Case 5:22-cv-00549 Document 1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 1 of 20 Page ID #:1
`
`
`
`Matthew S. Parmet (CSB # 296742)
`matt@parmet.law
`PARMET PC
`340 S. Lemon Ave., #1228
`Walnut, CA 91789
`phone 310 928 1277
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`and RODNEY
`MOISES MADRIZ
`ULLOA, individually and on behalf of all
`others similarly situated,
`
`
`Case No. 5:22-cv-00549
`
`Plaintiffs’ Original Class and Collective
`Action Complaint for Damages
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`vs.
`
`PEPSICO, INC.; NAKED JUICE CO.;
`NAKED JUICE CO. OF GLENDORA,
`INC.; TROPICANA PRODUCTS, INC.;
`TROPICANA SERVICES,
`INC.; and
`DOES #1 through #50, inclusive,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`1. Failure
`overtime
`pay
`to
`compensation (Fair Labor Standards
`Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.)
`2. Failure to pay wages (CAL. LAB.
`CODE §§ 510, 1194, 1194.5; IWC
`Wage Orders)
`3. Violations
`keeping
`record
`of
`requirements
`(CAL. LAB. CODE
`§ 226)
`4. Waiting time penalties (CAL. LAB.
`CODE § 203)
`5. Violation of Unfair Competition Law
`(CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200,
`et seq.)
`6. Civil penalties under the Private
`Attorneys General Act of 2004 (CAL.
`LAB. CODE §§ 2698, et seq.)
`
`SUMMARY
`
`
`
`Like many other companies across the United States, Defendants’ timekeeping
`
`and payroll systems were affected by the hack of Kronos in 2021.
`
`
`That hack led to problems in timekeeping and payroll throughout Defendants’
`
`organizations.
`
`Pls’ Orig. Complaint
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`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
`
`
`
`PARMET PC
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-00549 Document 1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 2 of 20 Page ID #:2
`
`
`
`
`
`As a result, Defendants’ workers who were not exempt from the overtime
`
`requirements under federal and state law, were not paid for all overtime hours worked or were
`
`not paid their proper overtime premium after the onset of the Kronos hack.
` Moises Madriz and Rodney Ulloa are each such workers for Defendants.
`
`
`Defendants could have easily implemented a system to accurately record time
`
`and properly pay hourly and non-exempt employees until issues related to the hack were
`
`resolved.
`
`
`But they didn’t. Instead, Defendants did not pay their non-exempt hourly and
`
`salaried employees their full overtime premium for all overtime hours worked, as required by
`
`federal and California law.
`
`
`Defendants pushed the cost of the Kronos hack onto the most economically
`
`vulnerable people in their workforce.
`
`
`Defendants made the economic burden of the Kronos hack fall on front-line
`
`workers—average Americans—who rely on the full and timely paymet of their wages to make
`
`ends meet.
`
`
`Defendants’ failure to pay proper wages for all hours worked, including
`
`overtime hours, violates the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. and
`
`applicable state law.
` Madriz and Ulloa bring this lawsuit to recover these unpaid wages and other
`
`damages owed by Defendants to him and Defendants’ similar workers, who were the ultimate
`
`victims of not just the Kronos hack, but Defendants’ decision to make their own workforce
`
`bear the economic burden for the hack.
`
`JURISDICTION & VENUE
`
`
`
`This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331
`
`because this action involves a federal question under the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
`
`
`The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over any state law sub-classes pursuant
`
`to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`
`Pls’ Orig. Complaint
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`PARMET PC
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-00549 Document 1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 3 of 20 Page ID #:3
`
`
`
`
`
`Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because a
`
`substantial part of the events at issue occurred in this District.
` Madriz and Ulloa worked for Defendants in this District.
`
`PARTIES
`
`
`Plaintiff Moises Madriz is a natural person.
` Madriz was, at all relevant times, an employee of Defendants.
` Madriz began working for Defendants in October 2020.
` Madriz’s written consent is attached as Exhibit 1.
`
`Plaintiff Rodney Ulloa is a natural person.
` Ulloa was, at all relevant times, an employee of Defendants.
` Ulloa began working for Defendants in February 2017.
` Ulloa’s written consent is attached as Exhibit 2.
` Madriz and Ulloa represent several groups of similarly situated Defendants
`
`workers.
`
` Madriz represents a collective of similarly situated workers under the FLSA
`
`pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). This “Naked Juice FLSA Collective” is defined as:
`
`All current or former hourly and salaried employees of Naked Juice
`who were non-exempt under the FLSA and who worked for Naked
`Juice in the United States at any time since the onset of the Kronos
`ransomware attack, on or about December 11, 2021, to the present.
`
` Ulloa represents a collective of similarly situated workers under the FLSA
`
`pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). This “Tropicana FLSA Collective” is defined as:
`
`All current or former hourly and salaried employees of Tropicana
`who were non-exempt under the FLSA and who worked for
`Tropicana in the United States at any time since the onset of the
`Kronos ransomware attack, on or about December 11, 2021, to the
`present.
`
` Madriz and Ulloa represent a class of similarly situated employees under
`
`California law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. This “California Class” is
`
`defined as:
`
`Pls’ Orig. Complaint
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`PARMET PC
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-00549 Document 1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 4 of 20 Page ID #:4
`
`
`
`All current or former hourly and salaried employees of PepsiCo, Inc.,
`including its subsidiaries and alter egos such as Naked Juice and
`Tropicana, who were non-exempt under California law and who
`worked for Defendants in California at any time since the onset of
`the Kronos ransomware attack, on or about December 11, 2021, to
`the present.
`
`
`
`Together, throughout this Complaint, the Naked Juice and Tropicana FLSA
`
`Collective members and California Class members are referred to as the “Similarly Situated
`
`Workers.”
` Defendant PepsiCo, Inc. (“PepsiCo”) is an foreign corporation.
`
`
`PepsiCo does business in a systematic and continuous manner throughout
`
`California and this District.
`
`
`PepsiCo may be served by service upon its registered agent, CT Corporation
`
`System, 330 N. Brand Blvd., Ste. 700, Glendale, CA 91203, or by any other method allowed
`
`by law.
`
` Defendant Naked Juice Co. is an foreign corporation.
` Naked Juice Co. does business in a systematic and continuous manner
`
`throughout California and this District.
` Naked Juice Co. may be served by service upon its registered agent, CT
`
`Corporation System, 330 N. Brand Blvd., Ste. 700, Glendale, CA 91203, or by any other
`
`method allowed by law.
` Defendant Naked Juice Co. of Glendora, Inc. is an foreign corporation.
` Naked Juice Co. of Glendora, Inc. does business in a systematic and
`
`continuous manner throughout California and this District.
` Naked Juice Co. of Glendora, Inc. may be served by service upon its registered
`
`agent, CT Corporation System, 330 N. Brand Blvd., Ste. 700, Glendale, CA 91203, or by
`
`any other method allowed by law.
`
`
`Together, throughout this Complaint, Naked Juice Co. and Naked Juice Co. of
`
`Glendora, Inc. are referred to jointly as “Naked Juice.”
` Defendant Tropicana Products, Inc. is an foreign corporation.
`
`Pls’ Orig. Complaint
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`PARMET PC
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-00549 Document 1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 5 of 20 Page ID #: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
`
`
`
`
`
`Tropicana Products, Inc. does business in a systematic and continuous manner
`
`throughout California and this District.
`
`
`Tropicana Products, Inc. may be served by service upon its registered agent,
`
`CT Corporation System, 1200 S. Pine Island Rd., Plantation, FL 33324, or by any other
`
`method allowed by law.
` Defendant Tropicana Services, Inc. is an foreign corporation.
`
`
`Tropicana Services, Inc. does business in a systematic and continuous manner
`
`throughout California and this District.
`
`
`Tropicana Services, Inc. may be served by service upon its registered agent, CT
`
`Corporation System, 330 N. Brand Blvd., Ste. 700, Glendale, CA 91203, or by any other
`
`method allowed by law.
`
`
`Together, throughout this Complaint, Tropicana Products, Inc. and Tropicana
`
`Services, Inc. are referred to jointly as “Tropicana.”
` At all relevant times, PepsiCo exerted operational control over its subsidiaries
`
`and alter egos.
` At all relevant times, PepsiCo substantially controlled the terms and conditions
`
`of employment for workers of its subsidiaries and alter egos.
` At all relevant times, PepsiCo had a common control and management of labor
`
`relations regarding employees of its subsidiaries and alter egos.
`
`
`PepsiCo employed and/or jointly employed, with its subsidiaries and alter egos,
`
`Madriz and the Similarly Situated Workers.
`
`
`PepsiCo and its respective subsidiaries and alter egos, like Naked Juice and
`
`Tropicana, are joint employers for purposes of the FLSA. See 29 C.F.R. § 791.2.
`
`
`PepsiCo and its respective subsidiaries and alter egos, like Naked Juice and
`
`Tropicana, are joint employers for purposes of the California law.
` Madriz and Ulloa are informed and believe and on that basis allege, that at all
`
`relevant times Defendants and Defendants Does #1 through #50 were affiliated, and each
`
`was the principal, agent, servant, partner, officer, director, controlling shareholder, subsidiary,
`
`Pls’ Orig. Complaint
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`PARMET PC
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-00549 Document 1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 6 of 20 Page ID #:6
`
`
`
`affiliate, parent corporation, successor or predecessor in interest, joint ventures, and/or joint
`
`enterprises of one or more of Defendants.
` Defendants and Defendants Does #1 through #50 employed and/or jointly
`
`employed Madriz, Ulloa, and the Similarly Situated Workers.
` Defendants and Defendants Does #1 through #50 are joint employers for
`
`purposes of the FLSA. See 29 C.F.R. § 791.2.
` Defendants and Defendants Does #1 through #50 are joint employers for
`
`purposes of California law.
` Madriz and Ulloa are unaware of the true names of Defendants Does #1
`
`through #50, and so Madriz and Ulloa sue those Defendants under said fictitious names
`
`pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 474. Lindley v. Gen. Elec. Co., 780 F.2d
`
`797, 802 (9th Cir. 1986).
` Madriz and Ulloa will amend this Complaint to show the true names and
`
`capacities of such fictitiously named Defendants after the same has been ascertained.
`
`
`Because the true names of Defendants Does #1 through #50 are currently
`
`unknown to him, Madriz and Ulloa refer to such Defendants in this lawsuit collectively with
`
`their non-fictitiously named joint employers as “PepsiCo,” “Naked Juice,” “Tropicana,”
`
`and/or “Defendants” throughout this Complaint.
`
`COVERAGE UNDER THE FLSA
` At all relevant times, PepsiCo and Naked Juice were employers of Madriz
`
`within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
` At all relevant times, PepsiCo and Naked Juice were employers of the Naked
`
`Juice FLSA Collective Members within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C.
`
`§ 203(d).
`
` At all relevant times, PepsiCo and Tropicana were employers of Madriz within
`
`the meaning of Section 3(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
`
`Pls’ Orig. Complaint
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`PARMET PC
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-00549 Document 1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 7 of 20 Page ID #:7
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
` At all relevant times, PepsiCo and Tropicana were employers of the Tropicana
`
`FLSA Collective Members within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C.
`
`§ 203(d).
`
` At all relevant times, Defendants were part of an enterprise within the meaning
`
`of Section 3(r) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(r).
` During at least the last three years, Defendants have each had gross annual sales
`
`in excess of $500,000.
` During at least the last three years, Defendants were and are part of an
`
`enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the
`
`meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1).
`
`
`PepsiCo and Naked Juice employ many workers, including Madriz, who are
`
`engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce and/or who handle, sell,
`
`or otherwise work on goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce
`
`by any person.
`
`
`PepsiCo and Tropicana employ many workers, including Ulloa, who are
`
`engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce and/or who handle, sell,
`
`or otherwise work on goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce
`
`by any person.
`
`
`The goods and materials handled, sold, or otherwise worked on by Madriz,
`
`Ulloa, and other employees of Defendants and that have been moved in interstate commerce
`
`include, but are not limited to, foods and beverages, computers, peripherals, and electronic
`
`equipment.
`
`FACTS
` Defendants are a food, snack, and beverage corporation.
` Many of Defendants’ employees are non-exempt hourly and salaried workers.
`
`
`Since at least 2021, Defendants have used timekeeping software and hardware
`
`operated and maintained by Kronos.
` On or about December 11, 2021, Kronos was hacked with ransomware.
`
`Pls’ Orig. Complaint
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`PARMET PC
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-00549 Document 1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 8 of 20 Page ID #:8
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`The Kronos hack interfered with the ability of its customers, including
`
`Defendants, to use Kronos’s software and hardware to track hours and pay employees.
`
`
`Since the onset of the Kronos hack, Defendants have not kept accurate track
`
`of the hours that Madriz and Similarly Situated Workers have worked.
`
`
`Instead, Defendants have used various methods to estimate the number of
`
`hours Madriz, Ulloa, and Similarly Situated Workers work in each pay period.
`
`
`For example, Defendants issued paychecks based on their scheduled hours, or
`
`simply duplicated paychecks from pay periods prior to the Kronos hack.
`
`
`This means that employees who were non-exempt and who worked overtime
`
`were in many cases paid less than the hours they worked in the workweek, including overtime
`
`hours.
`
`
`
`Even if certain overtime hours were paid, the pay rate would be less than the
`
`full overtime premium.
` Madriz and Ulloa are each such employees.
`
`
`Instead of paying Madriz and Ulloa for the hours they actually worked
`
`(including overtime hours), Defendants simply paid based on estimates of time or pay, or
`
`based upon arbitrary calculations and considerations other than their actual hours worked
`
`and regular pay rates.
`
`
`In some instances, Madriz and Ulloa was paid portions of overtime hours
`
`worked, but were not paid at the proper overtime premium of at least 1.5x or 2x the regular
`
`rate of pay, including required adjustments for shift differentials and non-discretionary
`
`bonsuses.
`
`
`In properly calculating and paying overtime to a non-exempt employee, the
`
`only metrics that are needed are: (1) the number of hours worked in a day or week, and (2)
`
`the employee’s regular rate, taking into account shift differentials, non-discretionary bonuses,
`
`and other adjustments required by law.
` Defendants know they have to pay proper overtime premiums to non-exempt
`
`hourly and salaried employees.
`
`Pls’ Orig. Complaint
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`PARMET PC
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-00549 Document 1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 9 of 20 Page ID #:9
`
`
`
` Defendants know this because, prior to the Kronos hack, they routinely paid
`
`these workers for all overtime hours at the proper overtime rates.
` Defendants could have instituted any number of methods to accurately track
`
`and timely pay their employees for all hours worked.
`
`
`Instead of accurately tracking hours and paying employees their wages and
`
`overtime, Defendants decided to arbitrarily pay these employees, without regard to the
`
`overtime hours they worked or the regular rates at which they were supposed to be paid.
`
`
`Even if they did pay any overtime to affected employees, Defendants did not
`
`take into account shift differentials and non-discretionary bonuses, such that the overtime
`
`premium Defendants did pay, if any, was not the full overtime premium owed under the law
`
`based on the employees’ regular rate.
`
`
`It was feasible for Defendants to have their employees and managers report
`
`accurate hours so they could be paid the full and correct amounts of money they were owed
`
`for the work they did for the company.
`
`
`
`But they didn’t do that.
`
`In other words, Defendants pushed the effects of the Kronos hack onto the
`
`backs of their most economically vulnerable workers, making sure that Defendants kept the
`
`money they owed to those employees in their own pockets, rather than take steps to make
`
`sure employees were paid on time and in full for the work they did.
` Madriz and Ulloa are two of the front-line employees who had to shoulder the
`
`burden of this decision by Defendants.
` Madriz was a non-exempt hourly employee of PepsiCo and Naked Juice.
` Madriz regularly worked over 40 hours per week for PepsiCo and Naked Juice.
` Madriz’s normal, pre-Kronos hack hours are reflected in PepsiCo and Naked
`
`Juice’s records.
`
`
`Since the Kronos hack, PepsiCo and Naked Juice have not paid Madriz for his
`
`actual hours worked each week.
`
`Pls’ Orig. Complaint
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`PARMET PC
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-00549 Document 1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 10 of 20 Page ID #:10
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Since the hack took place, PepsiCo and Naked Juice have not been accurately
`
`recording the hours worked by Madriz and their other workers.
`
`
`Even though PepsiCo and Naked Juice may have had Madriz record and
`
`submit his hours, Defendants have not issued payment for all hours they have worked.
`
`
`Even when Defendants have issued payment to PepsiCo and Naked Juice for
`
`any overtime, the overtime is not calculated based on Madriz’s regular rates, as required by
`
`federal and California law.
` Ulloa was a non-exempt hourly employee of PepsiCo and Tropicana.
` Ulloa regularly worked over 40 hours per week for PepsiCo and Tropicana.
` Ulloa’s normal, pre-Kronos hack hours are reflected in PepsiCo and
`
`Tropicana’s records.
` Since the Kronos hack, PepsiCo and Tropicana have not paid Ulloa for his
`
`actual hours worked each week.
` Since the hack took place, PepsiCo and Tropicana have not been accurately
`
`recording the hours worked by Ulloa and their other workers.
` Even though Defendants may have had Ulloa record and submit his hours,
`
`PepsiCo and Tropicana have not issued payment for all hours they have worked.
` Even when PepsiCo and Tropicana have issued payment to Ulloa for any
`
`overtime, the overtime is not calculated based on Ulloa’s regular rates, as required by federal
`
`and California law.
` Defendants were aware of the overtime requirements of the FLSA and
`
`California law.
` Defendants nonetheless failed to pay the full overtime premium owed to certain
`
`non-exempt hourly and salaried employees, such as Madriz and Ulloa.
` Defendants’ failure to pay overtime to these non-exempt workers was, and is, a
`
`willful violation of the FLSA and California law.
` The full overtime wages owed to Madriz, Ulloa, and the Similarly Situated
`
`Workers became “unpaid” when the work for Defendants was done—that is, on Madriz,
`
`Pls’ Orig. Complaint
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`PARMET PC
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-00549 Document 1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 11 of 20 Page ID #:11
`
`
`
`Ulloa, and the Similarly Situated Workers’ regular paydays. E.g., Martin v. United States, 117
`
`Fed. Cl. 611, 618 (2014); Biggs v. Wilson, 1 F.3d 1537, 1540 (9th Cir.1993); Cook v. United States,
`
`855 F.2d 848, 851 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Olson v. Superior Pontiac–GMC, Inc., 765 F.2d 1570, 1579
`
`(11th Cir.1985), modified, 776 F.2d 265 (11th Cir.1985); Atlantic Co. v. Broughton, 146 F.2d 480,
`
`482 (5th Cir.1944); Birbalas v. Cuneo Printing Indus., 140 F.2d 826, 828 (7th Cir.1944).
` At the time Defendants failed to pay Madriz, Ulloa, and the Similarly Situated
`
`Workers in full for their overtime hours by their regular paydays, Defendants became liable
`
`for all prejudcment interest, liquidated damages, penalties, and any other damages owed
`
`under federal and California law.
`
`
`In other words, there is no distinction between late payment and nonpayment
`
`of wages under federal or California law. Biggs v. Wilson, 1 F.3d 1537, 1540 (9th Cir.1993).
` Even if Defendants made any untimely payment of unpaid wages due and
`
`owing to Madriz, Ulloa, or the Similarly Situated Workers, any alleged payment was not
`
`supervised by the U.S. Department of Labor or any court.
` The untimely payment of overtime wages, in itself, does not resolve a claim for
`
`unpaid wages under the law. See, e.g., Seminiano v. Xyris Enterp., Inc., 602 Fed.Appx. 682, 683
`
`(9th Cir. 2015); Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352-54 (11th Cir. 1982).
` Nor does the untimely payment of wages, if any, compensate workers for the
`
`damages they incurred due to Defendants’ acts and omissions resulting in the unpaid wages
`
`in the first place.
` Madriz, Ulloa, and the Similarly Situtated Workers remain uncompensated for
`
`the wages and other damages owed by Defendants under federal and California law.
`
`COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS
` Madriz and Ulloa incorporate all other allegations.
` Numerous individuals were victimized by Defendants’ patterns, practices, and
`
`policies, which are in willful violation of the FLSA.
`
`Pls’ Orig. Complaint
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`PARMET PC
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-00549 Document 1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 12 of 20 Page ID #:12
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
` Based on his experiences and tenure with Defendants, Madriz and Ulloa are
`
`aware that Defendants’ illegal practices were imposed on the Naked Juice and Tropicana
`
`FLSA Collectives.
` The Naked Juice and Tropicana FLSA Collective members were not paid their
`
`full overtime premiums for all overtime hours worked.
` These employees are victims of Defendants’ unlawful compensation practices
`
`and are similarly situated to Madriz and/or Ulloa in terms of the pay provisions and
`
`employment practices at issue in this lawsuit.
` The workers in the Naked Juice and Tropicana FLSA Collectives were similarly
`
`situated within the meaning of the FLSA.
` Any differences in job duties do not detract from the fact that these FLSA non-
`
`exempt workers were entitled to overtime pay.
` Defendants’ failure to pay overtime compensation at the rates required by the
`
`FLSA result from generally applicable, systematic policies, and practices, which are not
`
`dependent on the personal circumstances of the Naked Juice and/or Tropicana FLSA
`
`Collective members.
` The Naked Juice and Tropicana FLSA Collectives should be notified of this
`
`action and given the chance to join pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
` Madriz and Ulloa incorporates all other allegations.
` The illegal practices Defendants imposed on Madriz and Ulloa were likewise
`
`imposed on the California Class Members.
` Numerous other individuals who worked for Defendants were not properly
`
`compensated for all hours worked, as required by California law.
` The California Class is so numerous that joinder of all members of the class is
`
`impracticable.
` Defendants imposed uniform practices and policies on Madriz, Ulloa, and the
`
`California Class members regardless of any individualized factors.
`
`Pls’ Orig. Complaint
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`PARMET PC
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-00549 Document 1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 13 of 20 Page ID #:13
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
` Based on their experience and tenure with Defendants, as well as coverage of
`
`the Kronos hack, Madriz and Ulloa are aware that Defendants’ illegal practices were imposed
`
`on the California Class members.
` California Class members were all not paid proper overtime when they worked
`
`in excess of 40 hours per week.
` Defendants’ failure to pay wages and overtime compensation in accordance
`
`with California law results from generally applicable, systematic policies, and practices which
`
`are not dependent on the personal circumstances of the California Class Members.
` Madriz and Ulloa’s experiences are therefore typical of the experiences of the
`
`California Class members.
` Madriz and Ulloa do not have any interest contrary to, or in conflict with, the
`
`members of the California Class. Like each member of the proposed class, Madriz and Ulloa
`
`have an interest in obtaining the unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed under the
`
`law.
`
` A class action, such as this one, is superior to other available means for fair and
`
`efficient adjudication of the lawsuit.
` Absent this action, many California Class members likely will not obtain
`
`redress of their injuries and Defendants will reap the unjust benefits of violating California
`
`law.
`
` Furthermore, even if some of the California Class members could afford
`
`individual litigation against Defendants, it would be unduly burdensome to the judicial
`
`system.
`
` Concentrating the litigation in one forum will promote judicial economy and
`
`parity among the claims of individual members of the classes and provide for judicial
`
`consistency.
` The questions of law and fact common to each of the California Class members
`
`predominate over any questions affecting solely the individual members. Among the common
`
`questions of law and fact are:
`
`Pls’ Orig. Complaint
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`PARMET PC
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-00549 Document 1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 14 of 20 Page ID #:14
`
`
`
`a. Whether the California Overtime Class Members were not paid
`overtime at 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess
`of 40 in a workweek;
`b. Whether the California Overtime Class Members were not paid
`overtime at 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess
`of 8 or 12 in a single day; and
`c. Whether Defendants’ failure to pay overtime at the rates required by law
`violated California law.
`
` Madriz and Ulloa’s claims are typical of the California Class members. Madriz,
`
`Ulloa, and the California Class members have all sustained damages arising out of
`
`Defendants’ illegal and uniform employment policies.
` Neither Madriz nor Ulloa know of any difficulty that will be encountered in
`
`the management of this litigation that would preclude its ability to go forward as a class or
`
`collective action.
` Although the issue of damages may be somewhat individual in character, there
`
`is no detraction from the common nucleus of liability facts. Therefore, this issue does not
`
`preclude class action treatment.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION—VIOLATION OF THE FLSA
` Madriz and Ulloa incorporate each other allegation.
` By failing to pay Madriz, Ulloa, and the Naked Juice and Tropicana FLSA
`
`Collective members overtime at 1.5 times their regular rates, Defendants violated the FLSA.
`
`29 U.S.C. § 207(a).
` Defendants owe Madriz, Ulloa, and the Naked Juice and Tropicana FLSA
`
`Collective members overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, at a rate of
`
`at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay.
` Defendant owes Madriz, Ulloa, and the Naked Juice and Tropicana FLSA
`
`Collective members the difference between the rate actually paid for overtime, if any, and the
`
`proper overtime rate.
`
`Pls’ Orig. Complaint
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`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
`
`
`
`PARMET PC
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-00549 Document 1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 15 of 20 Page ID #:15
`
`
`
` Defendants knowingly, willfully, or in reckless disregard carried out this illegal
`
`pattern and practice of failing to pay the Naked Juice and Tropicana FLSA Collective
`
`members overtime compensation.
` Because Defendants knew, or showed reckless disregard for whether, their pay
`
`practices violated the FLSA, Defendants owe these wages for at least the past three years.
` Defendants’ failure to pay overtime compensation to these Naked Juice and
`
`Tropicana FLSA Collective members was neither reasonable, nor was the decision not to pay
`
`overtime made in good faith.
` Because Defendants’ decision not to pay overtime was not made in good faith,
`
`Defendants also owe Madriz, Ulloa, and the Naked Juice and Tropicana FLSA Collective
`
`members an amount equal to the unpaid overtime wages as liquidated damages.
` Accordingly, Madriz, Ulloa, and the Naked Juice and Tropicana FLSA
`
`Collective members are entitled to overtime wages under the FLSA in an amount equal to 1.5
`
`times their regular rates of pay, plus liquidated damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION—FAILURE TO PAY WAGES UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW
` Madriz and Ulloa incorporate each other allegation.
` The California Labor Code requires that all employees, including Madriz,
`
`Ulloa, and the California Class, receive 1.5x their hourly rate as overtime premium
`
`compensation for hours worked over eight in one day. CAL. LAB. CODE § 510 (2017); IWC
`
`Wage Orders #1-2001 through #17-2001.
` Despite working over 8 hours a day as part of their normal and regular shift,
`
`Madriz, Ulloa, and the California Class did not receive proper overtime compensation for all
`
`hours worked over 8 in one day.
` The California Labor Code also requires that all employees, including Madriz
`
`and the California Class, receive 2x times the overtime premium compensation for hours
`
`worked over 12 in one day. CAL. LAB. CODE § 510 (2017); IWC Wage Orders #1-2001 through
`
`#17-2001.
`
`Pls’ Orig. Complaint
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`PARMET PC
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-00549 Document 1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 16 of 20 Page ID #:16
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
` Although Madriz, Ulloa, and the California Class occasionally worked over 12
`
`hours in one day, they did not receive the “double time” compensation required by California
`
`law.
`
` The California Labor Code requires that all employees, including Madriz,
`
`Ulloa, and the California Class, receive 2x the overtime premium compensation for hours
`
`worked over 8 in one day, in the seventh day of a workweek. CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 510, 551–52
`
`(2017); IWC Wage Orders #1-2001 through #17-2001.
` Although Madriz, Ulloa, and the California Class regularly worked seven days
`
`a week, for at least 12 hours a day, they did not receive the “double time” compensation
`
`required by California law for all hours over eight worked on the seventh day.
` This pattern, practice, and uniform administration of corporate policy
`
`regarding illegal employee compensation is unlawful and entitles Madriz, Ulloa, and the
`
`California Class to recover unpaid balance of the full amount of overtime wages owing,
`
`including liquidated damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit pursuant to California
`
`Labor Code section 1194.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION—VIOLATIONS OF RECORD KEEPING REQUIREMENTS
` Madriz and