Electronically Filed
`by Superior Court of CA,
`County of Santa Clara,
`on 8/9/2021 12:20 PM
`Reviewed By: R. Walker
`Case #21CV383681
`Envelope: 7021941
`
`210V383681
`Santa Clara — Civil
`
`Ashwin Ladva, Esq., SB# 206140
`Scott Nakama, Esq., SB# 296732
`
`Sseck LAW re
`530 Jac son St., 2"°
`floor
`San Francisco, CA 94133
`(415) 296-8844
`(415) 296-8847 (f)
`ladvalaw@gmail.com
`snakama@ladvalaw.com
`
`Attoreys for Plaintiff ELIOT JOHNSON
`
`be
`
`N Q
`
`W
`
`ds
`
`a O
`
`Y’
`
`~J
`
`Cc
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR
`
`COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`VS.
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY,INC. and DOES1
`through 100,inclusive,
`
`Defendants.
`
`CLASS ACTION
`
`IRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
`AMAGES
`
`. FAILURE TO REIMBURSE EXPENSES
`(Individual and Class Claims);
`2. VIOLATION OF BUSINESS
`PROFESSIONS CODE8§ 17200 ET SEQ.;
`and
`3. FAILURE TO REIMBURSE BUSINESS
`RELATED EXPENSES (LABOR CODE§
`2802 - PAGA)
`
` URY TRIAL DEMAND
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Eliot Johnson brings this action against MICRON TECHNOLOGY,INC. and DOES
`
`1 through 100, for reimbursement of expenses, injunctive relief, civil penalties, attorneys’ fees, costs,
`
`and interest, resulting from Defendants’ unlawful and tortious conduct.
`
`PARTIES
`
`First Amended Complaint
`
`LO
`
`a t
`
` bo wo
`
`NO
`
`bo Ww
`
`os
`
`oO
`
`~]
`
`foe)
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`ELIOT JOHNSON,individually, and on behalf of|Case No.: 21CV383681
`e
`the general public,
`
`

`

`1.
`
`Plaintiff Eliot Johnson (“Plaintiff”) wasat all times relevant herein employed in San
`
`Jose, California and was an “employee”as defined by California Government Code Section 12926,
`
`the applicable Wage Order(s) of the Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”), and the California
`
`Labor Code.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant MICRON TECHNOLOGY,INC. (“MICRON” or “Defendant’) is a
`
`corporation headquartered in the state of Idaho. MICRON produces computer memory and computer
`
`data storage including but not limited to USB flash drives. MICRON is an employer as defined by
`
`the California Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage Order(s).
`
`3.
`
`MICRONand Does 1-50 are collectively referred to as Defendants. Plaintiff is not
`
`aware ofthe true names and capacities of the Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 50, whether
`
`individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, and therefore sues such Defendants by thesefictitious
`
`names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when
`
`ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that each ofthe fictitiously
`
`named Defendants is responsible in some mannerfor the occurrences herein alleged and that
`
`Plaintiffs injuries and damagesherein alleged were legally caused by such Defendants. Unless
`
`otherwise indicated, each Defendant was acting within the course and scope of said agency and/or
`
`employment, with the knowledge and/or consent of said co-Defendants.
`
`4,
`
`All references to “Defendant,” “Defendants,” “DEFENDANT,” “DEFENDANTS,”
`
`39 66
`
`“company,”
`
`“employer” or any similar language, whether singular or plural, will mean “Defendants
`
`MICRON;and Does | through 100, inclusive, and each of them, when used throughoutthis
`
`complaint.
`
`VENUE & TRIAL DEMAND
`
`First Amended Complaint
`
`be
`
`N Q
`
`W
`
`ds
`
`a O
`
`Y’
`
`~J
`
`Cc
`
`LO
`
`a t
`
`e
`
`NO
`
`bh Ww
`
` bh wo
`
`os
`
`oO
`
`~]
`
`foe)
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`5.
`
`Venuein this judicial district is proper under California Code of Civil Procedure §
`
`395(a) because Plaintiff's former place of employment with MICRONis located within Santa Clara
`
`County. Plaintiff, on his own behalf and in his capacity as a proxy or agent of the California Labor
`
`and Workforce Development Agency (““LWDA”), demandsa jury trial.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from May 26, 2020 through May 3, 2021 as
`
`Director of Digital Marketing in San Jose, California. Aspart of Plaintiff's duties with Defendants,
`
`Plaintiff supervised approximately five employees as well as approximately five contractors. Because
`
`Plaintiff's employment was during the COVID19 pandemic, he telecommuted and worked outofhis
`
`home in California.
`
`7.
`
`During Plaintiff's employment, Plaintiff was not reimbursed for the use of his Internet
`
`and/or the cost of Wi-Fi that he was required to use during his employment with Defendants.
`
`Defendants failed to reimburse Plaintiff and Class Membersfor all expenses in violation of Californi
`
`Labor Code § 2802 even though they kneworhad reason to know that Plaintiff and Class Members
`
`incurred the expenses. Because Mr. Johnson and Class Members were required to work at home,it
`
`wasobviousthat they needed to use the Internet and/or needed Wi-Fi to perform their duties.
`
`Additionally, Plaintiff is informed and believes that MICRONfailed to reimburse other exempt and
`
`non-exempt employees for phone usage even though they knew orhad reason to knowthat the
`
`employees incurred the expenses. Defendants did not have a policy to retrmburse California
`
`employees for the use of their phone, Internet and/or the cost of Wi-Fi. These violations were
`
`committed against current and other former employees of MICRON in California. Mr. Johnson on
`
`behalf of himself and other aggrieved parties seek reimbursement of expenses andcivil penalties
`
`pursuant to the California Labor Code.
`
`First Amended Complaint
`
`be
`
`N Q
`
`W
`
`ds
`
`a O
`
`Y’
`
`~J
`
`Cc
`
`LO
`
`a t
`
`e
`
`NO
`
`bo Ww
`
` bo wo
`
`os
`
`oO
`
`~]
`
`foe)
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff sues, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, as a class action
`
`under section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The classes which Plaintiff seeks to represent are:
`
`a. All employees of Defendants, in the State of California who were not reimbursed for
`
`all expenses within four years preceding filing the complaintto the time offinal
`
`judgment.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff reserves the right under Rule 3.765, California Rules of Court, to amend or
`
`modify the class descriptions with greater specificity or further division into subclasses or limitation
`
`to particular issues.
`
`10.
`
`The classes of persons within the State of California are so numerousthat joinder of
`
`all members is impracticable, and the disposition of their claimsin a class action is a benefit to the
`
`parties and to the Court. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereonalleges, that
`
`Defendants employ and employed in California no less than 300 persons whosatisfy at least one of
`
`the class definitions. Although the exact numberandidentity of these putative class membersis not
`
`known,they can be identified in Defendants’ records through coordinated discovery underthis class
`
`action.
`
`11.
`
`This action may be maintained as a class under Code of Civil Procedure section 382
`
`because the questions of law and fact which are common to class members predominate over
`
`questions affecting only individual members and becausea class action is superior to other available
`
`methods for adjudicating the controversy.
`
`12.
`
`There are numerous common questions of law and fact arising out of Defendants’
`
`conduct.
`
`First Amended Complaint
`
`be
`
`N
`
`ds
`
`a O
`
`Y’
`
`~J
`
`Cc
`
`LO
`
`a t
`
`e
`
`NO
`
`bh Ww
`
` bh wo
`
`os
`
`oO
`
`~]
`
`foe)
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`be
`13.|Common questions of law and fact predominate over questions affecting only
`
`individual members of the class. The predominating commonorclass-wide questions of law and fact
`
`include:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Whether Defendants failed to reimburse Plaintiff and Class Members for expenses;
`
`Whether Defendants engaged in unfair business practices in violation of California
`
`Business & Professions Code Sections 17200 et seg for unreimbursed business
`
`expenses.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the membersofthe class all of whom
`
`have sustained and/or will sustain damage and injury as a proximate and/orlegal result of
`
`Defendants’ violations of Labor Code section 2802. Plaintiff's claims are typical of those of the class
`
`because Defendants subjected Plaintiff and each memberofthe class to the same Labor Code and
`
`Business and Profession Codeviolations alleged.
`
`15.
`
`The defenses of Defendants, if such defenses apply, are applicable to the whole class
`
`and are not distinguishable as to the proposed class members.
`
`2
`
`ds
`
`a O
`
`Y’
`
`~J
`
`Cc
`
`LO
`
`a t
`
`e
`
`NO
`
`bh Ww
`
`os
`
`oO
`
`~]
`
` bh wo
`
`16.—Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of all membersofthe classes,
`foe)
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`and hasretained attorneys with extensive experience in employmentlitigation, including class and
`
`other representative actions. Plaintiff has no interests that conflict with those of the classes. Plaintiff
`
`can fairly and adequately protect the interests of all members of the class because it is in her best
`
`interest to prosecute the claims alleged to obtain the full compensation due to them.
`
`17.
`
`A class action is superior to any other methodavailable for fairly and efficiently
`
`adjudicating the controversy because:
`
`a.
`
`Joinder of individual class membersis not practical;
`
`First Amended Complaint
`
`

`

`b. Litigating the claims of individual class members is unnecessarily costly and
`
`burdensomeand deters individual claims;
`
`c. Litigating the claims of individual class membercreatesa risk of inconsistent or
`
`varying adjudications that will establish incompatible standards of conduct for
`
`Defendants;
`
`d. Class membersstill working for Defendants mayfearretaliation if they bring
`
`individual claims;
`
`e. Class membersare discouraged from pursuing individual claims because the
`
`damages available to them are relatively small; and
`
`f. California public policy encouragesthe use ofclass actions to enforce California
`
`employment laws and protect individuals who, by their subordinate position, are
`
`vulnerable.
`
`18.
`
`Judicial economywill be served by maintenance ofthis lawsuit as a class action. To
`
`process numerous, virtually identical, individual cases will significantly increase the expense on the
`
`Court, the class members and Defendants, all while unnecessarily delaying the resolution ofthis
`
`matter. There are no obstacles to effective and efficient management by this Court of this lawsuit as
`
`a Class action, and doing so will provide multiple benefits to the litigating parties including, but not
`
`limited to, efficiency, economy, and uniform adjudication with consistent results.
`
`19.
`
`Notice of a certified class action and any result or resolution ofthe litigation can be
`
`provided to class members by mail, e-mail, publication, or such other methods of notice as deemed
`
`appropriate by the Court.
`
`PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT ALLEGATIONS
`
`First Amended Complaint
`
`be
`
`N Q
`
`W
`
`ds
`
`a O
`
`Y’
`
`~J
`
`Cc
`
`LO
`
`a t
`
`e
`
`NO
`
`bo Ww
`
` bo wo
`
`os
`
`oO
`
`~]
`
`foe)
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`20.
`
`The California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”),as set
`
`forth at Labor Code section 2698 et seq., is and at all times relevant, was applicable to Plaintiffs’
`
`employment with Defendants.
`
`21.
`
`Pursuant to Labor Code section 2699(a), any provision of the Labor Code which
`
`provides for a civil penalty to be assessed and collected by the Labor and Workforce Development
`
`Agency (““LWDA”’)for violations of the Labor Code may,as an alternative, be recovered through a
`
`civil action brought by an aggrieved employee on behalf of himself or herself and other current or
`
`former employees pursuantto the procedures outlined in Labor Code section 2699.3.
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants, and the alleged violations were committed
`
`against them in relation to their employment with Defendants. Plaintiffs are, therefore, aggrieved
`
`employees as defined by Labor Codesection 2699(c). Other employees, current and former, are also
`
`aggrieved employeesin that one or moreofthe alleged violations were also committed against them
`
`in relation to their employment with Defendants.
`
`23.
`
`Pursuant to Labor Codesection 2699(g), an aggrieved employee may recoverthe civil
`
`penalty on behalf of himself or herself and other current or former employees against whom oneor
`
`more ofthe alleged violations was committed. Furthermore, any employee whoprevails in any such
`
`be
`
`N Q
`
`W
`
`ds
`
`a O
`
`Y’
`
`~J
`
`Cc
`
`LO
`
`a t
`
`e
`
`NO
`
`bh Ww
`
` bh wo
`
`os
`
`oO
`
`~]
`
`foe)
`
`20
`
`action shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
`
`21
`24.—Pursuant to Labor Code section 2699.3, an aggrieved employee maypursuea civil
`22
`
`action under the PAGAafter the following requirements have been met:
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`(a) The aggrieved employee has provided written notice by online filing to the LWDA and by
`
`certified mail to the employer (hereinafter “Employee’s Notice’) of the specific provision
`
`of the Labor Codealleged to have been violated, including the facts and theories to
`
`support the alleged violations; and
`
`First Amended Complaint
`
`

`

`(b) The LWDAhasprovided notice (hereinafter “LWDA’s Notice”) to the employer and the
`
`aggrieved employee by certified mail that it does not intend to postmark date of the
`
`Employee’s Notice. Upon receipt of the LWDA’s Notice, or if the LWDA does not
`
`provide such Notice within 65 calendar days of the postmark date of the Employee’s
`
`Notice, the aggrieved employee may commencea civil action pursuant to Labor Code
`
`section 2699 to recovercivil penalties in addition to any other penalties to which the
`
`employee maybeentitled.
`
`N Q
`
`W
`
`ds
`
`a O
`
`Y’
`
`~J
`
`Cc
`
`25,
`
`On June 3, 2021, Plaintiff provided written notice by onlinefiling to the LWDAand
`
`by certified mail to the Defendants of specific provisions of the Labor Code alleged to have been
`
`violated by the Defendants, including the facts and theories to support the alleged violations.
`
`26.
`
`As of August 9, 2021, the LWDAhasnot providedPlaintiffs with written notice that i
`
`intends to investigate the alleged violations of the Labor Code. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have satisfied
`
`the administrative prerequisites under Labor Code section 2699.3 to bring a civil action to recover
`
`civil penalties under the PAGA,in addition to other remedies.
`
`27.
`
`Pursuant to Labor Code section 2699.3(d), the aforementioned 65-day “exhaustion
`
`period” is not counted as part of the time limited for the commencementof a civil action to recover
`
`civil penalties under the PAGA.
`
`CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE§§ 2802
`(Failure to Reimburse for Business Expenses — Individual and Class Claim)
`Against Defendants
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 27 by reference.
`
`First Amended Complaint
`
`LO
`
`a t
`
`e
`
`NO
`
`bh Ww
`
` bh wo
`
`os
`
`oO
`
`~]
`
`foe)
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`29.
`
`California Labor Code § 2802 providesthat “[a]n employer shall indemnify his or her
`
`employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of
`
`the discharge ofhis or her duties.”
`
`30.
`
` Atset forth above and duringthe relevant time period, Defendants failed to indemnify
`
`and reimburse Plaintiff and Class Membersfor all necessary expenditures or losses incurred in direct
`
`consequence of discharge of duties, or of obedience to the directions of Defendants.
`
`be
`
`N Q
`
`W
`
`ds
`
`a O
`
`Y’
`
`~J
`
`Cc
`31.|Wherefore, Plaintiff and Class Members have been injured and requestrelief as
`
`provided.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE§§ 17200, et seq.)
`Against Defendants
`
`32,
`
`33.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 31 by reference.
`
`Defendants’ conduct, as alleged, has been, and continuesto be, unfair, unlawful, and
`
`harmful to Plaintiff and to the general public, Plaintiff seeks to enforce important rights affecting the
`
`public interest within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5.
`
`34.
`
`Defendants’ activities, as alleged here, are violations of California law, and constitute
`
`unlawful business acts and practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code §§
`
`17200, et seq.
`
`35.
`
`A violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seg. may be
`
`predicated on the violation of a state or federal law. Defendants’ policies and practices of requiring
`
`Plaintiff and Class Members, to work without being reimbursed for work related expenses violate the
`
`applicable California Labor Code and constitute unfair business practices in violation of California
`
`Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.
`
`First Amended Complaint
`
`LO
`
`a t
`
`e
`
`NO
`
`bo Ww
`
` bo wo
`
`os
`
`oO
`
`~]
`
`foe)
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`36.
`
`Plaintiff and Class Membershave been injured by Defendants’ unlawful businessacts
`
`and practices as alleged, including but not limited to the loss of money or property. Defendants have
`
`reaped unfair benefits and illegal profits at Plaintiff's expense.
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiff and Class Membersare entitled to immediate possession of all amounts owed
`
`to Plaintiff and Class Members by Defendants, with interest.
`
`38.
`
`Defendants’ unfair business practices entitle Plaintiff to seek preliminary and
`
`permanent injunctive relief, including but not limited to orders that Defendant accountfor, disgorge,
`
`and restore to Plaintiff and Class Members, the reimbursement of expenses unlawfully withheld from
`
`Plaintiff and Class Members.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE§§ 2802
`(Failure to Reimburse for Business Expenses — PAGA only)
`Against Defendants
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of Paragraphs | through 38 by reference.
`
`California Labor Code § 2802 providesthat “[a]n employer shall indemnify his or her
`
`employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of
`
`the discharge of his or her duties.”
`
`41.
`
`Atset forth above and during the relevant time period, Defendants failed to indemnify
`
`and reimburse Plaintiff and other aggrieved employeesfor all necessary expenditures or losses
`
`incurred in direct consequence of discharge of duties, or of obedienceto the directions of Defendants.
`
`42. Wherefore, Plaintiff requests the civil penalties, attorney’s fees, and costs recoverable
`
`in a civil action brought by an aggrieved employee on behalf of himself and, as a proxy for the
`
`LWDA,on behalf of Defendants’ other current and former employees.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff demandstrial by jury of all claims and causesofaction so triable.
`
`First Amended Complaint
`
`be
`
`N Q
`
`W
`
`ds
`
`a O
`
`Y’
`
`~J
`
`Cc
`
`LO
`
`a t
`
`e
`
`NO
`
`bh Ww
`
` bh wo
`
`os
`
`oO
`
`~]
`
`foe)
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE,Plaintiff prays judgment against Defendants as follows:
`
`This Court certify the class alleged by Plaintiff.
`
`This Court certify Plaintiff as the representative of the class.
`
`Forstatutory attorneys’ fees and costs, including those available under Code of Civil
`
`Procedure section 1021.5 and 2802.1.
`
`Reimbursement of necessary expenditures, preyudgmentinterest, attorneys’ fees and
`
`costs under Labor Code 2802 and 2802.1;
`
`For injunctive relief to ensure compliance with this section, pursuant to California
`
`Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.;
`
`Restitution under California Business and Professions Code § 17203;
`
`Forcivil penalties pursuant to Labor Code section 2699(f);
`
`For attorney fees and costs under California Business and Professions Code;
`
`For attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Labor Code section 2699(g);
`
`For such otherrelief as the court deems just and proper.
`
`L.
`
`2.
`
`Ww
`
`*
`
`im
`
`> ~ o
`
`o
`
`<2
`
`be
`
`N Q
`
`W
`
`ds
`
`a O
`
`Y’
`
`~J
`
`Cc
`
`LO
`
`a t
`
`e
`
`NO
`
`bh Ww
`
` bh wo
`
`os
`
`oO
`
`~]
`
`foe)
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Dated: August 9, 2021
`
`First Amended Complaint
`
`LADVA LAW FIRM
`
`By: heltAt
`
`SCOTT S. NAKAMA
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`ELIOT JOHNSON
`
`