Case 1:21-at-00965 Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 1 of 23
`
`
`
`Kevin A. Lipeles (Bar No. 244275)
` Thomas H. Schelly (Bar No. 217285)
`LIPELES LAW GROUP, APC
`880 Apollo Street, Suite 336
`El Segundo, California 90245
`Telephone: (310) 322-2211
`Fax: (310) 322-2252
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Julio Mayen
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`JULIO MAYEN, an individual, on his
`own behalf and on behalf of all others
`similarly situated,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`
`TORRES FARM LABOR CON-
`TRACTOR, INC., a California corpo-
`ration; and DOES 1 through 20, inclu-
`sive,
`
`
`
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO.:
`
`CLASS ACTION
`
`COMPLAINT FOR:
`
`1. FAILURE TO PAY
`OVERTIME;
`2. FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM
`WAGE;
`3. FAILURE TO PROVIDE
`ITEMIZED WAGE
`STATEMENTS;
`4. FAILURE TO PAY WAGES
`DUE UPON TERMINATION;
`5. REST BREAK VIOLATIONS;
`6. MEAL PERIOD
`VIOLATIONS;
`7. FAILURE TO REIMBURSE
`EXPENSES;
`8. VIOLATION OF MIGRANT
`AND SEASONAL
`AGRICULTURAL WORKER
`PROTECTION ACT; and
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00965 Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 2 of 23
`
`9. UNFAIR COMPETITION
`
`DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
`
`All allegations in this Complaint are based upon information and belief
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`except for those allegations which pertain to the Plaintiff named herein and his
`
`counsel. Each allegation has evidentiary support or is likely to have evidentiary
`
`support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation and discovery.
`
`JURISIDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1.
`
`This civil action is brought for the redress of alleged violations of
`
`the Migrant and Seasonal Workers Protection Act. Jurisdiction is founded on
`
`28 USC §1331 and 29 USC §1854(a). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction
`
`of Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 USC §1367.
`
`2.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court under 28 USC §1391(b) because
`
`Plaintiff and Defendants reside in, and all incidents, events, and occurrences
`
`giving rise to this action occurred in the County of Kern, State of California.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`PLAINTIFF
`
`3.
`
`Julio Mayen is, and at all times material hereto was:
`
`(a) An individual who resides in the County of Kern, California;
`
`(b) A seasonal agricultural worker within the meaning of the
`
`Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act
`
`(“AWPA”), 29 U.S.C §1802;
`
`(c) Was not paid overtime as required by Industrial Welfare
`
`Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order 14;
`
`(d) Was not paid the minimum wage as required by IWC Wage
`
`Order 14;
`
`(e) Did not receive accurate wage statements as mandated by
`
`Cal. Labor Code §226 and 29 U.S.C. §1831(c);
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00965 Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 3 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`(f) When terminated from his employment, did not receive his
`
`final paycheck within the time limits prescribed by Cal.
`
`Labor Code §201;
`
`(g) Was not provided with legally mandated uninterrupted rest
`
`breaks pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code §226.7 and IWC Wage
`
`Order No. 14;
`
`(h) Was not provided with legally mandated uninterrupted meal
`
`breaks pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code §226.7 and IWC Wage
`
`Order 14; and
`
`(i) Was not reimbursed for expenses necessarily incurred or
`
`losses necessarily incurred in the execution of his job duties
`
`pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code §2802, IWC Wage Order 14 and
`
`29 U.S.C. §1832(c).
`
`DEFENDANTS
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon that information
`
`and belief alleges, that Defendant Torres Fam Labor Contractor, Inc. is, and at
`
`all times mentioned herein was:
`
`(a) A California corporation authorized to conduct business, and
`
`actually conducting business, in California and Kern County;
`
`(b) A farm labor contractor engaged in the business of providing
`
`agricultural workers/agricultural employees who work on
`
`land located primarily in Kern County, California to various
`
`employers;
`
`(c) The former employer of Plaintiff and the current or former
`
`employer of the putative Class members;
`
`(d) Paid Plaintiff and all Class Members on an hourly basis as
`
`non-exempt employees; and
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00965 Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 4 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`(e) Failed to pay overtime to Plaintiff and all putative Class
`
`members, failed to pay Plaintiff and all putative Class
`
`members the mandated minimum wage, failed to pay
`
`Plaintiff and all putative Class members for missed or
`
`interrupted meal and rest breaks, failed to comply with the
`
`AWPA standards, failed to reimburse Plaintiff and all
`
`putative Class members for all reasonably incurred work
`
`related expenses, failed to provide Plaintiff and all putative
`
`Class members with accurate itemized wage statements, and
`
`failed to issue final paychecks timely to Plaintiff and all
`
`putative Class members. Each of these transgressions was a
`
`violation of the Labor Code, the AWPA, and/or IWC Wage
`
`Order 14.
`
`5.
`
`The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate,
`
`subsidiary, partnership, associate or otherwise of defendant DOES 1 through
`
`20, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues these Defendants by
`
`such fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend his Complaint to allege
`
`the true names and capacities of DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, when they are
`
`ascertained.
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on that information
`
`and belief alleges, that Defendant DOES 1 through 20 are persons, corporations
`
`or other entities which reside in or are authorized to do, or are otherwise doing,
`
`business in the state of California. Each of the Defendants DOES 1 through 20
`
`was the managerial agent, employee, predecessor, successor, joint-venturers,
`
`co-conspirator, alter ego and/or representative of one or more of the other
`
`Defendants named herein, and acting with permission, authorization, and/or
`
`ratification and consent of the other Defendants.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00965 Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 5 of 23
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on that information
`
`and belief alleges, that the Defendants named in this Complaint, including
`
`DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, are responsible in some manner for one or more
`
`of the events and happenings that proximately caused the injuries and damages
`
`hereinafter alleged.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on that information
`
`and belief alleges, that Defendants named in this Complaint, including DOES 1
`
`through 20, inclusive, are, and at all times mentioned herein were, the agents,
`
`servants, and/or employees of each of the other Defendants and that each
`
`Defendant was acting within the course and scope of his, hers or its authority as
`
`the agent, servant and/or employee of each of the other Defendants.
`
`Consequently, all of the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the
`
`Plaintiff, and the Class, for the damages sustained as a proximate result of their
`
`conduct.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on that information
`
`and belief alleges, that the Defendants named in this Complaint, including
`
`DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, knowingly and willfully acted in concert,
`
`conspired and agreed together among themselves and entered into a
`
`combination and systemized campaign of activity to inter alia damage
`
`Plaintiff, and the Class, and to otherwise consciously and/or recklessly act in
`
`derogation of the rights of Plaintiff and the Class, and the trust reposed by
`
`Plaintiff, and the Class, in each of the Defendants, the acts being negligently
`
`and/or intentionally inflicted. Their conspiracy, and Defendants’ concerted
`
`actions, were such that, to Plaintiff’s information and belief, and to all
`
`appearances, Defendants, and each of them, represented a unified body so that
`
`the actions of one Defendant were accomplished in concert with, and with the
`
`knowledge, ratification, authorization and approval of each of the other
`
`Defendants.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00965 Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 6 of 23
`
`
`
` A. The Definition Of The Class
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`10. The Class (“the Class”) shall consist of the following Subclasses:
`
`
`
`“All persons who were employed by Defendants as seasonal
`
`agricultural workers – within the meaning of the Migrant and
`
`Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (“AWPA”), 29
`
`U.S.C §1802 – picking and/or harvesting and/or field packing
`
`vegetables and/or other crops in the State of California at any time
`
`during the period commencing on the date that is within four (4)
`
`years prior to the filing of this Complaint and continuing through
`
`the present date (the “Class Period”)”
`
`
`
` “All persons who were employed by Defendants as seasonal
`
`agricultural workers – within the meaning of the Migrant and
`
`Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (“AWPA”), 29
`
`U.S.C §1802 – picking and/or harvesting and/or field packing
`
`vegetables and/or other crops in the State of California and
`
`thereafter left the employ of Defendants at any time during the
`
`period commencing on the date that is within one (1) year prior to
`
`the filing of this Complaint and continuing through the present
`
`date (the “Class Period”)”
`
`B. Maintenance of the Action
`
`11. Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of himself
`
`and as representative of all similarly situated persons under Cal. Business &
`
`Professions Code §§17203 and 17204 and Cal. Code of Civil Procedure §382.
`
` C. The Class Requisites
`
`12. At all material times, Plaintiff was a member of the Class.
`
`13. The Class action meets the statutory prerequisites for maintaining
`
`a class action under Cal. Code of Civil Procedure §382 in that:
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00965 Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 7 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(a) The persons who comprise the Subclasses are so numerous
`
`that the joinder of all those persons is impracticable and the
`
`disposition of their claims as a Class will benefit the parties
`
`and the Court;
`
`(b) Nearly all factual, legal, statutory, declaratory and injunctive
`
`relief issues that are raised in this Complaint are common to
`
`the Subclasses and will apply uniformly to every Class
`
`member;
`
`(c) The claims of the representative Plaintiff are typical of the
`
`claims of each Subclass member. Plaintiff, like all Subclass
`
`members, has sustained damages arising from Defendants’
`
`violations of the laws of the state of California. Plaintiff, and
`
`the Class members, were and are similarly or identically
`
`harmed by the same unlawful, deceptive, unfair, systematic
`
`and pervasive pattern of misconduct engaged in by the
`
`Defendants;
`
`
`
`(d) The representative Plaintiff has, and will continue to, fairly
`
`and adequately represent and protect the interests of the
`
`Subclasses and has retained counsel who are competent and
`
`experienced in class action litigation. There are no material
`
`conflicts between the claims of the representative Plaintiff
`
`and the Class members that would make class certification
`
`inappropriate. Counsel for the Class will vigorously assert the
`
`claims of all Class members.
`
`14. The persons who comprise the Subclasses are so numerous that
`
`joining all of them is impracticable, and jointly adjudicating their claims will
`
`benefit the parties and the Court. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of
`
`the Subclasses that Plaintiff seeks to represent. Plaintiff will fairly and
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00965 Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 8 of 23
`
`
`
`adequately protect the interests of the Subclasses he seeks to represent. Plaintiff
`
`does not have any interests that are antagonistic to the Subclasses he seeks to
`
`represent. Counsel for Plaintiff are experienced, qualified and generally able to
`
`conduct complex class action litigation.
`
`15. The Court should permit the action to be maintained as a class
`
`action under Cal. Code of Civil Procedure §382 because:
`
`(a) The questions of law and fact common to the Subclasses
`
`predominate over any question affecting only individual
`
`members:
`
`(b) A class action is superior to any other available method for
`
`fairly and efficiently adjudicating the claims of the
`
`Subclasses;
`
`(c) The Subclass members are so numerous that it is impractical
`
`to bring all of them before the Court;
`
`(d) Plaintiff and other Subclass members will not be able to
`
`obtain effective and economic legal redress unless the action
`
`is maintained as a class action;
`
`(e) There is a community of interest in obtaining appropriate
`
`legal and equitable relief for the statutory violations, and in
`
`obtaining adequate compensation for the damages and
`
`injuries for which Defendants are responsible in an amount
`
`sufficient to adequately compensate the Subclass members;
`
`(f) Without Class certification, the prosecution of separate
`
`actions by individual Class members would create a risk of:
`
`
`
`i.
`
` Inconsistent or varying adjudications for individual
`
`Subclass members that would establish incompatible
`
`standards of conduct for Defendants; and/or,
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00965 Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 9 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`ii. Adjudication for individual Subclass members that
`
`would, as a practical matter, dispose of other non-party
`
`members’ interests, or that would substantially impair
`
`or impede the non-parties’ ability to protect their
`
`interests, by, for example, potentially exhausting the
`
`funds available from Defendants, and
`
`(g) Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally
`
`applicable to the Subclasses, making final injunctive relief
`
`appropriate for the Class, as a whole.
`
`16. Plaintiff contemplates eventually issuing notice to the proposed
`
`Subclass Members that would set forth the subject and nature of the action. The
`
`Defendants’ own business records may be utilized for assisting to prepare and
`
`issue the contemplated notice. To the extent that any further notices may be
`
`required, Plaintiff would contemplate using additional media and/or mailing.
`
`THE CONDUCT
`
`17. Defendants are farm labor contractors that are engaged in
`
`providing agricultural workers/employees who work on land located in Kern
`
`County, California that is owned by various companies. The work consists
`
`primarily of harvesting, packing, and packaging various crops. During the
`
`relevant period, Defendants employed, as that term is used in U.S.C. §1892,
`
`thousands of seasonal agricultural workers in its harvesting, field packing, and
`
`packaging business.
`
`18. The employment by Defendants of the Class Members, and each
`
`them, is governed by Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 14, which
`
`covers those persons employed in the agricultural industry, harvesting, picking
`
`and field packing crops.
`
`//
`
`//
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00965 Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 10 of 23
`
`
`
`19. During the relevant time period, Plaintiffs entered into working
`
`arrangements with Defendants. These arrangements are formed and entered
`
`into each season, at or near the time Defendants hire each plaintiff.
`
`20. Under these working arrangements, Defendants offered Plaintiffs
`
`jobs in their agricultural operations, and Plaintiffs accepted the job offers. By
`
`words, conduct, practice, or custom and usage, it was understood by the parties
`
`that Defendants will pay the workers an hourly rate for certain services
`
`performed and a piece rate based on production for other services. In addition,
`
`by words, conduct, practice, or custom and usage, including but not limited to
`
`posting the applicable California IWC Wage Order at the place of
`
`employment, Defendants communicated to Plaintiffs that they would follow
`
`California's wage order and laws.
`
`21. These working arrangements were contracts and they are and were
`
`“working arrangements” as that term is used in the Migrant and Seasonal
`
`Agricultural Worker Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. §1932(c). This working
`
`arrangement requires and required Defendants to pay Plaintiffs their agreed-
`
`upon wages for all hours worked or pieces performed, to pay workers for
`
`required rest periods, and to abide in all respects by IWC Wage Order 14,
`
`which formed part of the working arrangement and/or agreement.
`
`22. Under California law, non-exempt employees, as defined by Wage
`
`Order 14, are entitled to payment of the mandated minimum wage for all hours
`
`worked and premium overtime wages for those hours worked in excess of 10 in
`
`a workday and for all hours worked on the sixth and seventh days of a
`
`workweek.
`
`23. During the relevant time period, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff
`
`and the Class for time at the beginning of the workday during which they have
`
`been subject to Defendants’ control and/or have been suffered or permitted to
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00965 Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 11 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`work. Plaintiff and the Class performed off-the-clock work that was essential to
`
`the job but went unpaid and unrecorded.
`
`24. During the relevant period, Plaintiff and the Class performed off-
`
`the-clock work at the end of the “scheduled” shift. In addition, Plaintiff and the
`
`Class were required to wait for the “puncher” to count their boxes after the end
`
`of their shift. This post-shift work was essential to the job but it was
`
`unrecorded and unpaid.
`
`25. By not recording off-the-clock work, Defendants failed to comply
`
`with IWC Wage Order 14, §7, and 29 U.S.C. §1831(c) by failing to maintain
`
`time records demonstrating when employees begin and end each work period
`
`and each employee’s total daily hours worked.
`
`26. Plaintiff and the Class routinely worked more than ten hours in a
`
`workday. During the Class Period, Defendants’ policy and practice was not to
`
`compensate Plaintiff and the Class for any of those hours worked in excess of
`
`ten in a workday, in violation of Wage Order 14 and the Labor Code.
`
`27. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class the legal minimum
`
`wage under California and Federal law.
`
`28. Plaintiff and the Class routinely worked more than ten hours in a
`
`workday and seven days in a workweek. During the Class Period, Defendants
`
`did not (1) pay Plaintiff and the Class premium wages for hours worked on the
`
`sixth and seventh days of a workweek, and (2) and did not pay Plaintiff and the
`
`Class premium wages for hours worked in excess of ten in a workday, as
`
`required by the Cal. Labor Code and IWC Wage Order 14.
`
`29. As a result of Defendants’ failure to compensate Plaintiff and the
`
`Class premium wages for overtime worked and for all hours worked, the wage
`
`statements issued to Plaintiff and the Class by Defendants did not comply with
`
`Cal. Labor Code §226 in that they did not accurately reflect all wages earned
`
`and due and owing.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00965 Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 12 of 23
`
`
`
`30. As a further result of Defendants’ failure to compensate Plaintiff
`
`and the Class premium wages for overtime worked and for all hours worked,
`
`when Plaintiff and the Class left their employ, the were not timely paid all
`
`wages due them, as required by Cal. Labor Code §§201 and 202.
`
`31. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class all wages due
`
`when paid by piece rate. In addition, Plaintiffs worked shifts of over three and
`
`one half hours per day and were not provided paid rest breaks when paid by the
`
`piece. When Plaintiffs worked on a piece rate basis, they only earned money
`
`for pieces. Defendant did not separately account for or pay for any rest periods
`
`during such piece rate work.
`
`32. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class for time at the
`
`beginning of the work day during which they have been subject to Defendants’
`
`control, had been suffered or permitted to work, or both. Plaintiff and the Class
`
`performed “off-the-clock” unpaid and unrecorded work organizing materials
`
`and equipment essential for harvesting or other types of work that day, and
`
`donning work clothes. Such “off-the-clock” pre-shift work includes: arriving to
`
`work from 10-30 minutes before the start of the shift, donning “overalls” and
`
`boots, sharpening knives used for work, lining up to sign in on crew attendance
`
`sheets, pre-shift exercises, mandatory pre-shift schooling and/or safety
`
`meetings, among other tasks. This “pre-shift” time was unrecorded and unpaid.
`
`33. By various means, including but not limited to verbal, actions,
`
`custom and practice, and/or the posting of IWC Wage Order 14, at the place of
`
`employment, Defendants communicated that they would provide to Plaintiff
`
`and the Class all necessary tools and equipment.
`
`34. During the relevant period, Plaintiff and the Class were required to
`
`provide their own tools that were necessary to the performance of the work
`
`required of them. Plaintiff and the Class were required to purchase tools and
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00965 Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 13 of 23
`
`
`
`equipment and other items that were indispensable to adequate job performance
`
`and to complete their work.
`
`35. Plaintiff and the Class were required to purchase tools necessary
`
`for work and Defendants have not reimbursed them for those expenditures.
`
`36. During the relevant period, Defendants required Plaintiff and the
`
`Class to travel between fields to perform various work tasks. Plaintiff and the
`
`Class were required to pick two or three different types of vegetables per day.
`
`Therefore, Plaintiff and the Class were required to change blocks or ranches in
`
`the middle of the work day; sometimes as often as 2 to 3 times per day, six
`
`days per week. Generally Plaintiff and the Class were required to travel 10-15
`
`minutes between blocks or ranches for each occurrence. Defendants did not
`
`record or pay workers for this travel time between fields, as Plaintiff and the
`
`Class worked on a piece rate basis during such travel. In addition, because
`
`Defendants did not provide buses or other transportation to workers so that they
`
`could travel between blocks or ranches in the middle of their shifts, Plaintiff
`
`and the Class used their own vehicles to travel from field to field. Defendants
`
`did not reimburse Plaintiff and the Class for their vehicle use for travel between
`
`Defendants’ fields during the course of a work shift, in violation of California
`
`law.
`
`37. During the relevant period, Plaintiff and the Class have quit their
`
`employment during or between the various harvest seasons, or have been laid
`
`off or discharged, either permanently or for the duration of the season, at the
`
`end of or during a season. Defendants have failed to pay them all wages owed
`
`to them at the time they quit or are laid off or discharged.
`
`38. Such conduct constitutes unlawful and unfair business practices
`
`within the meaning of Business and Professions Code §17200, et seq.
`
`//
`
`//
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00965 Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 14 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Failure to Pay Overtime – against All Defendants)
`
`39. Plaintiff and the Class reallege and incorporate by reference all of
`
`the allegations set forth in this complaint.
`
`40. During the four years immediately prior to the filing of this action,
`
`Defendants were required to compensate Plaintiff and the Class with premium
`
`pay for all hours worked in excess of 10 in a workday and/or on the sixth and
`
`seventh days of a workweek, pursuant to IWC Wage Order 14 (8 Cal. Code
`
`Regs. §11140(3)(A)).
`
`41. As alleged herein, during the four years preceding the filing of this
`
`action, Plaintiff and the Class routinely worked more than ten hours daily and
`
`on the sixth day of a workweek, and Defendants did not pay Plaintiff and the
`
`Class premium wages for the overtime hours they worked.
`
`42. At all times relevant hereto, Cal. Labor Code §1194(a) has
`
`provided that employees who have not been paid overtime can recover the
`
`unpaid balance of the overtime wages due, with interest thereon, and
`
`reasonable attorney fees and costs of suit.
`
`43. By virtue of Defendants’ unlawful failure to pay overtime to the
`
`Plaintiff and the Class, Plaintiff and the Class have suffered, and will continue
`
`to suffer, damages in amounts which are presently unknown to Plaintiff and the
`
`Class, but which exceed the jurisdictional limits of the Court and which will be
`
`ascertained according to proof at trial.
`
`44. Defendants acted or are acting intentionally, oppressively and
`
`maliciously toward Plaintiff and the Class, with conscious disregard of their
`
`rights, or the consequences to them, with the intent of depriving them of
`
`property and legal rights and otherwise causing them injury.
`
`45. Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of employees similarly
`
`situated, requests to recover overtime compensation pursuant to Cal. Labor
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00965 Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 15 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Code §1194(a) and 8 Cal. Code Regs. §11140(3)(A), as well as the assessment
`
`of any statutory penalties against each Defendant, in a sum as provided by the
`
`Cal. Labor Code and/or any other statutes. Further, Plaintiff and the Class are
`
`entitled to and request reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to Cal.
`
`Labor Code §§218.5 and 1194(a).
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Failure to Pay Minimum Wage – against All Defendants)
`
`46. Plaintiff and the Class reallege and incorporate by reference all of
`
`the allegations set forth in this complaint.
`
`47. Pursuant to Cal. Labor Code §1197 and 8 Cal. Code Regs.
`
`§11140(4)(A), it is unlawful to pay employees less than the mandated
`
`minimum wage.
`
`48. During the entirety of the employment of Plaintiff and the Class,
`
`Defendants were required to compensate them at the mandated minimum wage
`
`but failed to do so, in violation of Cal. Labor Code §1197 and IWC Wage
`
`Order 14 by:
`
`
`
`
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`failing to pay for all hours worked;
`
`failing to pay overtime for all hours worked in excess of ten
`
`in a workday and on the sixth and seventh days of a workweek;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`taking them “off the clock” to avoid paying overtime;
`
`failing to record accurately the time they worked; and
`
`all other reasons to be discovered.
`
`49. Defendants knowingly refused to perform their obligations to
`
`compensate Plaintiff and the Class for all minimum wages earned and all hours
`
`worked. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff and
`
`the Class suffer and continue to suffer substantial losses related to the use and
`
`enjoyment of such wages, lost interest on such wages, and expenses and
`
`attorney fees in seeking to compel Defendants to fully perform the obligations
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00965 Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 16 of 23
`
`
`
`under the Cal. Labor Code and IWC Wage Order 14, all to their respective
`
`damage in amounts according to proof.
`
`50. Therefore, pursuant to Cal. Labor Code §§200, 203, 218.5, 226,
`
`558 and 1194, Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to recover the unpaid balances
`
`of the minimum wages Defendants owe them, plus interest, penalties, attorney
`
`fees, expenses and costs of suit, in amounts according to proof.
`
`51. Pursuant to Cal. Labor Code §1194.2(a), Plaintiff and the Class
`
`are entitled to recover liquidated damages in amounts equal to the wages
`
`unlawfully unpaid and interest thereon.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Failure to Provide Itemized Wage Statements – against All Defendants)
`
`52. Plaintiff and the Class reallege and incorporate by reference all of
`
`the allegations set forth in this complaint.
`
`53. Cal. Labor Code §226(a) requires that with each paycheck,
`
`Defendants issue to Plaintiffs and the Class wage stubs accurately showing the
`
`number of hours they worked at the effective rates of pay and the effective
`
`overtime rates of pay, the resulting gross and net wages earned and the
`
`resulting deductions made.
`
`54. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants intentionally failed to
`
`furnish Plaintiff and the Class, upon payment of wages, itemized statements
`
`accurately showing the total number of hours worked, the applicable hourly
`
`rates in effect during each pay period, the corresponding hours worked at each
`
`hourly rate, the resulting gross and net wages earned, and the resulting
`
`deductions made.
`
`55. Plaintiff and the Class were damaged by these failures because,
`
`among other things, the failures led them to believe that they were not entitled
`
`to be paid for overtime and all hours worked, even though they were so entitled
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00965 Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 17 of 23
`
`
`
`and these failures hindered them from determining the amounts of wages owed
`
`to them.
`
`56. Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to the amounts provided in Cal.
`
`Labor Code §226(e), plus attorney fees and costs.
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Failure to Pay Wages Upon Termination and/or Resignation – against All
`
`Defendants)
`
`57. Plaintiff and the Class reallege and incorporate by reference all of
`
`the allegations set forth in this complaint.
`
`58. Cal. Labor Code §201(a) provides that a discharged employee’s
`
`unpaid wages are due and payable immediately. Cal. Labor Code §202(a)
`
`provides that when an employee resigns from employment, unpaid wages are
`
`due and payable within 72 hours of resignation.
`
`59. Cal. Labor Code §203(a) provides that if an employer willfully
`
`fails to pay wages as mandated by Cal. Labor Code §§201 and 202, the
`
`employee’s wages shall continue to accrue until paid, not to exceed thirty days.
`
`60. Plaintiff and the Class were discharged and/or resigned from
`
`Defendants’ employ and Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and the
`
`Cla