as an individual and on behalf of a class of all other similarly situated
`current and former employees of Defendants for penalties and/or damages for violations of the
`California Labor Code, including without limitation, failure to provide employees with accurate
`itemized wage statements and premium pay for missed meal-and-rest periods, failure to pay
`regular, overtime, and double-time wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay all
`vested vacation, failure to include all remuneration when calculating the overtime rate of pay,
`failure to reimburse employees for business expenses, failure to timely pay all earned wages and
`final paychecks due at time of separation of employment, and for restitution as follows:
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`Plaintiff brings this class action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 382 against
`Defendants for, among other things: (a) nonpayment of wages for all hours worked (including
`minimum wages); (b) nonpayment of overtime wages; (c) nonprovision of meal-and-rest breaks;
`(d) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (e) failure to pay all accrued and vested
`vacation/PTO wages; (f) failure to include all remuneration when calculating the overtime rate of
`pay; (g) failure to adequately indemnify employees for employment-related losses/expenditures,
`and (g) for failure to pay all wages due upon termination of employment.
`2.
`This class action is within the Court’s jurisdiction under California Labor Code
`§§ 201-203, 204, 218, 226, 226.7, 227.3, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2698, et. seq.,
`2802, the applicable Wage Orders of the California Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”),
`California’s Unfair Competition Law (the “UCL”), and Business and Professions Code § 17200,
`et seq.
`
`3.
`This Complaint challenges systemic illegal employment practices resulting in
`violations of the California Labor Code and the UCL against individuals who worked for
`Defendants.
`4.
`Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that for the four
`years prior to the filing of this Complaint to the present, Defendants, jointly and severally, have
`
`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
`
`
`3
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Exhibit B, Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 1-1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 11 of 145 Page ID #:36
`
`
`
`acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights of all
`employees by Defendants’ failure to pay premium pay for missed meal and rest periods, failure
`to pay minimum wages, regular wages, overtime and double-time wages, failure to pay all
`accrued and vested vacation, failure to include all remuneration when calculating the overtime
`rate of pay, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
`statements, and failure to timely pay all earned wages and final paychecks due at the time of
`separation of employment.
`5.
`Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants
`have engaged in, among other things a system of willful violations of the California Labor Code,
`applicable IWC Wage Orders and the UCL by creating and maintaining policies, practices and
`customs that knowingly deny employees the above-stated rights and benefits.
`6.
`The policies, practices and customs of defendants described Above and below
`have resulted in unjust enrichment of Defendants and an unfair business advantage over
`businesses that routinely adhere to the strictures of the California Labor Code and the UCL.
`7.
`In addition, pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), Plaintiff has
`given Notice to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) of the
`alleged Labor Code violations contained in the Complaint. At the appropriate time, absent action
`by the LWDA or the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), Plaintiff will
`file an amended Complaint seeking all recoverable penalties for Labor Code violations as
`permitted and proscribed by the PAGA. An amended Complaint will include allegations and
`remedies available under Labor Code §§ 2699, 2699.5, and 2933.3, among others. See Cal.
`Labor Code § 2933.3(a)(2)(C) (“Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, a plaintiff may as
`a matter of right amend an existing complaint to add a cause of action arising under this part
`within 60 days of the time periods specified in this part.”). A true and correct copy of the PAGA
`Notice and proof of mailing is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated herein by this
`reference.
`///
`///
`
`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
`
`
`4
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Exhibit B, Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 1-1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 12 of 145 Page ID #:37
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`8.
`The Court has jurisdiction over the violations of California Labor Code §§ 201-
`203, 204, 218, 226, 226.7, 227.3, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2698, et. seq., 2802,
`and the UCL.
`9.
`this County.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court because Plaintiff performed work for Defendants in
`
`PARTIES
`10.
`Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an hourly non-exempt sales associate
`from in or around November 25, 2016 through on or around December 14, 2021. Plaintiff was
`subjected to illegal employment practices. Specifically, Plaintiff was not paid minimum and
`overtime wages for all hours worked. Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were not paid for
`this time. Therefore, Defendants suffered, permitted, and required its hourly employees to be
`subject to Defendants’ control without paying wages for that time, including overtime wages for
`any hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day and/or 40 hours per workweek. This resulted in
`Plaintiff and similarly situated employees working time for which they were not compensated
`any wages, in violation of California Labor Code §§ 1194, 1197, 1198 and the Wage Orders.
`Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were also not paid all of their minimum wages based
`on working through their meal periods and not being counted as hours worked. Plaintiff and
`similarly situated employees were also not paid overtime based on the correct regular rate of pay
`because Defendants failed to include all non-discretionary remuneration into the regular rate. In
`particular, Plaintiff and similarly situated employees received additional remuneration, including
`non-discretionary commissions and bonuses during pay periods in which they had worked over
`eight hours in a day or over forty hours in a week. Defendants failed to account for the additional
`remuneration when calculating Plaintiff’s and similarly situated employees’ overtime rate of pay.
`This policy, practice, and/or procedure resulted in Defendants paying its hourly non-exempt
`employees less overtime than they should have received. Plaintiff and similarly situated
`employees also were not receiving all of their overtime wages due to them when working
`through their meal breaks and not being counted as hours worked. Defendants’ policies and
`
`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
`
`
`5
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Exhibit B, Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 1-1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 13 of 145 Page ID #:38
`
`
`
`procedures were applied to all hourly non-exempt employees in California and resulted in hourly
`non-exempt employees not receiving all overtime wages due to them in violation of Labor Code
`§§ 510, 1194, and the Wage Orders. Defendant had no written meal-and-rest policy. Plaintiff and
`similarly situated employees were neither provided with off-duty, 30-minute meal periods for
`shifts longer than 5 hours and/or 10-minute off-duty rest periods for every 4 hours worked, or
`major fraction thereof in violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512. And, Defendants did not pay
`Plaintiff and similarly situated employees a premium payment for nonprovisional meal-and-rest
`periods and also failed to include all non-discretionary remuneration in the calculation of the
`regular rate. Plaintiff and similarly situated employees also were required to incur business
`expenses as part of their work duties, including without limitation, driving their vehicles and
`using his personal cellular phones for work-related purposes. Plaintiff and similarly situated
`employees accumulated mileage and other driving costs on their own personal vehicles, and they
`also were required to pay their monthly cell phone costs, which Defendants routinely utilized to
`contact Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to implement their schedules and/or direct their
`daily work activities in violation of Labor Code § 2802. Defendants also had a policy and/or
`procedure whereby Plaintiff and similarly situated employees would accrue paid vacation time
`and/or personal time off (PTO) based on how long they worked for Defendants. However, as
`Plaintiff and similarity situated employees continued to work for Defendants, Defendants failed
`to accrue to them the vacation/PTO wages they were due and owing in conformity with
`Defendants’ policies and/or procedures. Plaintiff and similarly situated employees had no
`indication of how much of their PTO/vacation wages were used or accumulated. PTO/vacation
`wages are deferred wages that vest once accrued. An employer must pay its employees all
`unused vested vacation/PTO at the time of termination at the employees’ final rate of pay. See
`Cal. Labor Code § 227.3. Moreover, Defendants terminated Plaintiff and other similarly situated
`employees without paying them the vacation/PTO wages they did accrue, in violation of
`California law, and employed policies and procedures which ensured Plaintiff and those
`similarly situated would not receive their accrued and vested vacation/PTO wages upon
`termination. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff is also entitled to penalties for inaccurate wage
`
`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
`
`
`6
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Exhibit B, Page 13
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 1-1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 14 of 145 Page ID #:39
`
`
`
`statements and waiting-time penalties pursuant to Labor Code §§ 201-203 and 226.
`11.
`Plaintiff is a resident of Los Angeles California. At all relevant times herein, he
`was employed by Defendants from approximately November 25, 2021 to approximately
`December 14, 2021 as a sales associate in Los Angeles, California. Throughout his employment
`with Peloton and/or Does, Plaintiff was employed in a non-exempt capacity as an hourly sales
`associate.
`12.
`On information and believe, all other members of the proposed Class experienced
`Defendants’ common company policies of failing to pay all straight time and overtime wages
`owed, providing no rest periods for shifts of at least 3.5 hours, or a second rest period for shifts
`of more than six hours, or a third rest period for shifts in excess of ten hours, and no meal periods
`to employees working at least five consecutive hours or any additional meal periods for working
`in excess of 10 consecutive hours, or compensation in lieu thereof. On information and belief,
`Defendants and/or Does willfully failed to pay their employees and members of the Class in a
`timely manner, the rest-and-meal period compensation owing to them upon termination of their
`employment with Peloton and/or Does. Further, on information and belief, Defendants and/or
`Does willfully failed to provide accurate wage statements—including statements that reflected
`all remuneration earned by Plaintiffs and similarly-situated employees; willfully failed to render
`payment for vested vacation and/or PTO time on termination; willfully failed to properly
`remunerate Plaintiffs or similarly-situated employees of Defendants for all wages earned at a
`regular rate; willfully failed to indemnify Plaintiffs and similarly-situated employees for
`employment-related losses and expenditures; and failed, on termination of Plaintiffs and
`similarly-situated employees, to timely pay Plaintiffs and similarly-situated employees for all
`remuneration earned, vested vacation and/or PTO hours, and indemnification for employment-
`related losses and expenditures.
`13.
`Peloton is a national exercise equipment and media company with numerous
`locations in the State of California. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe, and based thereon
`allege, that at all times herein mentioned, Peloton and Does 1 through 50, are and were business
`entities, individuals, and partnerships, licensed to do business and actually doing business in the
`
`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
`
`
`7
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Exhibit B, Page 14
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 1-1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 15 of 145 Page ID #:40
`
`
`
`State of California. As such and based upon all the facts and circumstances incident to
`Defendants’ business, Defendants are subject to California Labor Code §§ 201-203, 226, 226.7,
`227.3, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2698, et. seq., 2802, and the UCL.
`14.
`Plaintiffs do not know the true names or capacities, whether individual, partner or
`corporate, of the defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 50, inclusive, and for that reason, said
`defendants are sued under such fictitious names, and Plaintiffs pray for leave to amend this
`Complaint when the true names and capacities are known. Plaintiffs are informed and believe
`and based thereon allege that each of said fictitious defendants was responsible in some way for
`the matters alleged herein and proximately caused Plaintiffs and members of the general public
`and class to be subject to the illegal employment practices, wrongs and injuries complained of
`herein.
`
`15.
`At all times herein mentioned, each of said Defendants participated in the doing
`of the acts hereinafter alleged to have been done by the named Defendants; and furthermore, the
`Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants and employees of each of the other
`Defendants, as well as the agents of all Defendants, and at all times herein mentioned, were
`acting within the course and scope of said agency and employment.
`16.
`Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that at all times
`material hereto, each of the Defendants named herein was the agent, employee, alter ego and/or
`joint venturer of, or working in concert with each of the other co-Defendants and was acting
`within the course and scope of such agency, employment, joint venture, or concerted activity. To
`the extent said acts, conduct, and omissions were perpetrated by certain Defendants, each of the
`remaining Defendants confirmed and ratified said acts, conduct, and omissions of the acting
`Defendants.
`17.
`At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, were members of,
`and engaged in, a joint venture, partnership and common enterprise, and acting within the course
`and scope of, and in pursuance of, said joint venture, partnership and common enterprise.
`18.
`At all times herein mentioned, the acts and omissions of various Defendants, and
`each of them, concurred and contributed to the various acts and omissions of each and all of the
`
`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
`
`
`8
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Exhibit B, Page 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 1-1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 16 of 145 Page ID #:41
`
`
`
`other Defendants in proximately causing the injuries and damages as herein alleged. At all times
`herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, ratified each and every act or omission
`complained of herein. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, aided and
`Pelotonetted the acts and omissions of each and all of the other Defendants in proximately
`causing the damages as herein alleged.
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`Definition: The named individual Plaintiff seeks class certification, pursuant to
`19.
`California Code of Civil Procedure § 382. Plaintiff proposes as the class definition: all current
`and former non-exempt employees who worked for Defendants in California at any time from at
`least four years prior to filing this action and through the present (the Class). Plaintiff further
`proposes the following classes and subclass:
`a.
`All current and former California non-exempt employees of Peloton who
`received one or more itemized wage statements at any time between four years prior to
`f