1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`1
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`Kevin A. Lipeles (Bar No. 244275)
` Thomas H. Schelly (Bar No. 217285)
`Franz T. Reece (Bar No. 355386)
`LIPELES LAW GROUP, APC
`880 Apollo Street, Suite 336
`El Segundo, California 90245
`Telephone: (310) 322-2211
`Fax: (310) 322-2252
`Email: franz@kallaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff,
`SIDDHARTH DRAVID
`
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
`
`SIDDHARTH DRAVID, an individual,
`on his own behalf and on behalf of all
`others similarly situated,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`PHYSICAL INTELLIGENCE, INC., a
`Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
`through 100, inclusive,
`
` Defendants.
`CASE NO.: CGC-25-629220
`
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION
`COMPLAINT FOR:
`
`1. FAILURE TO PAY PREMIUM
`OVERTIME WAGES DUE (Cal. Labor
`Code §§ 510, 1198; IWC Wage Order No.
`4);
`2. FAILURE TO MAINTAIN RECORDS
`AND PROVIDE ACCURATE ITEMIZED
`WAGE STATEMENTS (Cal. Labor Code
`§226);
`3. FAILURE TO PAY WAGES DUE ON
`TERMINATION (Cal. Labor Code §§ 201-
`203);
`4. FAILURE TO REIMBURSE BUSINESS
`EXPENSES (Cal. Labor Code § 2802);
`5. FAILURE TO PAY ALL SICK LEAVE
`WAGES WHEN DUE (Cal. Labor Code
`§§201-204, 218, 218.5, 233, 245, 246 et
`seq.);
`6. FAILURE TO PAY PAID TIME OFF
`PAY ON SEPARATION OF
`EMPLOYMENT (Cal. Labor Code §227.3);
`7. FAILURE TO ALLOW INSPECTION OF
`EMPLOYMENT RECORDS (Cal. Labor
`Code §1198.5);
`8. UNFAIR COMPETITION (Cal. Bus. & Prof.
`Code §§17200 et seq.);
`
`
`ELECTRONICALLY
`F I L E D
`Superior Court of California,
`County of San Francisco
`11/25/2025
`Clerk of the Court
`BY: JEFFREY FLORES
`Deputy Clerk
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`2
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`9. DAMAGES PURSUANT TO PRIVATE
`ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT (“PAGA”).
` DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
`All allegations in this First Amended 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 op-
`portunity for further investigation and discovery.
` Siddharth Dravid (“Plaintiff”) alleges the following:
`1. This is a class action brought under California law by an individual who was
`employed by Physical Intelligence, Inc. (“Defendant”) (along with DOES 1 through 100,
`collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and others similarly
`situated to recover wages from Defendant due to Defendant’s systematic failure to pay
`overtime wages, failure to issue accurate wage statements, failure to pay all wages on
`termination, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to pay sick pay, failure to pay PTO
`pay and failure to allow inspection of employment records.
`2. Plaintiffs have worked as employees at Defendant’s offices in California. While
`working, Plaintiffs have been forced to endure stressful and illegal workplace conditions
`created by Defendant’s efforts to maximize profits and tightly control labor costs.
`3. Plaintiff, like his co-workers whom Defendant also employed during the
`applicable limitations period, spend their workdays at Defendant’s offices in California, under
`illegal and highly regimented circumstances. That regimen results from Defendant’s insistence
`to strictly monitor and curtail labor costs, which Defendant accomplishes by not paying for all
`labor costs, failing to pay overtime, failing to issue accurate wage statements, failing to pay all
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`3
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`wages on termination, failing to reimburse business expenses, failing to pay sick pay, failing to
`pay PTO PAY, failing to allow inspection of employment records, and by using other unlawful
`stratagems to ensure that labor costs remain artificially low.
`4. Plaintiff brings this class action to recover, among other things, wages and
`penalties from unpaid wages earned and due, including but not limited to, premium overtime
`wages, penalties for failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, wages and penalties
`for failure to issue all wages on termination, damages for failure to reimburse business
`expenses, wages and penalties for failure to pay sick pay, wages for failing to pay PTO pay,
`penalties for failure to allow inspection of employment records and interest, attorneys’ fees,
`costs, and expenses.
`5. Plaintiff seeks compensatory, statutory, declaratory, and injunctive relief for
`himself and all members of the class, to compensate these workers for the unpaid wages and to
`protect current and future workers of Defendant from being subjected to similar wage theft and
`otherwise unlawful working conditions.
`6. Plaintiff also brings an action seeking relief for Defendant’s violations of
`California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq., including full restitution and
`disgorgement of all compensation retained by Defendant as a result of its unlawful and unfair
`business practices, as well as injunctive relief.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`7. This Court has jurisdiction over this First Amended Complaint under Code of
`Civil Procedure §410.10. This action is brought under Code of Civil Procedure § 382, and
`Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq. Plaintiff Siddharth Dravid brings this First
`Amended Complaint on his own behalf and on behalf of all persons in the Class as defined in
`paragraph 17 below.
`8. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 395 and
`395.5, because the claims made, and the Labor Code violations as against the persons identified
`herein, occurred in the County of San Francisco and because Defendant owned and operated its
`business in the County of San Francisco.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`4
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`THE PARTIES
`PLAINTIFF
`9. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was:
`(a) An individual over age 18 and a resident of San Francisco, California;
`(b) Employed as an hourly employee for Defendant in California;
`(c) Did not receive overtime compensation required by Labor Code §§510,
`511, 558, 1194, 1198 and IWC Wage Order No. 4;
`(d) Did not receive accurate wage statements as mandated by Labor Code
`§226;
`(e) Was not paid all wages owed on termination as mandated by Labor Code
`§§ 201-203;
`(f) Was not reimbursed his necessary business expenses in violation of
`Labor Code § 2802;
`(g) Was not provided sick leave wages when due in violation of Labor Code
`§§201-204, 218, 218.5, 233, 245, 246 et seq.;
`(h) Was not paid PTO wages when due in violation of Cal. Labor Code
`§227.3; and
`(i) Was not provided his personnel records. Each of these was a violation of
`the Labor Code.
`DEFENDANT
`10. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on that information and belief,
`alleges, Defendant is, and at all times mentioned herein was:
`(a) A Delaware corporation, with a principal place of business at 396 Treat
`Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94110. Defendant has been authorized to do
`business and has been doing business in the County of San Francisco;
`(b) The former employer of Plaintiff and the current and former employer of
`the putative Class members;
`(c) Paid Plaintiff and all Class members on an hourly basis;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`5
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`(d) Failed to pay Plaintiff and all putative Class members premium overtime
`wages;
`(e) Failed to provide Plaintiff and all putative Class members with accurate
`itemized wage statements;
`(f) Failed to pay Plaintiff and all putative Class members wages owed on
`termination and/or resignation;
`(g) Failed to reimburse business expenses to Plaintiff and all putative Class
`members;
`(h) Failed to provide sick pay for Plaintiff and all putative Class members;
`(i) Failed to provide PTO pay to Plaintiff and all putative Class members;
`and
`(j) Failed to provide Plaintiff and all putative Class members their personnel
`records. Each of these was a violation of the Labor Code.
`11. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, subsidiary,
`partnership, associate or otherwise of Defendants DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown
`to Plaintiff, who therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to Code of
`Civil Procedure § 474. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend his First Amended Complaint to
`allege the true names and capacities of DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, when they are
`ascertained.
`12. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on that information and belief
`alleges, that Defendant DOES 1 through 100 are persons, corporations or other entities which
`reside in or are authorized to do, or are otherwise doing, business in the State of California.
`Specifically, DOES 1 through 100 maintain offices, operate businesses, employ persons, and
`conduct business in the County of San Francisco. Each of the Defendants DOES 1 through 100
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`6
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`13. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on that information and belief
`alleges, that the Defendants named in this First Amended Complaint, including DOES 1
`through 100, inclusive, are responsible in some manner for one or more of the events and
`happenings that proximately caused the injuries and damages hereinafter alleged.
`14. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on that information and belief
`alleges, that Defendants named in this First Amended Complaint, including DOES 1 through
`100, 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.
`15. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on that information and belief
`alleges, that the Defendants named in this First Amended Complaint, including DOES 1
`through 100, 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 was accomplished in concert with, and with the knowledge,
`ratification, authorization and approval of each of the other Defendants.
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`A. The Definition of the Class
`16. The Class (“the Class”) is defined as follows:
` (a) “All current and former employees who were hourly paid employees of
`Defendant and worked for Defendant in California at any time during the period
`commencing on the date that is four (4) years prior to the filing of this First
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`Amended Complaint and continuing through the present date (the “Class
`Period”).”
` (b) “All persons who were hourly paid employees of Defendant and worked for
`Defendant in California and left the employ of Defendant at any time during the
`period commencing on the date that is within one (1) year prior to the filing of
`this First Amended Complaint and continuing through the present date (the
`“Class Period”)”.
` Plaintiff reserves his right under Rule 3.765 of the California Rules of Court to
`amend or modify the Class description with greater specificity or further
`division into subclasses or limitation to particular issues.
`B. Maintenance of the Action
`17. Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of himself and as
`representative of all similarly situated persons under Business & Professions Code §§ 17203
`and 17204 and Code of Civil Procedure § 382.
`C. The Class Requisites
`18. At all material times, Plaintiff was a member of the Class.
`19. The Class action meets the statutory prerequisites for maintaining a class action
`under Code of Civil Procedure § 382 in that:
` (a) The persons who comprise the Class 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 First Amended Complaint are common to the Class
`and will apply uniformly to every Class member;
` (c) The claims of the representative Plaintiff are typical of the claims of each
`Class member. Plaintiff, like all Class members, has sustained damages
`arising from Defendant’s violations of the laws of the State of California.
`Plaintiff, and the Class members, were and are similarly or identically
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`8
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`harmed by the same unlawful, deceptive, unfair, systematic and pervasive
`pattern of misconduct engaged in by the Defendant;
` (d) The representative Plaintiff has, and will continue to, fairly and adequately
`represent and protect the interests of the Class 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.
`20. The persons who comprise the Class 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 Class that Plaintiff seeks to represent. Plaintiff
`will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class he seeks to represent. Plaintiff does
`not have any interests that are antagonistic to the Class he seeks to represent. Counsel for
`Plaintiff are experienced, qualified and generally able to conduct complex class action
`litigation.
`21. The Court should permit the action to be maintained as a class action under
`Code of Civil Procedure § 382 because:
`(a) The questions of law and fact common to the Class 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 Class;
`(c) The Class members are so numerous that it is impractical to bring all of
`them before the Court;
`(d) Plaintiff and other Class 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 Defendant is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`9
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`responsible in an amount sufficient to adequately compensate the Class
`members;
`(f) Without Class certification, the prosecution of separate actions by
`individual Cass members would create a risk of:
` i. Inconsistent or varying adjudications for individual Class members
`that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for
`Defendant; and/or,
` ii. Adjudication for individual Class 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 Defendant, and
`(g) Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to
`the Classes, making final injunctive relief appropriate for the Class, as a
`whole.
`22. Plaintiff contemplates eventually issuing notice to the proposed Class Members
`that would set forth the subject and nature of the action. The Defendant’s 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.
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`23. At all times material hereto, Defendant has been and is, a company comprised of
`a group of engineers, scientists, roboticists, and company builders developing foundation
`models and learning algorithms to power robots.
`24. Plaintiff and members of the Class were employed as Robot Operators and other
`non-exempt employees by Defendant in California at various times during the Class Period.
`//
`//
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`10
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`25. The employment by Defendant of the Class members, and each them, is
`governed by Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 4, which covers those persons
`employed in the professional, technical, clerical, mechanical and similar occupations.
`THE CONDUCT
`26. Plaintiff seeks relief from Defendant’s uniform policies and practices of denying
`Plaintiff and members of the Class wages and compensation owed under California law.
`27. Starting on or about April 25, 2025 and continuing to August 12, 2025,
`Defendant employed Plaintiff on an hourly basis as a Robot Operator at its offices in San
`Francisco, California. Plaintiff performed testing of robotics, obtained data and analyzed data.
`28. While employed by Defendant as a Robot Operator, Plaintiff was paid
`approximately $25.00 per hour.
`REGULAR RATE OF PAY
`29. California law uses the terms "compensation" and "pay" interchangeably and
`requires that all applicable remuneration, including but not limited to, commissions, and/or
`non-discretionary shift premiums, etc., be included when calculating an employee's regular
`rate of pay.
`30. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant knew or
`should have known that Plaintiff and Class members were entitled to be paid at a regular rate
`of pay, and corresponding overtime, sick pay and PTO rates, that included as eligible income
`all income derived from all forms of compensation.
`31. Defendant failed to properly pay and calculate overtime, sick pay and PTO due
`to excluding shift premiums from overtime, sick pay and PTO pay calculations. Such shift
`premiums are required under California law to be included in an employee’s regular rate of
`pay for overtime, sick pay and PTO pay calculations. Defendant failed to do so, thereby failing
`to pay employees their full wages as required under the Labor Code.
`32. Plaintiff and members of the Class received shift premiums that must be
`included when calculating their regular rates of pay for purposes of overtime, sick pay and
`PTO pay. However, Defendant failed to correctly calculate Plaintiff and members of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`11
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`Class’s overtime, sick pay and PTO pay to include all applicable remuneration, including, but
`not limited to, shift premiums, etc.
`FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME
`33. Under California law, non-exempt employees as defined by Wage Order No. 4,
`are entitled to premium wages for overtime worked. Under California law, an hourly paid
`employee is entitled to overtime pay when they exceed eight hours of work in a single day,
`exceed 40 hours of work in a week or work seven days in a row.
`34. During the Class Period, it was the practice and policy of Defendant to not
`properly pay employees’ overtime. Plaintiff and Class members were not paid overtime
`because shift premiums were not blended into their regular rate of pay for purposes of paying
`overtime at the proper rate. Further, Defendant did not pay Plaintiff and Class members
`overtime at the rate of time and one half. As a result, Plaintiff and Class members were not
`properly paid for all of the overtime time hours they worked.
`FAILURE TO ISSUE ACCURATE WAGE STATEMENTS
`35. As a result of Defendant’s failure to pay employees at required overtime, sick
`pay rates and PTO rates, the wage statements issued to the employees did not comply with
`Labor Code §226 and the California Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order No.
`4 in that they did not accurately reflect all wages earned and due and owing.
`FAILURE TO PAY WAGES ON TERMINATION
`36. As a further result of Defendant’s failure to pay employees at required overtime,
`sick pay rates and PTO rates, when the employees left their employ, they were not timely paid
`all wages due them, as required by Labor Code §§ 201, 202 and IWC Wage Order No. 4.
`FAILURE TO REIMBURSE BUSINESS EXPENSES
`37. Defendant failed to reimburse Plaintiff and Class members for their personal cell
`phone use.
`FAILURE TO PROPERLY PAY SICK PAY WAGES
`38. Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class sick pay wages because shift
`premiums were not blended into their regular rate of pay for purposes of paying sick pay.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`12
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`TO PAY PAID TIME OFF PAY ON SEPARATION OF EMPLOYMENT
`39. Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class PTO wages because shift
`premiums were not blended into their regular rate of pay rate for purposes of paying PTO pay.
`FAILURE TO ALLOW INSPECTION OF PERSONNEL RECORDS
`40. Defendant failed to allow Plaintiff and Class members to timely inspect their
`records and payroll files.
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME
`(Labor Code §§510, 511 558, 1194, 1198 and IWC Wage Order No. 4 by Plaintiff Against
`Defendant and Does 1-100)
`41. Plaintiff and the Class reallege and incorporate by reference all of the allegations
`set forth in this First Amended Complaint.
`42. During Plaintiff’s entire employment with Defendant, pursuant to Cal. Lab.
`Code §§510, 1194, and 1198, and IWC Wage Order No. 4, Defendant was required to
`compensate Plaintiff with premium pay for all overtime work performed, for hours worked in
`excess of eight (8) hours per day and/or forty (40) hours per week and for the first eight (8)
`hours on the seventh (7th) consecutive day of any work week.
`43. At all times relevant herein, Cal. Lab. Code §1194(a) provided that an employee
`who had not been paid overtime compensation could recover the unpaid balance of the full
`amount of overtime wages due, including interest thereon, together with reasonable attorneys’
`fees and costs of suit.
`44. Pursuant to IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001, § 3, “Employment beyond eight (8)
`hours in any workday is permissible provided the employee is compensated for such overtime
`at not less than: (a) One and one-half (1 1/2) times the employee’s regular rate of pay for all
`hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours up to and including twelve (12) hours in any
`workday...
`45. California Labor Code section 558 provides in pertinent part:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`13
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`(a) Any employer or other person acting on behalf of an employer who violates,
`or causes to be violated, a section of this chapter or any provision regulating
`hours and days of work in any order of the Industrial Welfare Commission shall
`be subject to a civil penalty as follows:
`(1) For any initial violation, fifty dollars ($50) for each underpaid employee for
`each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in addition to an
`amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages.
`(2) For each subsequent violation, one hundred dollars ($100) for each
`underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid
`in addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages.
`(3) Wages recovered pursuant to this section shall be paid to the affected
`employee...
`(c) The civil penalties provided for in this section are in addition to any other
`civil or criminal penalty provided by law.
`46. As alleged above, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class at the rate of
`time and one half when they worked overtime.
`47. California law also requires that any compensation, including a shift premium or
`other pay, must be included in the regular rate of pay. Defendant failed to blend shift premiums
`when calculating Plaintiff and Class members’ regular rate in workweeks when they earned
`such pay and worked overtime. Plaintiff earned a graveyard premium, As such, Plaintiff and
`Class members were paid at an overtime rate less than the rate required under California law.
`48. Throughout Plaintiff’s employment, Defendant failed and refused to pay and
`properly calculate overtime compensation to Plaintiff and Class Members as required by law.
`49. The foregoing overtime compensation is owed and unpaid. As a direct and
`proximate result of Defendant’s failure and refusal to pay overtime, Plaintiff and Class
`Members suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
`//
`//
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`14
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`50. Pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code §1194(a), Plaintiff, who retained the services of legal
`counsel in order to enforce Plaintiff’s rights to overtime pay, is entitled to recover Plaintiff’s
`attorneys’ fees, costs and interest.
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`FOR FAILURE TO MAINTAIN RECORDS AND PROVIDE ACCURATE WAGE
`ITEMIZED STATEMENTS
`(Labor Code §226 By Plaintiff Against Defendant and Does 1 through 100)
`51. Plaintiff and the Class reallege and incorporate by reference all of the allegations
`set forth in this First Amended Complaint.
`52. Pursuant to IWC Wage Order No. 4, Defendant was the employer of Plaintiff
`and the Class.
`53. Pursuant to California Labor Code sections 226 and 1174, and Wage Order No.
`4, section 7, Defendant is required to maintain and provide accurate records relating to
`employee compensation including all formulas and production records used to calculate wages
`due.
`54. Defendant is further required to provide, inter alia, semimonthly or at the time
`of each payment of wages, an accurate itemized statement showing: (1) gross wages earned; (2)
`all deductions from wages; (3) net wages earned; (4) the inclusive dates of the period for which
`the employee is being paid; (5) the name of the employee; and (6) the name and address of the
`legal entity that is the employee's actual employer. Cal. Labor Code §226(a).
`55. Section 226(e) provides that an employee is entitled to recover $50 for the initial
`pay period in which a violation of Section 226 occurs and $100 for each subsequent pay period,
`not to exceed $4,000, plus an award of costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, for all pay periods
`in which the employer knowingly and intentionally failed to provide accurate itemized
`statements to the employee causing the employee to suffer injury.
`56. Notwithstanding these provisions. Defendant has engaged in a uniform practice
`of refusing to maintain and provide the accurate records and wage statements required by
`California law.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`15
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`57. Throughout the Class Period, Defendant intentionally and knowingly provided
`Plaintiff and other members of the Class with weekly itemized wage statements containing
`inaccurate information regarding the wages earned by Plaintiff and members of the Class in
`that the payments owed to Plaintiff and the members of the Class for overtime compensation,
`sick pay and PTO pay were not included in gross wages earned by Plaintiff and members of the
`Class.
`58. As a result, Plaintiff and members of the Class have been injured by having been
`deprived of the true facts pertaining to their compensation and employment.
`59. Plaintiff and members of the Class were damaged by these failures because,
`among other things, the failures led them to believe that they were not entitled to overtime, sick
`pay and PTO pay, even though they were so entitled and these failures hindered them from
`determining the amounts of wages owed to them.
`60. Plaintiff and members of the Class are entitled to the amounts provided in Labor
`Code §226(e), plus attorneys' fees and costs.
`61. As result, Plaintiff seeks recovery of the penalties authorized by Labor Code
`sections 226(e) and 558, and such other penalties and legal and equitable remedies as are
`provided by law for Defendant’s improper conduct.
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`FOR FAILURE TO PAY WAGES UPON TERMINATION
`(Labor Code §§201-203 By Plaintiff against Defendant and Does 1 through 100)
`62. Plaintiff and the Class reallege and incorporate by reference all of the allegations
`set forth in this First Amended Complaint.
`63. Labor Code § 201(a) provides that a discharged employee's unpaid wages are
`due and payable immediately. Labor Code § 202(a) provides that when an employee resigns
`from employment, unpaid wages are due and payable within 72 hours of resignation.
`64. Labor Code § 203(a) provides that if an employer willfully fails to pay wages as
`mandated by Labor Code §§ 201 and 202, the employee's wages shall continue to accrue until
`paid, not to exceed thirty days.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`16
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`65. Plaintiff and the Class were discharged and/or resigned from Defendant’s
`employ and Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class wages due them.
`66. Under Labor Code § 203(a), Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to one day’s
`wages for each day he or she was not timely paid, not to exceed 30 days' wages.
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`FAILURE TO REIMBUSE BUSINESS EXPENSES
`(Labor Code §2802 By Plaintiff against Defendant and Does 1 through 100)
`67. Plaintiff and the Class reallege and incorporate by reference all of the allegations
`set forth in this First Amended Complaint.
`68. Labor Code §2802 requires employers to indemnify employees for all necessary
`expenditures incurred by employees in the discharge of their duties.
`69. At all times relevant herein, Defendant was aware that Plaintiff and Class
`members were using their personal cell phones for business, but failed to indemnify Plaintiff
`and Class members for all their business-related expenses, including wear and tear expenses, in
`accordance with Labor Code §2802. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges t