Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 37 Filed 07/27/22 Page 1 of 42 Page ID #:794
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Mark Cohen, as an individual and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`Peloton Interactive, Inc., a Delaware
`corporation; and Does 1 through 50,
`inclusive,
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-01425-MWF-E
`
`SECOND AMENDED 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
`LOSSES/EXPENDITURES IN
`VIOLATION OF Labor CODE § 2802;
`
`(8) FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY ALL
`
`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
`
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 37 Filed 07/27/22 Page 2 of 42 Page ID #:795
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`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.
`
`(10) VIOLATION OF PRIVATE ATTORNEYS
`GENERAL ACT (Cal. Lab. Code § 2698, et
`seq.)
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`DEMAND OVER $25,000.00
`
`2
`
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 37 Filed 07/27/22 Page 3 of 42 Page ID #:796
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Plaintiff is 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 acted
`
`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
`
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 37 Filed 07/27/22 Page 4 of 42 Page ID #:797
`
`
`
`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.
`
`///
`
`///
`
`4
`
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`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 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 37 Filed 07/27/22 Page 5 of 42 Page ID #:798
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court because Plaintiff performed work for Defendants in
`
`this County.
`
`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
`
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 37 Filed 07/27/22 Page 6 of 42 Page ID #:799
`
`
`
`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
`
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 37 Filed 07/27/22 Page 7 of 42 Page ID #:800
`
`
`
`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, 2016 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 Plaintiff and similarly-situated employees; willfully failed to render
`
`payment for vested vacation and/or PTO time on termination; willfully failed to properly
`
`remunerate Plaintiff or similarly-situated employees of Defendants for all wages earned at a
`
`regular rate; willfully failed to indemnify Plaintiff and similarly-situated employees for
`
`employment-related losses and expenditures; and failed, on termination of Plaintiff and
`
`similarly-situated employees, to timely pay Plaintiff 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. Plaintiff is 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
`
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 37 Filed 07/27/22 Page 8 of 42 Page ID #:801
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Plaintiff does 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 Plaintiff prays for leave to amend this
`
`Complaint when the true names and capacities are known. Plaintiff is informed and believes and
`
`based thereon allege that each of said fictitious defendants was responsible in some way for the
`
`matters alleged herein and proximately caused Plaintiff 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.
`
`Plaintiff is informed and believes, 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
`
`other Defendants in proximately causing the injuries and damages as herein alleged. At all times
`
`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
`
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 37 Filed 07/27/22 Page 9 of 42 Page ID #:802
`
`
`
`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
`
`19.
`
`Definition: The named individual Plaintiff seeks class certification, pursuant to
`
`California Code of Civil Procedure § 382. Plaintiff proposes as the class definition: all current
`
`and former hourly, 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 hourly, non-exempt employees of
`
`Peloton who received one or more itemized wage statements at any time between
`
`November 18, 2020 through the present (the Wage Statement Class);
`
`b.
`
`All current and former California hourly, non-exempt employees of
`
`Peloton who worked 3.5 hours or more in one shift at any time between November 18,
`
`2020 and through the present (the Rest Break Class);
`
`c.
`
`All current and former California hourly, non-exempt employees of
`
`Peloton who worked more than 5 hours in one shift at any time between November 18,
`
`2020 and through the present (the Meal Break Class);
`
`d.
`
`All current and former California hourly, non-exempt employees of
`
`Peloton who worked more than 8 hours a day in a workday or 40 hours in a workweek at
`
`any time between November 18, 2020 and through the present (the Overtime Class);
`
`e.
`
` All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees employed by
`
`Peloton in California at any time between November 18, 2020 and through the present
`
`and who were not paid an hourly wage at their regular rate of pay, including minimum
`
`wages, for all time they were subject to Peloton’s control (the Unpaid Wage Class);
`
`f.
`
`All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees employed by
`
`Peloton in California at any time between November 18, 2020 and through the present
`
`9
`
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`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 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 37 Filed 07/27/22 Page 10 of 42 Page ID #:803
`
`
`
`and who earned additional remuneration during pay periods the employees worked in
`
`excess of eight hours in a workday or 40 hours in a workweek (the Regular Rate Class);
`
`g.
`
`All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees employed by
`
`Peloton in California at any time between November 18, 2020 and through the present
`
`and who did not receive indemnification to reimburse them for the necessary
`
`expenditures incurred in the discharge of their duty, including their driving costs, such as
`
`mileage reimbursement for distance traveled and any tolls paid for driving their personal
`
`vehicle, and their monthly cell phone expenses (the Indemnification Class);
`
`h.
`
`All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees employed by
`
`Peloton in California at any time between November 18, 2020 through the present and
`
`who did not properly accrue vacation/personal time off and/or accrued vacation
`
`time/personal time off and were not paid by Peloton for all wages due for vested vacation
`
`time/personal time off upon separation of employment (the Vacation Wages Class); and
`
`i.
`
`All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees employed by
`
`Peloton in California at any time between November 18, 2020 and through the present
`
`and who were not timely paid all earned wages and final paychecks due at time of
`
`separation of employment from Peloton (the Waiting Time Class).
`
`20.
`
`Numerosity: The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all
`
`members would be impractical, if not impossible. The identity of the members of the Class is
`
`readily ascertain Peloton by review of Defendants’ records, including payroll records. Plaintiff is
`
`informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants: (a) failed to provide accurate
`
`itemized wage statements in violation of Labor Code § 226; (b) failed to provide off-duty meal
`
`periods in violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512; (c) failed to provide off-duty rest periods in
`
`violation of Labor Code § 226.7; (d) failed to pay all applicable overtime and double-time wages
`
`for all hours worked, including based on the correct, higher regular rate of pay when taking into
`
`account all non-discretionary remuneration in violation of Labor Code §§ 204, 218, 510, 558,
`
`1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198; (e) failed to pay all wages, including minimum wages for all
`
`hours worked in violation of Labor Code §§ 204, 218, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198; (f) failed to
`
`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
`
`
`
`10
`
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 37 Filed 07/27/22 Page 11 of 42 Page ID #:804
`
`
`
`pay all accrued and vested vacation or PTO wages in violation of Labor Code § 227.3; (g) failed
`
`to reimburse all business expenses in violation of Labor Code § 2802; (h) failed to pay all earned
`
`wages and final paychecks due at the time Plaintiff and the members of the Class’ separation of
`
`employment in violation of Labor Code §§ 201, 202, and 203; and (i) engaged in unfair business
`
`practices in violation of the California Labor Code, the applicable IWC Wage Orders and the
`
`UCL under California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et. seq.
`
`21.
`
`Adequacy of Representation: The named Plaintiff is fully prepared to take all
`
`necessary steps to represent fairly and adequately the interests of the class defined Above.
`
`Plaintiff’s attorneys are ready, willing and able to fully and adequately represent the Class and
`
`the individual Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s attorneys have prosecuted and settled wage-and-hour class
`
`actions in the past and currently have a number of wage-and-hour class actions pending in
`
`California state and federal courts.
`
`22.
`
`Defendants uniformly administered a corporate policy, practice of: (a) failing to
`
`provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of Labor Code § 226; (b) failing to
`
`provide off-duty meal periods in violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512; (c) failing to provide
`
`off-duty rest periods in violation of Labor Code § 226.7; (d) failing to pay all applicable
`
`overtime and double-time wages for all hours worked, including based on the correct, higher
`
`regular rate of pay when taking into account all non-discretionary remuneration in violation of
`
`Labor Code §§ 510, 558, and 1194; (e) failing to pay all wages, including minimum wages for all
`
`hours worked in violation of Labor Code §§ 204, 218, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198; (f) failing
`
`to pay all accrued and vested vacation or PTO wages in violation of Labor Code § 227.3; (g)
`
`failing to reimburse all business expenses in violation of Labor Code § 2802; (h) failing to timely
`
`pay all earned wages and final paychecks due at the time of Plaintiff’s and Class Members’
`
`separation of employment in violation of Labor Code §§ 201, 202, and - 203; and (i) engaging in
`
`unfair business practices in violation of the California Labor Code, the applicable IWC Wage
`
`Orders and the UCL. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that this
`
`corporate conduct is accomplished with the advanced knowledge, intent and willfulness of the
`
`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
`
`
`
`11
`
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 37 Filed 07/27/22 Page 12 of 42 Page ID #:805
`
`
`
`23.
`
`Common Question of Law and Fact: There are predominant common questions
`
`of law and fact and a community of interest amongst Plaintiff and the claims of the Class
`
`concerning Defendants’ policy and practice of: (a) failing to provide accurate itemized wage
`
`statements in violation of Labor Code § 226; (b) failing to provide off-duty meal periods in
`
`violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512; (c) failing to provide off-duty rest periods in violation
`
`of Labor Code § 226.7; (d) failing to pay all applicable overtime and double-time wages for all
`
`hours worked, including based on the correct, higher regular rate of pay when taking into
`
`account all non-discretionary remuneration in violation of Labor Code §§ 510, 558, and 1194; (e)
`
`failing to pay all wages, including minimum wages for all hours worked in violation of Labor
`
`Code §§ 204, 218, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198; (f) failing to pay all accrued and vested
`
`vacation or PTO wages in violation of Labor Code § 227.3; (g) failing to reimburse all business
`
`expenses in violation of Labor Code § 2802; (h) failing 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 (i) engaging in unfair business practices in violation of the California Labor Code,
`
`the applicable IWC Wage Orders and the UCL California Business & Professions Code §§
`
`17200 et. seq.
`
`24.
`
`Typicality: The claims of Plaintiff is typical of the claims of all members of the
`
`Class in that Plaintiff suffered the harm alleged in this Complaint in a similar and typical manner
`
`as the Class Members. As alleged in preceding paragraphs, the named Plaintiff was subjected to
`
`the illegal employment practices asserted herein. Therefore, Plaintiff was and is the victim of the
`
`policies, practices, and customs of Defendants complained of in this action in ways that have
`
`deprived them of the rights guaranteed by California Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 218,
`
`226, 226.7, 227.3, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2802, and the UCL.
`
`25.
`
`The California Labor Code sections upon which Plaintiff bases these claims are
`
`broadly remedial in nature. These laws and Labor standards serve an important public interest in
`
`establishing minimum working conditions and standards in California. These laws and Labor
`
`standards protect the average working employee from exploitation by employers who may seek
`
`to take advantage of superior economic and bargaining power in setting onerous terms 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
`
`
`
`12
`
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 37 Filed 07/27/22 Page 13 of 42 Page ID #:806
`
`
`
`conditions of employment.
`
`26.
`
`The nature of this action and the format of laws available to Plaintiff and
`
`members of the Class identified herein make the class action format a particularly efficient and
`
`appropriate procedure to redress the wrongs alleged herein. If each employee was required to file
`
`an individual lawsuit, the corporate Defendants would necessarily gain an unconscionable
`
`advantage since it would be able to exploit and overwhelm the limited resources of each
`
`individual Plaintiff with their vastly superior financial and legal resources. Requiring each Class
`
`Member to pursue an individual remedy would also discourage the assertion of lawful claims by
`
`employees who would be disinclined to file an action against their former and/or current
`
`employer for real and justifiable fear of retaliation and permanent damage to their careers at
`
`subsequent employment.
`
`27.
`
`The prosecution of separate actions by the individual Class Members, even if
`
`possible, would create a substantial risk of (a) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect
`
`to individual Class Members against the Defendants and which would establish potentially
`
`incompatible standards of conduct for the Defendants, and/or (b) adjudications with respect to
`
`individual Class Members which would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interest of the
`
`other Class Members not parties to the adjudications or which would substantially impair or
`
`impede the ability of the Class Members to protect their interests. Further, the claims of the
`
`individual members of the Class are not sufficiently large to warrant vigorous individual
`
`prosecution considering all of the concomitant costs and expenses.
`
`28.
`
`Such a pattern, practice and uniform administration of corporate policy regarding
`
`illegal employee compensation described herein is unlawful and creates an entitlement to
`
`recovery by Plaintiff and the Class identified herein, in a civil action, for unpaid wages,
`
`including minimum wages, overtime wages, overtime wages at the proper overtime rate of pay,
`
`unpaid vacation/PTO, unreimbursed business expenses, meal and rest period premium pay,
`
`applicable penalties, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit according to the mandate of
`
`California Labor Code §§ 226, 558, 1194, 2698, et seq., 2802 and Code of Civil Procedure §
`
`1021.5.
`
`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
`
`
`
`13
`
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01425-MWF-E Document 37 Filed 07/27/22 Page 14 of 42 Page ID #:807
`
`
`
`29.
`
`Proof of a common business practice or factual pattern, which the named Plaintiff
`
`experienced and are representative of, will establish the right of each of the members of the Class
`
`to recovery on the causes of action alleged herein.
`
`30.
`
`The Class is commonly entitled to a specific fund with respect to the
`
`compensation illegally and unfairly retained by Defendants. The Class is commonly entitled to
`
`restitution