Case 2:22-cv-02048 Document 1-1 Filed 03/28/22 Page 1 of 25 Page ID #:16
`Case 2:22-cv-02048 Document1-1 Filed 03/28/22 Page 1of25 Page ID #:16
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`
`
` 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REUBEN D. NATHAN (SBN 208436)
`NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
`2901 W. Coast Highway, Suite 200
`Newport Beach, CA 92663
`Tel. No.: (949) 270-2798
`Fax No.: (949) 209-0303
`rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff, CHRISTOPHER LURES and the Proposed Class
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
`
`
`CASE NO.:
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1. FAILURE TO REIMBURSE BUSINESS
`EXPENSES AND LOSSES
`2. IMPROPER MEAL PERIODS
`3. IMPROPER REST PERIODS
`4. FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE
`WAGE STATEMENTS
`5. WAGES NOT PAID UPON SEPARATION
`6. VIOLATIONS OF THE UNFAIR
`BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`CHRISTOPHER LURES, on behalf of himself
`and all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANTHEM, INC.; AIM SPECIALTY HEALTH;
`ANTHEM BLUE CROSS LIFE AND
`HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY; BLUE
`CROSS OF CALIFORNIA and DOES 1–50,
`inclusive,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 01/31/2022 06:12 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by K. Martinez, Deputy Clerk
`
`Assigned for all purposes to: Spring Street Courthouse, Judicial Officer: William Highberger
`
`22STCV03938
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02048 Document 1-1 Filed 03/28/22 Page 3 of 25 Page ID #:18
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`Plaintiff Christopher Lures (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “Mr. Lures”), individually and
`on behalf of all others similarly situated, brings this civil class action against 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
`
`ANTHEM, INC., AIM SPECIALTY HEALTH, ANTHEM BLUE CROSS LIFE AND HEALTH
`INSURANCE COMPANY, BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA and DOES 1–50 (collectively
`referred to as “ANTHEM” or “Defendants”), demanding trial by jury, complaining on information
`and belief as follows.
`2.
`This putative class action is brought by Plaintiff, against Defendants, and each of
`them for damages sustained by Plaintiff, CHRISTOPHER LURES based on Defendants’ wrongful
`actions and include the following causes of action: (1) Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses and
`
`Losses; (2) Improper Meal Periods; (3) Improper Rest Periods; (4) Failure to Provide Accurate
`Wage Statements; (5) Wages Not Paid Upon Separation; and (6) Unfair Business Practices.
`3.
`Plaintiff petitions this Court to allow him to represent and prosecute claims against
`Defendants in a class action proceeding on behalf of all those similarly situated non-exempt
`employees (hereinafter referred to as “Class Members”), who are residents of the state of
`California.
`
`THE PARTIES
`At all material times, Mr. Lures was a resident of the city of Glendale in the State of
`
`4.
`California and was employed by ANTHEM at a location in Los Angeles County, California.
`Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated as a class action.
`They reserve the right to name additional representatives.
`5.
`Defendant, ANTHEM, INC., is an Indiana corporation, with its principal place of
`business located in Indianapolis, Indiana; Defendant, AIM SPECIALTY HEALTH, is an Illinois
`corporation, with its principal place of business located in Chicago, Illinois; Defendant, ANTHEM
`BLUE CROSS LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY, is a California corporation, with
`
`its principal place of business located in Woodland Hills, California; Defendant, BLUE CROSS OF
`CALIFORNIA, is a California corporation with its principal place of business located in Woodland
`Hills, California and DOES 1–50, inclusive (hereinafter “ANTHEM” or “Defendants”).
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02048 Document 1-1 Filed 03/28/22 Page 4 of 25 Page ID #:19
`
`
`
`
`6.
`At all material times, ANTHEM conducted business in the county of Los Angeles
`and on information and belief in all other counties in the State of California.
`7.
`The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, partnership, associate,
`or otherwise of defendants DOES 1–50, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff who sues these
`defendants by such fictitious names. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 474.) Plaintiff will either seek leave to
`amend this Class Action Complaint or file a DOE statement to allege the true names and capacities
`of DOES 1–50, inclusive, when the same are ascertained.
`8.
`Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants are
`responsible in some manner for one or more of the events and happenings that proximately caused
`the injuries and damages hereinafter alleged.
`9.
`Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of Defendants
`knowingly and willfully acted in concert, conspired together, and agreed among themselves to enter
`into a combination and systemized campaign of activity to cause the injuries and damages
`hereinafter alleged, and to otherwise consciously and or recklessly act in derogation of Plaintiff’s
`rights, and the trust reposed by Plaintiff in each of said Defendants, said acts being negligently and
`or intentionally inflicted. Said conspiracy, and Defendants’ concerted actions, were such that, to
`Plaintiff’s information and belief, and to all appearances, Defendants represented a unified body so
`that the actions of one defendant was accomplished in concert with, and with knowledge,
`ratification, authorization, and approval of each and every other defendant.
`10.
`Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each defendant in this
`Complaint, is, and at all times mentioned was, the agent, servant, alter ego, and or employee of each
`of the other defendants, and each defendant acted within the course or scope of his, her, or its
`authority as the agent, servant, and or employee of each other defendant. Consequently, each and
`every defendant is jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff and Class Members for the damages
`incurred as a proximate result of each defendant’s conduct.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`11.
`This Court has jurisdiction over this action under the California Constitution,
`Article VI, section 10, which grants the Superior Court, “Original Jurisdiction in all causes except
`
`
`
` 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
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02048 Document 1-1 Filed 03/28/22 Page 5 of 25 Page ID #:20
`
`
`
`those given by statute to other courts.” The statutes under which Plaintiff bring this action do not
`specify any other basis for jurisdiction.
`12.
`This Court has jurisdiction over all defendants because upon information and belief,
`each is either a citizen of California, has sufficient minimum contacts in California, or otherwise
`intentionally avails itself to the California market so as to render the exercise of jurisdiction over it
`by the California courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
`13.
`Venue as to each defendant is proper in this judicial district under California Code
`of Civil Procedure sections 395(a) and 395.5 as a portion of the acts complained of herein occurred
`in the County of Los Angeles. Either Defendants own, maintain offices, transact business, have an
`agent or agents within the county of Los Angeles, or otherwise are found within the County of Los
`
`Angeles. Defendants employed Plaintiff and class members in the County of Los Angeles and
`throughout the state of California.
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`14.
`ANTHEM employed Plaintiff as a non-exempt employee from October 2019
`through June 2021.
`15.
`Mr. Lures held the position of “Referral Specialist” during his employment with
`ANTHEM. At all times during his employment with ANTHEM, Mr. Lures has lived and worked in
`the State of California.
`16.
`At all relevant times, ANTHEM required Mr. Lures to work from his home,
`requiring his work location to be in the home he lives in. ANTHEM has required and continues to
`require the same from its current and former similarly situated employees.
`17.
`Mr. Lures and Class Members incurred expenses related to computers, desk, chair,
`and other items related to the specific workspace to perform work for ANTHEM, reimbursement
`for mortgage, rent, property taxes, homeowner insurance, (underpaid) internet, telephone/cell phone
`expenses, utilities such as electricity, water, gas, and trash collection services, and stationery, while
`
`discharging duties under their employment with ANTHEM. ANTHEM has not reimbursed Mr.
`Lures and Class Members for all expenses incurred while discharging their duties for ANTHEM.
`
`
`
` 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
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02048 Document 1-1 Filed 03/28/22 Page 6 of 25 Page ID #:21
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 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
`
`18.
`ANTHEM has only reimbursed Mr. Lures and Class Members $60.00 per month
`for internet expenses.
`19.
`Even though ANTHEM has required and continues to require Mr. Lures and Class
`Members to provide a home office, from which all, work must be completed, ANTHEM has a
`policy and practice of not reimbursing these employees for the expenses incurred in providing and
`maintaining the home office ANTHEM requires.
`20.
`Even though Mr. Lures and Class Members have incurred necessary business
`expenses in providing and maintaining their home office, ANTHEM only reimbursed him or
`similarly situated non-exempt employees $60.00 per month for internet expenses.
`21.
`These necessary business expenses incurred by Mr. Lures and Class Members
`include such things as computers, desk, chair, and other items related to the specific workspace to
`perform work for ANTHEM, reimbursement for mortgage, rent, property taxes, homeowner
`insurance, (underpaid) internet, telephone/cell phone expenses, utilities such as electricity, water,
`gas, and trash collection services, and stationery.
`22.
`ANTHEM has had and continues to have a policy and practice of not reimbursing
`Mr. Lures and Class Members for all incurred business expenses while discharging their duties for
`ANTHEM.
`23.
`Members were incurring necessary business expenses to benefit ANTHEM’S business enterprise.
`24.
`ANTHEM, at all material times, has had, and continues to have, a policy and
`practice of not reimbursing Plaintiff, and Class Members located throughout the State of California
`for the expenses incurred as stated hereinabove.
`25.
` On information and belief, Plaintiff asserts that ANTHEM maintains a policy of
`not reimbursing non-exempt employees who work from home and subject those employees to a
`similar practice of reimbursement violations.
`26.
`Upon information and belief, during the relevant time frame, Defendants
`maintained and enforced an aggressive set of demands for Plaintiff and Class Members, thereby
`requiring Plaintiff and Class Members to miss, interrupt or shorten their lawful meal periods of
`
`At all times, ANTHEM knew or should have known that Plaintiff and Class
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02048 Document 1-1 Filed 03/28/22 Page 7 of 25 Page ID #:22
`
`
`
`thirty (30) uninterrupted minutes while being relieved of all duty. Plaintiff and Class Members
`were forced to work in excess of five (5) hours per day on a regular basis without being provided a
`daily thirty (30) minute restrictive-free meal period. During all relevant periods, Defendants
`
`illegally and unlawfully required Plaintiff and class members to work through meal periods. Wage
`orders required that Plaintiff and Class Members be compensated for the meal periods for which
`Defendants required Plaintiff and the Class Members to work. Defendants failed to compensate
`Plaintiff and Class Members for these meal periods worked on any given day or during any given
`workweek.
`27.
`Upon information and belief, during the relevant time frame, Plaintiff and Class
`Members did not receive compliant meal periods and were shortened, interrupted, or missed.
`28.
`the above-mentioned meal period violations, Defendants never
`Despite
`compensated Plaintiff, and on information and belief, never compensated Class Members an
`additional hour of pay at their regular rate as required by California law when meal periods were
`not provided.
`29.
`Upon information and belief, during the relevant time frame, Defendants
`maintained and enforced a schedule and policies that due to business demands often required
`Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees to interrupt, shorten (constitutes a missed rest
`break) or forego their lawful rest periods of ten (10) minutes for every four (4) hours worked or
`
`major fraction thereof. During all relevant periods, Defendants illegally and unlawfully required
`Plaintiff and Class Members to work through rest periods. Wage orders required that Plaintiff and
`the Class Members be compensated for the rest periods for which Defendants required Plaintiff and
`the class members to work. Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and Class Members for these
`rest periods worked on any given day or in any given workweek.
`30.
`Despite the above-mentioned rest period violations, Defendants never compensated
`Plaintiff, and on information and belief, never compensated Class Members one additional hour of
`
`pay at their regular rate as required by California law for each day on which rest periods were not
`authorized or permitted.
`31.
`Defendants failed to pay when due and on time, Plaintiff and Class Members
`
`
`
` 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
`
`
`

`

`
`
` 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-02048 Document 1-1 Filed 03/28/22 Page 8 of 25 Page ID #:23
`
`
`
`reimbursement for business expenses, failed to provide all authorized meal and rest periods owed to
`Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees, and failed to pay one (1) hour wages in lieu of
`Defendants’ failure to provide a meal and rest period, including at such time when employee quit or
`
`was discharged. More specifically, Defendants failed to account for premium payments due for
`missed meal and rest breaks in producing wage statements, therefore those wage statements issued
`to Plaintiff and Class Members are deemed inaccurate and false. Defendants have made it difficult
`to account with precision for the unlawfully withheld wages owed to Plaintiff and Class Members
`without an examination of all records during the liability period and failed to implement and on
`information and belief failed to preserve a lawful record-keeping method to record all non-provided
`meal and rest breaks owed to employees, as required for non-exempt employees by California
`
`Labor Code section 226 and applicable California Wage Orders.
`32.
`Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein
`mentioned, Defendants knew that they had a duty to accurately compensate Plaintiff and Class
`Members for reimbursement of business expenses, meal and rest period premiums, and all wages
`due upon separation and that Defendants had the financial ability to pay such compensation, but
`willfully, knowingly, recklessly, and/or intentionally failed to do so.
`33.
`Such actions and policies, as described above and further herein, were and continue
`to be in violation of the California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq. (predicate
`
`statutes, Cal. Labor Code) and California Labor Code.
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`34.
`Plaintiff brings this class action under the provisions of California Code of Civil
`Procedure section 382, and the procedural provisions of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure, which the California Supreme Court has adopted for use by the trial courts of this State.
`Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated non-exempt
`employees with Plaintiff proceeding as the representative member of the proposed classes defined
`
`
`
`
`as follows:
`a) All current and former non-exempt employees of Defendants located within the
`geographic boundary of the State of California, at any time from January 31, 2018 to the
`date of judgment.
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02048 Document 1-1 Filed 03/28/22 Page 9 of 25 Page ID #:24
`
`
`
`
` (“Plaintiff Class”)
`
`Plaintiff also seeks certification of the following subclasses:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`b) All current and former individuals employed who incurred expenses while employed
`by Defendants while located within the geographic boundary of the State of California,
`wherein at any time from January 31, 2019 to the date of judgment. (“Reimbursement
`Subclass”)
`
`c) All current and former individuals employed who were entitled to meal breaks while
`employed by Defendants while located within the geographic boundary of the State of
`California, wherein at any time from January 31, 2019 to the date of judgement. (“Meal
`Break Subclass”)
`
`d) All current and former individuals employed who were entitled to rest breaks while
`employed by Defendants while located within the geographic boundary of the State of
`California, wherein at any time from January 31, 2019 to the date of judgement. (“Rest
`Break Subclass”)
`
`e) All current and former individuals employed who received wage statements while
`employed by Defendants while located within the geographic boundary of the State of
`California, wherein at any time from January 31, 2021 to the date of judgement.
`(“Wage Statement Subclass”)
`
`f) All current and former individuals employed who were separated from their
`employment with Defendants located within the geographic boundary of the State of
`California, wherein at any time from January 31, 2019 to the date of judgement.
`(“Separation Subclass”)
`
`g) All current and former individuals employed by Defendants located within the
`geographic boundary of the State of California, wherein Defendants engaged in
`unlawful, unfair, or deceptive practices against Plaintiff and all similarly situated
`employees by violating California Labor Code sections 2802, 201-203, 226, 226.7, and
`512, at any time from January 31, 2018 to the date of judgment. (“UCL Subclass”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 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
`
`
`
`(collectively all classes referred to herein as “Class”)
`Plaintiff reserves the right, under Rule 3.765 of the California Rules of Court, to amend or
`modify the Class Members description with greater specificity or further division into subclasses or
`limitation
`to particular
`issues. Plaintiff,
`together with members of
`the Plaintiff Class,
`Reimbursement Subclass, Meal Break Subclass, Rest Break Subclass, Wage Statement Subclass,
`
`Separation Subclass, and UCL Subclass are hereinafter collectively referred to as “Class Members.”
`35.
`Plaintiff brings this action, which may properly be maintained as a class action,
`under the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure section 382, because there is a well-
`defined community of interest in the litigation and the proposed class is easily ascertainable as well
`-8-
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02048 Document 1-1 Filed 03/28/22 Page 10 of 25 Page ID #:25
`
`
`
`as for the other reasons explained in this Class Action Complaint.
`36.
`The persons who comprise the Class are so numerous that the joinder of all such
`persons would be unfeasible and impracticable. The membership of the Class is unknown 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
`
`Plaintiff at this time; however, members of the Class are estimated to total fifty to one hundred (50-
`100) individuals, whose identities are readily ascertainable by inspecting Defendants’ payroll
`records.
`37.
`Common questions of fact or law, which arise from Defendants’ conduct as
`described in this Class Action Complaint and Defendants’ continued practice of engaging in illegal
`payroll and wage and hour policies as to all members of Class Members exist. This action focuses
`on Defendants’ systematic course of illegal payroll practices or policies, which Defendants applied
`
`to all members of the Class in violation of the California Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”)
`Wage Orders, the California Labor Code, and the California Business and Professions Code, which
`prohibits unfair business practices arising from such violations.
`38.
`Further, these common questions of law or fact predominate over questions
`affecting only individual members, including (without limitation):
`a. whether Defendants had a practice and or policy of failing to reimburse and
`indemnify its California non-exempt employees working from their homes within the
`geographic boundary of the State of California, who Defendants required to work
`from their homes, for all necessary expenditures and losses;
`
`b. whether Defendants had a practice and or policy of failing to provide compliant meal
`periods or compensation in lieu of to its California non-exempt employees;
`
`
`c. whether Defendants had a practice and or policy of failing to provide compliant rest
`periods or compensation in lieu of to its California non-exempt employees;
`
`
`
`d. whether Defendants had a practice and or policy of failing to provide itemized
`accurate wage statements to its California non-exempt employees;
`
`
`e. whether Defendants had a practice and or policy of failing to pay all wages owed
`upon separation to its California non-exempt employees;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`f. whether Defendants engaged in unfair business practices under California Business
`and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`39.
`Defendants’ defenses, to the extent that any such defense is applied, are applicable
`generally to Class Members and are not distinguishable, to any degree relevant or necessary to
`defeat predominance in this case.
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02048 Document 1-1 Filed 03/28/22 Page 11 of 25 Page ID #:26
`
`
`
`
`40.
`Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of Class Members as a whole, all of
`whom have incurred or will incur damages, including irreparable harm, as a legal, proximate result
`of Defendants’ common course of conduct as complained of in this 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
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are typical of Class Members because Defendants used their policies and practices
`to subject Plaintiff and Class Members to identical violations of the California Labor Code, and the
`California Business and Professions Code, each of which prohibits unfair business practices arising
`from such violations. Further, the duties and responsibilities of members of Class Members were
`similar and comparable, and any variations in job activities between individual members of Class
`Members are legally insignificant to the issues presented by this action because the central facts
`remain, to wit, that Plaintiff and Class Members were improperly denied: full reimbursement and
`
`indemnification of business expenses; compliant meal breaks or compensation in lieu of; compliant
`rest breaks or compensation in lieu of; accurate wage statements; and all wages due upon separation
`of employment from Defendants.
`41.
`Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, will fairly and
`adequately protect the interests of all Class Members in connection with which they have retained
`attorneys. Plaintiff can fairly and adequately protect the interests of all Class Members because it is
`in their best interests to prosecute the claims alleged herein to obtain full reimbursement and
`indemnification due to them for all necessary expenditures they have incurred, for compensation in
`
`lieu of non-compliant meal breaks and rest breaks, and all wages that were due upon separation of
`employment. Plaintiff neither has a conflict with Class Members nor are his interests antagonistic
`to those of Class Members. Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced in class action
`litigation.
`42.
`Under the facts and circumstances set forth above, class action proceedings are
`superior to any other methods available for both fair and efficient adjudication of the rights of each
`Class Members inasmuch as joinder of individual members of Class Members is not practical and,
`
`if the same were practical, said Class Members could not individually afford the litigation, such that
`individual litigation would be inappropriately burdensome, not only to said citizens, but also to the
`courts of the nation.
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02048 Document 1-1 Filed 03/28/22 Page 12 of 25 Page ID #:27
`
`
`
`
`43.
`To process individual cases would increase both the expenses and delay not only to
`Class Members but also to Defendants and the Court. In contrast, class action litigation of this
`matter will avoid case management difficulties and provide multiple benefits to the litigating
`
`
`
` 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
`
`parties, including efficiency, economy of scale, unitary adjudication with consistent results, and
`equal protection of the rights of each Class Members, all by way of the comprehensive and efficient
`supervision of the litigation by a single court.
`44.
`A community of interest in obtaining appropriate legal and equitable relief for the
`common law and statutory violations and other improprieties and adequate compensation for the
`damages and injuries that Defendants’ actions have inflicted upon Plaintiff and Class Members
`exists.
`
`45.
`A community of interest in ensuring Defendants’ combined assets and available
`insurance are sufficient to adequately compensate Class Members for injuries sustained exists.
`46.
`Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to the monies Defendants have unlawfully
`withheld. Further, the public is entitled to restitution and disgorgement of those funds Defendants
`have improperly withheld. This action is brought as a class action under California’s Unfair
`Competition Law for the benefit of the public. Any business that violates the California Labor Code
`by failing to reimburse and indemnify its employees for necessary expenditures the employee
`incurs, failing to provide compliant rest breaks and meal breaks or compensation in lieu of, failing
`
`to provide accurate wage statements, and failing to pay all wages owed upon separation is, by
`definition, engaging in an unfair business practice, and all causes of action are subject to a four-year
`statute of limitation.
`47.
`Notice of the pendency and any result or resolution of the litigation can be provided
`to Class Members by the usual forms of publication, sending out to Class Members a notice at their
`current address, establishing a website where the Class Members can choose to opt-out, or other
`methods of notice the Court deems appropriate.
`48. Without class certification, the prosecution of separate actions by individual Class
`Members would create a risk of: (1) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual
`Class Members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants or (2)
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02048 Document 1-1 Filed 03/28/22 Page 13 of 25 Page ID #:28
`
`
`
`adjudications with respect to the individual Class Members would, as a practical matter, create
`disparities of the interests of the other members not parties to the adjudication or substantially
`impair or impede their ability to protect their interest.
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF ALL EXPENSES AND LOSSES
`(Against All 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
`
`49.
`Plaintiff and Class Members re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully
`set forth herein, all preceding paragraphs of this Class Action Complaint.
`50.
` “An employer shall in all cases indemnify his employee for losses caused by the
`employer’s want of ordinary care.” (Cal. Labor Code § 2800.)
`51.
`“An employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or
`losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his
`or her obedience to the directions of the employer, even though unlawful, unless the employee, at
`the time of obeying the directions, believed them to be unlawful.” (Cal. Labor Code § 2802(a).)
`52.
`“All awards made by a court or by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement for
`reimbursement of necessary expenditures under this section shall carry interest at the same rate as
`judgments in civil actions. Interest shall accrue from the date on which the employee incurred the
`necessary expenditure or loss.” (Cal. Labor Code § 2802(b).)
`53.
`California Labor Code section 2802(c) provides: “For purposes of this section, the
`term “necessary expenditures or losses” shall include all reasonable costs, including, but not limited
`to, attorney’s fees incurred by the employee enforcing the rights granted by this section.”
`54.
`Defendants owe a duty to Plaintiff and Class Members to indemnify them for all
`necessary expenditures, losses, and damages suffered and incurred in direct consequence of the
`discharge of their duties, or of their obedience to the directions of their employer, ANTHEM.
`Defendants continue to refuse to reimburse and indemnify Plaintiff and Class Members for all
`necessary expenditures and losses incurred by them, including but not limited to, computers, desk,
`
`chair, and other items related to the specific workspace to perform work for ANTHEM,
`reimbursement for mortgage, rent, property taxes, homeowner insurance, (underpaid) internet,
`telephone/cell phone expenses, utilities such as electricity, water, gas, and trash collection services,
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02048 Document 1-1 Filed 03/28/22 Page 14 of 25 Page ID #:29
`
`
`
`and stationery, which are required to meet the demands of discharging duties for ANTHEM.
`55.
`Plaintiff and Class Members have incurred, and are continuing to incur, necessary
`expenditures and losses in direct consequence of the discharge of duties, or of obedience to
`
`ANTHEM’S directions as an employer, which at the time of obeying the directions, Plaintiff and
`Class Members believed to be lawful.
`56.
`The acts and omissions herein violated California Labor Code section 2802(a), and
`further violates California Labor Code sections 221 through 224. Plaintiff and Class Members are
`entitled to attorney’s fees under to California Labor Code section 2802(c).
`57.
`Plaintiff seeks reimbursement and indemnification for his and all other Class
`Members for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by them in direct consequence of the
`
`discharge of their duties, or obedience to the directions of the defendants as an employer.
`58.
`During the relevant time period, Defendants intentionally and improperly faile