SUMMONS
`(CITACION JUDICIAL)
`NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
`(AVISO AL DEMANDADO):
`THEFINISH LINE,INC; an Indiana Corporation; THE INDIANA
`FINISH LINE,INC, an Indiana Corporation; MACY’S,INC., a
`Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-100,inclusive
`
`SUM-100
`
`FOR COURT USE ONLY
`(SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORTE)
`
`ELECTRONIGALLYFILED
`Superior Court of California
`County of Alameda
`‘2 an
`07/14/2023
`Cle Pirie, Baacudve Ole: | Chek aftre Const
`py.
`_S. Ashby-Andersoripeputy
`
`YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
`(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
`JONATHAN BULLINGER,individually, and on behalf of the State of
`California, and others similarly situated and aggrieved
`NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information
`below.
`You have 30 CALENDAR DAYSafter this summons and legal papers are served on youtofile a written responseat this court and have a copy
`served onthe plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response mustbe in properlegal form if you want the court to hear your
`case, There may be a court form that you can usefor your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts
`Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannotpay the filing fee, ask
`the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do notfile your response on time, you maylose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property
`may be taken withoutfurther warning from the court.
`There are other legal requirements. You may wantto call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may wantto call an attorney
`referral service. if you cannotafford an attorney, you maybeeligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate
`these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Website (www.lawhelpcailifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center
`(www, courtinfo.ca.gov/selfheip), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court hasa statutory lien for waived fees and
`costs on any settlement orarbitration award of $10,000 or morein a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
`jAVISO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias,la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escucharsu versi6n. Lea la informacion a
`continuacién.
`Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO despuésde quele entreguen esta citacién y papeles legales para presentar una respuestaporescrito en esta
`corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamadatelefonica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar
`en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta.
`Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas informacién en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la
`biblioteca de leyes de su condadoo en Ia corte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagarla cuofa de presentacion, pida al secretario dela corte
`que fe dé un formulario de exencién de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perderel caso por incumplimientoy la corte le
`podra quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.
`Hayotros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que flame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de
`remision a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un
`programa de servicios legates sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupossin fines de lucro en elsitio web de California Legal Services,
`(www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de fas Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov) 0 poniéndose en contacto con Ia corte o el
`colegio de abogadoslocales. AVISO:Porley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamarlas cuotas y los costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobre
`cualquier recuperacion de $10,000 6 mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesién de arbitraje en un caso de derechocivil. Tiene que
`pagare/ gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desecharel caso.
`
`The name and addressof the court is:
`(El nombre y direccion de la corte es):
`Superior Court of California, County of Alameda - Hayward Hall of Justice
`24405 Amador St., Hayward, CA 94544
`
`
`
`CASE NUMBER:
`
`
`(Numero del Caso):
`| = se S3515
`JUL"
`=O©
`
`
`
`The name, address, and telephone number ofplaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is:
`(El nombre, la direccion y el ntimero de teléfono del abogado de! demandante, o del demandante que notiene abogado,es):
`CROSNER LEGAL, PC 9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 301, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Tel: (866) 276-7637
`OFi14/2023
`Clerk, by
`E:
`(Secretario) 3. ASby-Anderson
`Chad Finke, Executive Officer/ Clerk ofthe Court
`(Fecha)
`(For proofof service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).)
`(Para prueba de entrega de estacitatién use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-079)).
`NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served
`[SEAL]
`1. [__] as an individual defendant.
`2. [__] as the person sued under the fictitious nnameof(specify):
`
`, Deputy
`(Adjunto)
`
`.
`
`
`
`3. L__] on behalf of (specify):
`[__] CCP 416.60 (minor)
`under: [__] CCP 416.10 (corporation)
`[__] CCP 416.70 (conservatee)
`[_] CCP 416.20(defunct corporation)
`[___] CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) [__] CCP 416.90 (authorized person)
`[_] other (specify):
`4. [__] by personal delivery on (date):
`
`Page 1 of 1
`Codeof Civil Procedure §§ 412.20, 465
`www.courtinfo.ca.gov
`
`Form Adopted for Mandatory Use
`Judicial Council of California
`SUM-100 [Rev. July 1, 2009]
`
`SUMMONS
`
`

`

`0oOoaIDHWnFPWDNY
`
`
`
`wbweYYNYNYWNNYNYNYYHYFKFFPKFFeFFPeYScoaTTKRAWBRWOWNYOKODOwOaNDHFFYWNYFFO&O
`
`ELECTRONICALLYFILED
`Superior Court of California,
`County of Alameda
`07/14/2023 at 05:27:17 PM
`By: Steven Ashby-Anderson,
`Deputy Clark
`
`ZACHARYM. CROSNER,ESQ. (SBN 272295)
`zach@crosnerlegal.com
`JAMIE SERB, ESQ. (SBN 289601)
`jamie@crosnerlegal.com
`CROSNER LEGAL, PC
`9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
`Beverly Hills, CA 90210
`Tel: (866) 276-7637
`Fax: (310) 510-6429
`
`Attormeys for Plaintiff JONATHAN BULLINGER
`Individually, and on behalf of the State of California,
`and others similarly situated and aggrieved
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`COUNTY OF ALAMEDA ccc- 24-613354
`
`individually,
`JONATHAN BULLINGER,_
`and on behalf of the State of California, and
`others similarly situated and aggrieved,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`THE FINISH LINE, INC; an Indiana
`Corporation; THE INDIANA FINISH LINE,
`INC., an Indiana Corporation; MACY’S,
`INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES1-
`100, inclusive,
`
`Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S REPRESENTATIVE
`COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF
`THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS
`GENERALACT, CAL. LABOR CODE
`SECTIONS2698,et seq.
`
` Case No.: 2SacwOoO3SS515
`
`1
`PLAINTIFF’S REPRESENTATIVE COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS
`GENERAL ACT
`
`

`

`OowonyNDABPRWONO
`
`woNONOKNHNHNNHNNYNOeReeeeReReoDNUNBRWHONYKHOOHNDAHFPWONYKFO&O
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`JONATHAN BULLINGER (“PLAINTIFF”), an individual on behalf of
`
`PLAINTIFF,the State of California, and all other Aggrieved Employees(as defined below), hereby
`
`files this Complaint against Defendants THE FINISH LINE, INC; an Indiana Corporation; THE
`
`INDIANAFINISH LINE, INC., an Indiana Corporation; MACY’S, INC., a Delaware Corporation;
`
`DOES 1-100, inclusive, (collectively referred to herein as “DEFENDANTS”). PLAINTIFFis
`
`informed and believes and thereon alleges as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`l,
`
`This is a representative action filed by PLAINTIFF on behalf of PLAINTIFF,all
`
`Aggerieved Employees andthe State of California against DEFENDANTS, pursuantto California’s
`
`Private Attorney General Act, Labor Code section 2698 et. seg. (“PAGA”), to recovercivil penalties
`
`(75% payable to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and 25% payable to Aggrieved
`
`Employees) for DEFENDANTS’ violations of the California Labor Code as alleged below.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over PLAINTIFF’s claims for penalties pursuant to
`2.
`California statutes, including but notlimited to the PAGA, and decisional law and regulations.
`3.
`Venue is proper in this judicial district and the County of Alameda pursuant to
`California Code of Civil Procedure section 395.5 because DEFENDANTStransact business within
`this judicial district and conduct alleged by PLAINTIFFherein occurredin this this judicial district.
`
`See also Crestwood Behavioral Health, Inc. v. Superior Court (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 1069 (venue
`
`in a PAGAaction is proper in any county where the defendants committed Labor Code violations
`
`against some of its employees).
`
`-
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`4.
`
`PLAINTIFFis, and atall relevant times, was an individual domiciledin the State of
`
`California and a citizen of the State of California.
`
`5.
`relevant
`
`PLAINTIFF was employed by. DEFENDANTS5 during the relevant period. Atall
`times, PLAINTIFF was a non-exempt employee that at
`times as described herein
`
`DEFENDANTSmisclassified as an exempt employee. PLAINTIFF worked for DEFENDANTSas
`
`a store manager, FLM Managerand/or similarjob title(s), from on or around June 14, 2022, through
`2
`PLAINTIFF’S REPRESENTATIVE COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS
`GENERAL ACT
`
`

`

`Da0ONDDnWNWFPWHY
`
`moNHWNNHNYNYNYVNYNKeFeeFPSeRPeeelmCOONDKNAKRDONYKFODOOoONDDHAHPWDNY
`
`on or around October 22, 2022. PLAINTIFF worked for DEFENDANTSout of DEFENDANTS’
`California location(s), facilities, and/or store(s) including but not limited to, one ofDEFENDANTS’
`
`locations, facilities and/or stores operating under the name “Finish Line” and located inside of a
`store/department store owned, operated and/or managed by MACY’S, INC. PLAINTIFF’s job
`duties included but were notlimited to assisting customers/customer service duties and operating a
`
`cash register.
`
`6.
`DEFENDANTSare an Indiana Corporation and/or Delaware Corporationthat, atall
`relevant times, were authorized to do business within the State of California and is doing business
`in the State of California.
`-
`|
`
`7.
`
`Defendants FINISH LINE, INC. and THE INDIANAFINISH LINE,Inc. (‘Finish
`
`Line’) own, operate and/or otherwise manage a chain ofretail stores that sell primarily athletic shoes
`
`and related apparel and accessories. Based on information and belief, Finish Line, Inc. owns,
`
`operates, and/or otherwise managesat least 660 facilities, locations, and/or stores nationwide with
`
`multiple locations, stores and/orfacilities located throughout California.
`
`In addition, Finish Line
`
`owns, operates and/or otherwise manages additional facilities,
`
`locations, stores and/or shoe
`
`departments located in more than 450 MACY’S,INC. and/or Macy’s stores nationwide, including
`
`but not limited to in stores throughout California, including but not limited to, the California
`
`location, department and/or store at which DEFENDANTSassigned PLAINTIFF to work during
`
`the relevant period.
`
`8.
`
`The true names and capacities of the DOE Defendants sued herein as DOES 1
`
`through 100,
`
`inclusive, are currently unknown to PLAINTIFF, who therefore sues each such
`
`Defendantby saidfictitious names. Each of the Defendants designated herein as a DOE islegally
`
`responsible for the unlawful acts alleged herein. PLAINTIFFwill seek leave of Court to amendthis
`
`Complaint to reflect the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants when such identities
`
`become known.
`
`9,
`PLAINTIFF is further informed and believes that, at all relevant times, each
`Defendant was the principal, agent, partner, joint venturer, joint employer, officer, director,
`controlling shareholder, subsidiary, affiliate, parent corporation, successor in interest and/or
`3
`PLAINTIFF’S REPRESENTATIVE COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS
`GENERAL ACT
`
`

`

`oDOowmONnHNDnFRWONY
`
`woNOHOHNNHNHNYNNNHNYHKRKRFPFePeReelheOoaDNWABPWONOKFODDOWANDHHFPWYNY
`
`predecessorin interest of someorall of the other Defendants, and was engaged with someorall of
`
`the other defendants in a joint enterprise for profit, and bore such otherrelationships to someorall
`
`of the other Defendants so as to be liable for their conduct with respect to the matters alleged in this
`
`complaint. PLAINTIFF is further. informed and believes and thereon alleges that each Defendant
`
`acted pursuant to and within the scope of the relationships alleged above, andthat atall relevant
`
`times, each Defendant knew or should have known about, authorized, ratified, adopted, approved,
`
`controlled, aided and abetted the conduct ofall other Defendants.
`
`JOINT LIABILITY
`
`10.
`
`Under California law, the definition of the terms “to employ” are broadly construed
`
`under the applicable IWC Wage Order(s) to have three alternative definitions, including: (1) to
`
`exercise control over the wages, hours or working conditions; (2) to suffer or permit to work;or (3)
`
`to engage, thereby creating a common law employmentrelationship. See, Martinez v. Combs, 49
`
`Cal.4th 35, 64 (2010). One reason that the IWC defined “employer” in terms of exercising control
`
`was to’ reach situations in which multiple entities control different aspects of the employment
`
`relationship. Supervision of the work,in the specific sense of exercising control over how services
`
`|| are properly performed, is properly viewed as one of the “working conditions” mentioned in the
`
`wage order. Jd. at 76. A joint employer relationship exists, for example, when oneentity (such as a
`
`temporary employment agency) hires and pays a worker, and the other entity supervises the work.
`
`Id. Moreover, the California Court of Appeal recently broadened the test for joint employment in
`
`California, applying a less stringent standard to what constitutes sufficient control by a business
`
`over its vendor’s employees’ wages and working conditions to render that businessliable as a joint
`
`employer. See, Medina v. Equilon Enterprises, LLC, 68 Cal. App. 5th 868 (2021); “[i]f the putative
`
`joint employerinstead exercises enough.control over the intermediary entity to indirectly dictate the
`
`. wages, hours, or working conditions of the employee,
`
`that is a sufficient showing of joint
`
`employment,” Jd. at 875 [emphasis added].
`
`11.
`
`During PLAINTIFF’s employment by DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF and other
`
`Aggrieved Employees (defined below) were jointly employed by DEFENDANTSfor purposes of
`
`the Wage Orders, under the alternative definitions of “to employ” adopted by the California
`4
`PLAINTIFF’S REPRESENTATIVE COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS
`,
`GENERAL ACT
`
`

`

`1||Supreme Court in Martinez, supra. As discussed below, these DEFENDANTS(1) exercised control
`
`2||over wages, hours and working conditions of PLAINTIFF and Aggrieved Employees; (2) suffered
`
`3||or permitted PLAINTIFF and Aggrieved Employees to work for them; and (3) engaged PLAINTIFF
`
`4||and Aggrieved Employees to work for them.
`
`5
`
`12.
`
`PLAINTIFFis informed and believes, and thereon alleges that at all relevant times
`
`6|DEFENDANTSoperated asa single integrated enterprise with common ownership andcentralized
`
`7||human resources. As a result, DEFENDANTSutilized the same unlawful policies and practices
`
`8||across all of their locations/facilities and subjected all of the Aggrieved Employees to these same
`
`9||policies and practices regardless of the location(s) where they worked. Among other things,
`
`10|]PLAINTIFFis informed andbelieves that: (1) there is common ownershipin, and financial control,
`
`11
`
`||in DEFENDANTS’ companies, (2) DEFENDANTSutilize common management, who have control
`
`12||over the day-to-day operations and employment matters, including the powerto hire andfire, set
`
`13||schedules, issue employee policies, and determine rates of compensation across its locations in
`
`
`
`14||California; (3) DEFENDANTS utilize the same policies and procedures for all California
`
`15
`
`||employees,
`
`including issuing the same employee handbooks and other form agreements; (4)
`
`16||DEFENDANTSuseat least some of the same Human Resources personnel and attorneys to oversee
`
`17||employment matters; and, (6) DEFENDANTSshare employees.
`
`18
`
`13.
`
`PLAINTIFFis informed and believes, and thereon alleges that at all times relevant
`
`||to this Complaint, DEFENDANTSwere the joint employers of PLAINTIFF and Aggrieved
`19
`20||Employees upon whose behalf PLAINTIFF brings these allegations and cause of action, in that
`
`
`
`
`
`21|)DEFENDANTS,exercised sufficient control over PLAINTIFF and the Aggrieved Employees’
`|
`22||wages, hours and working conditions, and/or suffered or permitted them to work so as to be
`
`J|I
`
`{!i
`
`23||considered the joint employers of PLAINTIFF and Aggrieved Employees. For example, based on
`
`24||information and belief, The Finish Line, Inc., and The Indiana Finish Line, Inc., maintain the same;
`25||corporate headquarters in Indiana and/or maintain the same principal place of businessas provided
`26 ||to the California Secretary of State and/or Indiana Secretary of State. Moreover, per documents!
`27||and/or information onfile with the California Secretary ofState, the foreign nameofthe entity “The
`28||Indiana Finish Line, Inc.” and “The Finish Line, Inc.” Based on information andbelief, The Finish
`
`5
`PLAINTIFF’S REPRESENTATIVE COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS
`GENERAL ACT
`
`

`

`Line, Inc. and The Indiana Finish Line,Inc.”(collectively referred to herein as “Finish Line” and/or
`
`as “The Finish Line, Inc.”) own, operate and/or otherwise managefacilities, locations, stores and/or
`shoe departments including but not limited locations in more than 450 Macy’s, Inc. and/or Macy’s
`stores nationwide. Moreover, documents contained in PLAINTIFF’s personnel file,
`including
`
`without
`limitation, employment-related policies, customer bill of rights, and/or other policy
`documents reference “Macy’s” and/or “Macy’s, Inc.” as the name ofPLAINTIFF’s employer.
`14.
`Upon information and belief, PLAINTIFF alleges that DEFENDANTScreated a
`uniform set ofpolicies, practices and/or procedures concerning, inter alia, hourly and overtime pay,
`time-keeping practices, meal and rest periods, reimbursement of business expenses and other
`
`working conditions that were distributed to, and/or applied to PLAINTIFF and Aggrieved
`
`Employees, and further that DEFENDANTSuniformly compensated and controlled the wages of
`
`PLAINTIFF and other Aggrieved Employees in a uniform manner. DEFENDANTScollectively
`
`represented to PLAINTIFFand other Aggrieved Employees that each wasan "at-will" employee of
`
`DEFENDANTS, and thatDEFENDANTScollectively retained the right to terminate PLAINTIFF’s
`
`and other Aggrieved Employees’ employment with or without cause. Upon information andbelief,
`
`DEFENDANTSfurther collectively represented to PLAINTIFF and Aggrieved Employees in
`
`writing the details of their compensation, and the manner in which they wereto take meal and rest
`
`periods, the procedures required by DEFENDANTScollectively for recordation of hours worked
`
`and the policies applicable to PLAINTIFF and Aggrieved Employees by which DEFENDANTS
`
`collectively would evaluate their wagerates.
`
`15.
`
`Thus, DEFENDANTScollectively exercised the right to control the wages, hours
`
`and working conditions of PLAINTIFF and Aggrieved Employees. As such, DEFENDANTS
`
`collectively held the right to control virtually every aspect of PLAINTIFF’s and the Aggrieved
`
`Employees’ employment, including the instrumentality that resulted in the illegal conduct for which
`
`PLAINTIFFseeksrelief in this Complaint.
`
`16.
`
`PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that DEFENDANTSexercised the same
`
`control over, applied the samepolicies and practices, and engaged in the same acts and omissions
`with regard to the other Aggrieved Employees.
`
`6
`PLAINTIFF’S REPRESENTATIVE COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS
`GENERAL ACT
`
`

`

`ofeNINNWNOHHRWYONYKF
`
`mWNONHNHHNNHNNNNNOYKHeRPBeReeeelhlOoaDOOUNBRWOHOKFODCOONHDNHFPWDNYYFO&O
`
`17.
`
`PLAINTIFFis informed and believes and hereon alleges that DEEFENDANTSmust
`
`be classified as joint employers of PLAINTIFF for purposesofliability for civil penalties under
`
`PAGA,as the aforementioned entities engaged, suffered and permitted PLAINTIFF to perform
`services from which they benefited, and furthermore that the aforementioned entities had the right
`to exercise control over the wages, hours and/or working conditions of PLAINTIFFatall relevant
`
`times herein, so as to be considered the joint employers of PLAINTIFF.
`
`By reason of their status as joint employers of PLAINTIFF and Aggrieved
`18.
`Employees, DEFENDANTSare each liable for civil penalties for violations ofthe California Labor
`
`Code and applicable Wage Ordersas to all Aggrieved Employees.
`
`PAGA ALLEGATIONS
`
`19,
`
`PLAINTIFFbrings this action under the PAGA,asa representative action on behalf
`
`of the State of California and all Aggrieved Employees,regarding violations of the California Labor
`
`Codeas set forth herein as to all Aggrieved Employees. Said “Aggrieved Employees”include:
`
`All current and former non-exempt employees that worked either
`
`directly or via a staffing agency for any one or more of the
`
`DEFENDANTSatany location in California at any time from one
`
`year plus 65 days from the filing of the initial Complaint through the
`
`present (““PAGAPeriod”).
`
`20.
`
`PLAINTIFFis an “aggrieved employee,” as that term is defined under Labor Code
`
`section 2699(c), as PLAINTIFF was employed by DEFENDANTSduring the applicable statutory
`
`limitations period and suffered one or more of the Labor Code violations set forth herein.
`Accordingly, PLAINTIFFseeks to recover on behalf of the State of California, and all Aggrieved
`
`Employees, the civil penalties provided by PAGA, plus reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
`
`PLAINTIFFhasstanding to bring a PAGA causeofaction on behalf of the State and all Aggrieved
`
`Employees, as PLAINTIFF wasjointly employed by DEFENDANTSandis thereby affected by
`
`one or more ofthe alleged violations. See Huff'v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. (2018) 23
`
`Cal.App.5th 745, 757. A PAGAplaintiff has authority to seek penalties for all known violations.
`committed by the employer — regardless ofwhether Plaintiff experienced all violations personally.
`
`7
`PLAINTIFF’S REPRESENTATIVE COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS
`GENERAL ACT
`
`

`

`OocoJITNHNWAF&FWYH
`
`mwpONHNYKHNNNNNNeeReReeeeelOoDKWNBWNYKFOOwnDnnHFFWwYYFCO
`
`Id. at 760-761.
`
`COMPLIANCE WITH PAGA’S NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
`
`21.
`
`PLAINTIFF, on May 10, 2023, through counsel, gave written notice by online filing
`
`with the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (““LWDA”) informing it that
`
`DEFENDANTSfailed to comply with California’s labor laws with regard to theallegationsalleged
`
`in this Complaint (“PAGA Notice”).
`
`22.
`
`The PAGA Notice outlined PLAINTIFF’s claims for violations of the California
`
`Labor Code and the applicable wage orders on behalf of the State of California and all Aggrieved
`
`Employees.
`
`23.
`
`The LWDAdid not provide notice of its intention to investigate DEFENDANTS’
`
`violations after expiration of the 65-day waiting time period, or at any time. To the extent any of the
`
`alleged violations were curable, DEFENDANTSfailed to cure within the timeallotted by PAGA.
`Accordingly, PLAINTIFF has exhausted the administrative remedies as required by Labor Code
`section 2699.3. Consequently, PLAINTIFF’srightto file the instant lawsuit against DEFENDANTS
`
`has duly accrued.
`
`. 24,
`
`PLAINTIFF seeks to: recover the PAGAcivil penalties through a representative
`
`action permitted by PAGA andthe California Supreme Court in Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46
`
`Cal.4th 969. Therefore, class certification of the PAGAclaimsis not required.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`25.
`
`During the relevant period, PLAINTIFF, and each of the Aggrieved Employees
`
`worked for DEFENDANTS in the State of California. At all
`
`times
`
`referenced herein,
`
`DEFENDANTSexercised control over PLAINTIFF and Aggrieved Employees, and suffered and/or
`
`permitted them to work.
`
`26.
`
`PLAINTIFF was employed by DEFENDANTSduring the relevant period. Atall
`
`relevant: times, PLAINTIFF was a non-exempt employee that at
`
`times as described herein
`
`DEFENDANTSmisclassified as an exempt employee. PLAINTIFF worked for DEFENDANTSas
`
`a store manager, FLM Managerand/orsimilarjobtitle(s), from on or around June14, 2022, through
`
`on or around October 22, 2022. PLAINTIFF worked for DEFENDANTSout of DEFENDANTS’
`8
`PLAINTIFF’S REPRESENTATIVE COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS
`GENERAL ACT
`
`

`

`California location(s), facilities, and/or store(s) including but not limited to, one of DEFENDANTS’
`
`locations, facilities and/or stores operating under the name “Finish Line” and located inside of a
`
`store/department store owned, operated and/or managed by Macy’s. PLAINTIFF’s job duties
`
`included but were notlimited to assisting customers/customerservice duties and operating a cash
`
`register. PLAINTIFF regularly worked at least eight (8) hours per day, at least five (5) days per
`
`week. Based.on information andbelief, at times, DEFENDANTSclassified PLAINTIFFas a non-
`
`exempt employee and compensated PLAINTIFFon an hourly basis and/or accordingto a forty-hour
`
`workweek irrespective of the number of hours PLAINTIFF worked daily or weekly. Based on
`
`information and belief, at times, DEFENDANTSmisclassified PLAINTIFFas an exempt employee
`
`and compensated PLAINTIFFona salaried basis.
`
`27.
`
`As such, PLAINTIFF was denied owed wages,
`
`including but not
`
`limited to,
`
`minimum wages, for each day he worked for DEFENDANTS, from in or around June 2022 through
`
`on or around October 22, 2022.
`
`. 28.
`
`Based on information andbelief, other Aggrieved Employees were also compensated
`
`on a commission/piece-rate basis and/or on an hourly basis for time counted by DEFENDANTSas
`
`hours worked.
`
`29,
`
`Based on information and belief, at
`
`times, PLAINTIFF and some Aggrieved
`
`SoOoNYWBWABPWYNY
`
`oOoaDONOHKRWHNOKFODDOwONANNHWHFFWwWNYFFCO
`OopoNONYWNWNWNNYNYYRFFRFPFeFFFeeeCL
`
`Employees, were misclassified by DEFENDANTSas exemptand compensated onasalary basis
`when they were in fact non-exempt employees. Based on information and belief, at times,
`DEFENDANTSmisclassified some Aggrieved Employees as exempt employees to try to evade
`
`California wage and hourlawsincluding butnot limited to, payment ofminimum wagesandstraight
`
`time wages even though misclassified Aggrieved Employeesdid notsatisfy any test for exemption
`
`under California law. For example, based on information and belief, misclassified Aggrieved
`
`|| Employees did not regularly exercise discretion/independent judgmentin their jobs and typically
`
`spent more than fifty percentoftheir workday performing non-exemptduties suchas, but notlimited
`
`to, operating a cashregister, assisting customers, stocking merchandise, making and/or responding
`
`to routine customer and/or other work-related calls and/or messages and/or performingother related
`work tasks not requiring the exercise of discretion nor independent judgment. For example,at all
`9
`PLAINTIFF’S REPRESENTATIVE COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS
`GENERAL ACT
`
`

`

`0mFNYDBWnFPWONY
`
`obwoNONYNHNYNYNNORRReReReRelCODNDAWABRWONYKFDODBODWNDNFFWYNYYFO&
`
`times during PLAINTIFF’s employment, PLAINTIFF spent at least eighty-five percent of his
`
`workday performing non-exemptduties such as but notlimited to, operating a cashregister, assisting
`
`customers, stocking merchandise, making and/or responding to routine customer and/orother work-
`
`related calls and/or messagesand/or performingother related worktasks not requiring the exercise
`
`of discretion nor independent judgment.
`
`30.
`
`Based on further information and belief, misclassified Aggrieved Employees,
`
`including but not limited to, PLAINTIFF, were not compensated with a monthly salary (exclusive
`
`of the value of any lodging) that equated to twice the California minimum wagerate. See, Labor
`
`Codesection 515 and Cal. Code ofRegs., tit. 8, § 11040 [providing that, for each exempted category,
`
`the employee must earn “a monthly salary equivalentto no less than two (2) times the state minimum
`
`wagefor full-time employment”].
`
`31.
`
`Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages. DEFENDANTSfailed to compensate
`
`PLAINTIFF and Aggrieved Employees for all hours worked, resulting in the underpayment of
`
`minimum and overtime wages. DEFENDANTSfailed to compensate PLAINTIFF and Aggrieved
`
`Employees for all hours worked by virtue of, DEFENDANTS' automatic deduction and time
`
`rounding policies, and failure to relieve employeesofall duties/employer control during unpaid
`
`meal periods or otherwise unlawful practices for missed or improper meal periods, as explained
`
`below. For example, DEFENDANTS’ time records and/or wage statements for PLAINTIFF show
`
`a recorded clock out for a purported meal period of precisely .50 hours in length on including but
`
`not limited to the following dates: June 21, 2022, June 22, 2022, June 25, 2022, June 27, 2022, June
`
`28, 2022, June 29, 2022, July 1, 2022, July 2, 2022,July 3, 2022, July 6, 2022, July 7, 2022,July
`
`13, 2022, July 15, 2022, July 16, 2022, and July 17, 2022. Based on information and belief,
`
`DEFENDANTSperformed an automatic deductionofat least thirty minutes per shift per Aggrieved
`
`Employee and/or roundedthe start and endtimes of unpaid meal periods of Aggrieved Employees,
`
`resulting in DEFENDANTS’ failure to compensate Aggrieved Employees for all worktime, meal
`
`period law violations, amongother violations of the Labor Code described herein.
`
`32.
`
`Based on information and belief, DEFENDANTS implemented a policy and/or
`
`practice of rounding mealperiod start and end times and/or automatically deducting at least thirty
`10
`PLAINTIFF’S REPRESENTATIVE COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS
`GENERAL ACT
`
`

`

`00NOUWBWY&
`
`obNOBPPHNHHYWNWNHNRRReReeeEelconsONAHBRWHONHKFODOOHANDAFPWYNYYKCO
`
`minutes per shift for meal periods, despite having actual and/or constructive knowledge that
`
`PLAINTIFF and other Aggrieved Employees were subject to DEFENDANTS' control during
`
`purported meal periods and/or were otherwise not afforded lawful meal periods, depriving
`PLAINTIFF and Aggrieved Employeesofall wages owed,
`.
`33.
`Based on information and belief, Agegrieved Employees were not paid for all hours
`
`worked due to DEFENDANTS'policy and/or practice of paying according to scheduled hours
`
`worked instead of actual time worked, time rounding policies and practices, and/or mandated off-
`the clock work policies and/or practices. For example, based oninformation and belief, Aggrieved
`
`Employees were required to complete off-the-clock work outside of scheduled shifts due to work-
`
`related phone calls and/or messages they received to their personal phones and were required to
`
`respond to, including but not limited to, communications from supervisors regarding scheduling
`
`and/or other worktasks, resulting in the underpayment of wages owed to Aggrieved Employees.
`
`For example, PLAINTIFF frequently received calls and/or text messages after hours and/or outside
`
`of his scheduled shift times, including but not limited to, on PLAINTIFF's purported daysoff, from
`
`his regional manager, other Aggrieved Employees regarding various work-related matters. This
`
`work time was not recorded nor compensated and at times resulted in at least several hours of off-
`
`the-clock work per month andthe significant underpayment of wages owed to PLAINTIFF.
`
`34.
`
`Based on information andbelief, prior to beginning a scheduled shift, Aggrieved
`
`Employees were required to start, log into and/or boot DEFENDANTS'computer systems, phone
`
`systems, and/or software so as to haveall systems runningat the start of the scheduledshift, often
`
`resulting in at least several minutes ofpre-shift off-the-clock work. This pre-shift work time spent
`
`under DEFENDANTS'control wasoff-the-clock and uncompensated resulting in unpaid minimum
`
`and overtime wages.
`
`35.
`
`Based on information and belief, DEFENDANTSrequired Aggrieved Employees to
`
`undergo COVID-19 temperature screenings and/or complete questionnaires prior to beginningtheir
`
`scheduledshift and/orpriorto clocking/signingin, thereby, resulting in pre-shift off-the-clock work.
`
`36.
`
`Based on information and belief, PLAINTIFF and other Aggrieved Employees were
`
`required to perform other off-the-clock work for which they were not compensated. For example,
`11
`PLAINTIFF’S REPRESENTATIVE COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS
`GENERAL ACT
`
`

`

`based on information and belief, after completing a shift and clocking out for a shift, Aggrieved
`
`Employees were required to keep working. For example, at times, based on information andbelief,
`
`DEFENDANTSrequired Aggrieved Employees to assist customers and/or complete other work
`
`tasks after c