Pink Poodle lawsuit

Document Sample
Pink Poodle lawsuit Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                                                    ucs

                                                                                          FILED Santa Clara          COlHty
            1     GREGORY A. DOUGLAS, ESQ. (SBN 147166)                                   04i25/14 10:53am
                  JAMIE A. DOUGLAS, ESQ. (SBN 287023)                                     David H. Yamasaki
            2     LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY A. DOUGLAS                                       Chief Executive Office'
                  5500 Bolsa Ave., #201
                                                                                          By: tn90 DTSCIVOI0118
            3                                                                             F:#201400038551
                  Huntington Beach, CA 92649
                                                                                          CK                $435~OO
            4     Tel.: (562) 252-8800                                                    TL              $435:00
                  Fax: (562) 256-1006                                                     Cdse: l'-14--CV"2tA315
            5     greg@gdouglaslaw.com

            6     Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS                                                           T.Ngoy
            7

            8
                                     SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

            9                                     COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

           10
                  VERONICA COLEMAN, LISA PIDGEON,                Case No.      114CV264315
           II     MARIA MENDOZA, FELISITAS
                  MCDONALD, NIKKI GABRIEL, JAMIE                 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES,
           12
                  STARKWEATHER, KATHLEEN LANERE,                 RESTITUTION AND STATUTORY
           13     TRACY SHELOR, ERICA CREMONINI,                 PENALTIES
                  SERENA SISK and LARISHA LAWSON,
           14     individuals,                                   1.	 Failure to Pay Overtime [Lab. C. §§ 510, 558,
                                                                     1194,1198,2699, and 2699.3 and IWC OrdersJ;
           15                   PLAINTIFFS,                      2.	 Failure to Maintain Records [Lab. C. §§ 558,
                                                                     1174,1174.5,2699,2699.3 and 2699.5J;
           16                                                    3.	 Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized
                  vs.
                                                                     Statements [Lab. C. §§ 226, 226.3, 558, 2699,
           17
                                                                     2699.3 and 2699.5J;
                                                                 4.	 Failure to Pay Minimum Wage [Lab. C. §§
           18     PINK POODLE ENTERPRISES, a                         1197,1197.1,1194,1194.2,2699, and 2699.3
                  Corporation; DAVID KUZINICH; JOEY                  and IWC OrdersJ;
           19
                  KUZINICH; MICHAEL KUZINIZH;                    5.	 Failure to Pay Wage on Established Paydays
          20      PETER KUZINICH; RICK KUZINICH,                     [Lab. C. §§ 204, 210, 2699, and 2699.3J;
                  individuals; DOES 1-10, business entit(ies),   6.	 Failure to Pay all Wages at Time of Discharge
           21     form(s) unknown; DOES 11-20, individual(s);        [Lab. C. §§ 201, 202,203,227.3,558,2699,
                  and DOES 21-30, inclusive,                         2699.3 and 2699.5J;
           22                                                    7.	 Unfair Competition [B&PC § 17200-et seq.J;
                                Defendant(s).                    8.	 Failure to Permit the Inspection or Copy of
           23                                                        Records [Lab. C. §§ 226,558,2699, 2699.3 and
                                                                     2699.5
           24                                                    9.	 Misclassification of Employee as Independent
                                                                     Contractor [Lab. C. §§ 2750.5 and 226.8 and
           25                                                        IWC OrdersJ
           26
           27                                                                                  BY FAX
           2R
                              PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND STATIJTORYPENALTIES

LAW OFFICES OF

  GREGORY A.

   DOUGLAS

                         COMES NOW PLAINTIFFS VERONICA COLEMAN, LISA PIDGEON, MARIA

            2     MENDOZA, FELISITAS MCDONALD, NIKKI GABRIEL, JAMIE STARKWEATHER,

            3     KATHLEEN LANERE, TRACY SHELOR, ERICA CREMONINI, SERENA SISK and LARISHA

            4     LAWSON ("PLAINTIFFS") complains and alleges against the above-named DEFENDANTS PINK

            5     POODLE ENTERPRISES, DAVID KUZINICH, JOEY KUZINICH, MICHAEL KUZINICH, PETER

            6     KUZINICH, RICK KUZINICH, DOES 1-10, DOES 11-20, and DOES 21-30, inclusive (collectively

            7     "DEFENDANTS") (collectively "DEFENDANTS"), and each of them, for causes of action as

            8     follows:

            9                                          GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

          10             1.        PLAINTIFF, and each of them, bring this action against DEFENDANTS, and each of

          11      them, for statutory damages, injunctive relief, prejudgment interest, costs, attorney's fees, restitution,

           12     penalties, and other appropriate relief for DEFENDANTS, and each of their violations of the Orders of

           13     the Industrial Welfare Commission applicable to PLAINTIFFS' industry and occupation, including,

           14     but not limited to, Wage Order No. 4-2001 (collectively "Wage Orders"), and various sections of the

           15     California Labor Code ("Labor Code") as alleged, and California Business & Professions Code §§

           16     17200-et seq.

           17            2.        On December 11, 2013, PLAINTIFFS, and each of them, by certified mail served

           18     notice of the Labor Code violations alleged, in the manner required by Labor Code § 2699.3, on the

           19     California Labor & Workforce Development Agency, 800 Capitol Mall, Suite 5000 MIC-55,

          20      Sacramento, CA 95814 (hereinafter the "Labor Board"). Said notice was also served by certified mail

          21      on DEFENDANTS, and each of them, at their last known addresses, respectively. Upon the expiration

          22      of thirty-three (33) days or more following sending the notice, and neither of the PLAINTIFFS ,nor

           23     PLAINTIFFS' counsel have received notice from the Labor Board that said agency was accepting

           24     PLAINTIFFS' respective claims for prosecution, PLAINTIFFS, and each of them, allege the right to

           25     proceed with all remedies provided by law, including besides any compensatory damages awarded on

           26     PLAINTIFFS' Complaint, any and all statutory penalties collectible by PLAINTIFFS under Labor

           27     Code §§ 2698-2699.5, commonly known as the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of2004.

           2R                                                          2
                                  PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND STATUTORY PENALTIES

LAW OFFICES OF

 GREGORYA.

  DOUGlAS

                         3.        To the extent that PLAINTIFFS, and each of them, allege a private right of action for

            2     penalties under Labor Code §§ 2698-2699.5, PLAINTIFFS, and each of them, bring said civil action

            3     on behalf of PLAINTIFFS individually and other current or former employees against

            4     DEFENDANTS, and each of them.

            5            4.        Jurisdiction is proper in this Court because alleged damages exceed $25,000.00 and

            6     PLAHilTIFFS seek a permanent injunction according to California Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP") §

            7     580 (b) (2).

            8             5.      Whenever a reference is made to "and each of them" when referring to

            9     DEFENDANTS, such allegation shall be deemed to mean the referenced DEFENDANTS

          10      individually, jointly, and/or severally.

          11              6.      Whenever a reference is made to "and each of them" when referring to PLAINTIFFS,

           12     such allegation shall be deemed to mean the referenced PLAINTIFFS individually, jointly, and/or

           13     severally.

           14             7.      Whenever a reference is made to "at all relevant times," such allegation shall be

           15     deemed to mean PLAINTIFFS' employment with DEFENDANTS, and each of them, starting from

           16     the four year period preceding December 5, 2013, the date in which tolling agreements were executed,

           17     through and including the date of termination of the employment relationship between PLATI'ifTIFFS,

           18     and each of them, and DEFENDANTS, and each of them, respectively.

           19                                                 THE PARTIES

          20              8.      VERONICA COLEMAN ("COLEMAN") is and, at all relevant times, was a resident

          21      of Alameda County, State of California. At all relevant times, COLEMAN was employed by

          22      DEFENDANTS, and each of them, in the State of California.

           23             9.      LISA PIDGEON ("PIDGEON") is and, at all relevant times, was a resident of Santa

           24     Clara County, State of California. At all relevant times herein, PIDGEON was employed by

           25     DEFENDANTS, and each of them, in the State of California.

           26

           27
                                                                    3
                                 PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND STATUTORY PENALTIES

LAW OFFICES OF

  GREGORY A.

   DOUGLAS

                         1O.     MARIA MENDOZA ("MENDOZA") is and, at all relevant times herein, was a

            2     resident of San Joaquin County, State of California. At all relevant times herein, MENDOZA was

            3     employed by DEFENDANTS, and each of them, in the State of California.

            4            11.     FELISITAS MCDONALD ("MCDONALD") is and, at all relevant times herein, was a

            5     resident of Contra Costa County, State of California. At all relevant times herein, MCDONALD was

            6     employed by DEFENDANTS, and each of them, in the State of California.

            7            12.     NIKKI GABRIEL ("GABRIEL") is and, at all relevant times herein, was a resident of

            8     Alameda County, State of California. At all relevant times herein, GABRIEL was employed by

            9     DEFENDANTS, and each of them, in the State of California.

          10             13.     JAMIE STARKWEATHER ("STARKWEATHER") is and, at all relevant times

          11      herein, was a resident of Santa Cruz County, State of California. At all relevant times herein,

           12     STARKWEATHER was employed by DEFENDANTS, and each of them, in the State of California.

          13             14.     KATHLEEN LANERE ("LANERE") is and, at all relevant times herein, was a resident

           14     of Contra Costa County, State of California. At all relevant times herein, LANERE was employed by

           15     DEFENDANTS, and each of them, in the State of California.

           16            15.     TRACY SHELOR ("SHELOR") is and, at all relevant times herein, was a resident of

           17     Santa Clara County, State of California. At all relevant times herein, SHELOR was employed by

           18     DEFENDANTS, and each of them, in the State of California.

           19            16.     ERICA CREMONINI ("CREMONINT') is and, at all relevant times herein, was a

          20      resident of Contra Costa County, State of California. At all relevant times herein, CREMONINI was

          21      employed by DEFENDANTS, and each of them, in the State of California.

          22             17.     LARISHA LAWSON ("LAWSON") is and, at all relevant times herein, was a resident

          23      of Alameda County, State of California. At all relevant times herein, LAWSON was employed by

          24      DEFENDANTS, and each of them, in the State of California.

          25             18.     SERENA SISK ("SISK") is and, at all relevant times herein, was a resident of Contra

          26      Costa County, State of California. At all relevant times herein, SISK was employed by

          27      DEFENDANTS, and each of them, in the State of California

           2R                                                         4

                               PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND STATUTORY PENALTIES


LAW OFFICES OF

  GREGORY A.

   DOUGLAS

                          19.    PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Defendant PINK

            2     POODLE ENTERPRISES ("PINK POODLE"), is and, at all relevant times herein, was a business

            3     corporation organized, existing, and authorized to do business under the laws of the State of

            4     California, and doing business at 328 S. Bascom Ave., San Jose, in the County of Santa Clara, State of

            5     California. At all relevant times herein, PINK POODLE was the employer of PLAINTIFFS, in the

            6     State of California.

            7            20.     PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Defendant

            8     DAVID KUZINICH is and, at all relevant times herein, was a resident of Santa Clara County.

            9     PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that at all times mentioned herein,

           10     DAVID KUZINICH is and at all relevant times mentioned herein was an owner of PINK POODLE,

           II     DOES 1-10, and DOES 11-20.

           12            21.     PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Defendant JOEY

           13     KUZINICH is and, at all relevant times herein, was a resident of Santa Clara County. PLAINTIFFS

           14     are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that at all times mentioned herein, JOEY

           15     KUZINICH is and at all relevant times mentioned herein was an owner of PINK POODLE, DOES 2­

           16     20, and DOES 22-20.

           17            22.     PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Defendant

           18     MICHAEL KUZINICH is and, at all relevant times herein, was a resident of Santa Clara County.

           19     PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that at all times mentioned herein,

          20      MICHAEL KUZINICH is and at all relevant times mentioned herein was an owner of PINK

          21      POODLE, DOES 3-30, and DOES 33-20.

           22             23.     PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Defendant

           23     PETER KUZINICH is and, at all relevant times herein, was a resident of Santa Clara County.

           24     PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that at all times mentioned herein,

           25     PETER KUZINICH is and at all relevant times mentioned herein was an owner of PINK POODLE,

           26     DOES 4-40, and DOES 44-20.

           27

           2R                                                      5
                                PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND STATUTORY PENALTIES

LAW OFFICES OF

  GREGORY A.

   DOUGLAS

            1            24.     PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Defendant RICK

            2     KUZINICH is and, at all relevant times herein, was a resident of Santa Clara County. PLAINTIFFS

            3     are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that at all times mentioned herein, RICK

            4     KUZINICH is and at all relevant times mentioned herein was an owner of PINK POODLE, DOES 5­

            5     50, and DOES 55-20.

            6            25.     PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that DEFENDANTS

            7     DAVID KUZINICH, JOEY KUZINICH, MICHAEL KUZINICH, PETER KUZINICH, and RICK

            8     KUZINICH were at all relevant times acting on behalf of PINK POODLE ENTERPRISES with

            9     regard to PLAINTIFFS' employment with DEFENDANTS and violated, or caused to be violated,

           10     sections of Labor Code § 558, as contained within the Labor Code in Division 2, Part 2, Chapter 1, and

           11     also violated or caused to be violated provisions regulating hours and days of work set forth in the

           12     Orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission applicable to PLAINTIFFS' industry and occupation,

           13     including, but not limited to, Wage Order No. 4-2001.

           14            26.     PLAINTIFFS are ignorant of the true names and capacities of DEFENDANTS sued

           15     herein as DOES 1-10, but are informed and believe that DOES 1-10 are business entities (form

           16     unknown) and employers (joint or otherwise) of PLAINTIFFS. PLAINTIFFS are ignorant of the true

           17     names and residences of DEFENDANTS sued herein as DOES 11-20, but are informed and believe

           18     that DOES 11-20 are natural persons (individuals) and employers (joint or otherwise) of

           19     PLAINTIFFS. PLAINTIFFS are ignorant of the true names and capacities of DEFENDANTS sued

          20      herein as DOES 21-30. Based upon the foregoing, PLAINTIFFS sue DOES 1-10, DOES 11-20, and

          21      DOES 21-30 (collectively "DOE DEFENDANTS") by such fictitious names and capacities.

          22      PLAINTIFFS will amend this complaint to show said DOE DEFENDANTS' true names and

          23      capacities when they have been ascertained. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and on that basis

          24      allege, that each of the DOE DEFENDANTS acted wrongfully, maliciously, intentionally and

           25     negligently; violated the Wage Orders and the Labor Code as alleged in this Complaint; that each is

           26     legally responsible in some manner for the events, happenings, and/or occurrences alleged in this

           27     Complaint; and that the injuries and damages to PLAINTIFFS were proximately caused by DOE
           2R                                                     6
                               PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND STATUTORY PENALTIES

LAW OFFICES OF

  GREGORY A.

   DOUGLAS

            1     DEFENDANTS, either through their own conduct or through the conduct of their agents and/or

            2     employees.

            3            27.     PLAINTIFFS are infonned and believe, and on that basis allege, that, at all relevant

            4     times herein DEFENDANTS, and each of them, maintained offices, operated businesses, employed

            5     persons, conducted business in, and paid employees by illegal payroll practices and policies in the

            6     County of Santa Clara.

            7            28.     PLAINTIFFS are infonned and believe, and on that basis allege, that DEFENDANTS,

            8     and each of them, is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a person, corporation or other business entity

            9     existing and operating within the confmes of the State of California, and thus subject to the jurisdiction

          10      of the California courts by reason of "minimum contacts" in California, and/or by purposeful

          11      availment of the California market for labor of the kind provided by PLAINTIFFS, and did transact

          12      and conduct business in the State of California, and are thus subject to the jurisdiction of all laws,

          13      regulations and court decisions rendered by the State of California.

          14                                            AGENCY ALLEGATIONS

          15             29.     PLAINTIFFS are infonned and believe, and on that basis allege, that, at all relevant

          16      times herein, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, were the partner, officer, director, agent, employee,

          17      servant and/or representative of each of the remaining DEFENDANTS, and in doing the things as

           18     alleged in this Complaint, were acting within the course, scope, and/or authority of such agency,

           19     service, employment, partnership and/or joint venture, and with the consent, knowledge, approval and

          20      ratification of each of the other DEFENDANTS.

          21             30.     PLAINTIFFS are infonned and believe, and on that basis allege, that DEFENDANTS,

          22      and each of them, at all relevant times herein:

          23                     a.	 Managed the business for which PLAINTIFFS were employed;

          24                     b.	 Exercised and/or employed direct control over the wages, hours, and working

          25                         conditions of PLAINTIFFS, whether personally or through an agent or any other

          26                         person;

           27

          2R                                                           7
                                PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND STATUTORY PENALTIES

LAW OFFICES OF

 GREGORY A.

  DOUGlAS

                  c.	 Exercised and/or employed indirect control over the wages, hours, and working

            2         conditions of PLAINTIFFS, whether personally or through an agent or any other

            3         person;

            4      d.	 Authorized, directed, sanctioned, consented, cooperated, approved, aided,

            5         instigated, assisted, participated in, made the decision to, and/or voted for the

            6         misclassification and/or wrongful treatment of PLAINTIFFS as exempt employees

            7         for purposes of exemption from the applicable Wage Orders and/or Labor Code;

            8      e.	 Authorized, directed, sanctioned, consented, cooperated, approved, aided,

            9         instigated, assisted, participated in, made the decision to, and/or voted for the

           10         tortuous and unlawful acts of commission or omission which are in violation of the

           11         applicable Wage Orders and/or Labor Code, as alleged in this Complaint, and

           12         incorporated herein by reference;

           13      f.	 Authorized, directed, sanctioned, consented, cooperated, approved, aided,

           14         instigated, assisted, participated in, made the decision to, and/or voted for the

           15         tortuous and unlawful acts of commission or omission which caused the other

           16         DEFENDANTS, and each of them, to violate the applicable Wage Orders and/or

           17         Labor Code, as alleged in this Complaint, and incorporated herein by reference;

           18      g.	 Authorized, directed, sanctioned, consented, cooperated, approved, aided,

           19         instigated, assisted, participated in, made the decision to, and/or voted for the

          20          tortuous and unlawful acts of commission or omission which have operated to the

           21         injury and prejudice of PLAINTIFFS, as alleged in this Complaint, and

           22         incorporated herein by reference;

           23      h.	 Knew or reasonably should have known that his/her/its conduct and/or conduct

           24         under hislher/its control was in violation of the applicable Wage Orders and/or

           25         Labor Code, and he/she/it failed to take or order appropriate action to remedy

           26         and/or avoid the violation of the applicable Wage Orders and/or Labor Code as

           27         alleged in this Complaint, and incorporated herein by reference;

           2R                                        8
                  PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND STATUTORY PENALTIES

LAW OFFICES OF

 GREGORY A.

  DOUGlAS

                                1.	   Knew or reasonably should have known that hislher/its conduct and/or conduct

            2                         under his/her/its control caused the other DEFENDANTS, and each ofthem, to

            3                         violate the applicable Wage Orders and/or Labor Code, and he/she/it failed to take

            4                         or order appropriate action to remedy and/or avoid the violation of the applicable

            5                         Wage Orders and/or Labor Code by the other DEFENDANTS, and each of them, as

            6                         alleged in this Complaint, and incorporated herein by reference;

            7                   J.	 Knew or reasonably should have known that hislherlits conduct and/or conduct

            8                         under hislher/its control was injuring PLAINTIFFS and he/shelit failed to take or

            9                         order appropriate action to avoid the harm;

          10                    k.	 Acting in concert, knowingly and willfully conspired among themselves and agreed

          11                          to and did institute a plan pursuant to which the DEFENDANTS, and each of them,

          12                          required PLAINTIFFS to work unpaid straight hours and/or unpaid overtime hours

          13                          notwithstanding the fact that PLAINTIFFS were not exempt from the requirement

          14                          to pay overtime compensation under any applicable exemption under the Wage

          15                          Orders and/or Labor Code;

           16                   1.	 Furthered the conspiracy by cooperation with or lent aid and encouragement to or

           17                         ratified and adopted the acts of each of the other DEFENDANTS, and each of them,

          18                          including, but not limited to, their refusal and failure to ensure proper payment of

           19                         wages to PLAINTIFFS and instead voting for or otherwise approving continuing

          20                          unlawful wage practices, refusing to properly investigate and ensure PLAINTIFFS

          21                          were treated in compliance with the applicable Wage Orders and Labor Code, as

          22                          alleged in this Complaint, and instead voting for or otherwise approving continued

          23                          violations of the applicable Wage Orders and Labor Code and breaches of duty.

          24                                          ALTER EGO ALLEGATIONS

          25             31.    PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that at all times herein

          26      mentioned, each of the DEFENDANTS was the alter ego of the remaining DEFENDANTS, and as

          27      hereinafter alleged, was acting for their own benefit and/or the benefit of one or more of the remaining

           2R                                                          9

                               PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND STATUTORY PENALTIES


LAW OFFICES OF

 GREGORY A.

  DOUGlAS

                  DEFENDANTS. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that there exists a

            2     unity of ownership and interest, between one or more of DEFENDANTS herein and one or more of

            3     the other DEFENDANTS herein, such that any individuality and separateness between said

            4     DEFENDANTS has ceased, and the said other DEFENDANTS, and each of them, was at all times

            5     relevant to PLAINTIFFS' claim, the alter ego of and all other DEFENDANTS.

            6            32.    PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that the Court's

            7     adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of any or all DEFENDANTS as entities distinct from

            8     the other DEFENDANTS would permit an abuse of the corporate privilege, would sanction fraud

            9     and/or promote injustice in that said DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have defaulted on their

          10      individual and collective obligations to PLAINTIFFS under California law.

          11             33.    PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that one or more of

          12      DEFENDANTS herein was an entity which is, and at all times herein mentioned was, controlled,

          13      dominated, and operated by one or more of the other DEFENDANTS and in that the activities and

          14      business of the other DEFENDANTS was carried on without the holding of director's or shareholders

          15      meetings and no records or minutes of any corporate proceedings were maintained.

          16             34.    PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that one or more of

          17      DEFENDANTS herein, and all other business entity DEFENDANTS herein, is and at all times herein

          18      mentioned was, a mere shell and sham without the requisite capital and assets. Thus, said all other

          19      business entity DEFENDANTS herein, is and at all times herein mentioned was, so inadequately

          20      capitalized that, compared with the business to be done by DEFENDANTS, said capitalization was

          21      inadequate to do business properly and legally under California law.

          22             35.    At all relevant times herein, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, were subject to the

          23      Labor Codes of the State of California, and to the existing and applicable Wage Orders.

          24                                     JOINT EMPLOYER ALLEGATION

          25             36.     PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that at all relevant

          26      times herein, there existed by and between PINK POODLE, DAVID KUZINICH, JOEY KUZINICH,

          27      MICHAEL KUZINICH, PETER KUZINICH, RICK KUZINICH, DOES 1-10, DOES 11-20, and

          2R                                                      10

                               PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND STATUTORY PENALTIES


LAW OFFICES OF

  GREGORY A.

   DOUGLAS

                  DOES 21-30, and each of them, an arrangement to share the PLAINTIFFS' services, DEFENDANTS,

            2     and each of them, were acting directly or indirectly in the interest of the other in relation to

            3     PLAITNIFFS, and/or DEFENDANTS shared control of PLAINTIFFS, directly or indirectly, because

            4     one or more of DEFENDANTS herein was an entity which is, and at all times herein mentioned was,

            5     controlled, dominated, and operated by one or more of the other DEFENDANTS under common

            6     control.

            7            37.        At all relevant times herein, individual DEFENDANTS, DAVID KUZINICH, JOEY

            8     KUZINICH, MICHAEL KUZINICH, PETER KUZINICH, and RICK KUZINICH directly or

            9     indirectly employed and exercised significant control over the wages, hours and working conditions of

           10     PLAINTIFFS.

           11            38.        PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that at all relevant

           12     times herein, that DEFENDANTS, and each of them, are an integrated enterprise in that there is an

           13     interrelation of operations between DEFENDANTS, there is common management between

           14     DEFENDANTS, there is centralized control oflabor relations between DEFENDANTS, and there is

           15     common ownership or financial control between DEFENDANTS, and each of them.

           16                39.    PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that at all relevant

           17     times herein, one or more of DEFENDANTS herein is an individual which has, and at all times herein

           18     mentioned had, controlling ownership interest to one or more of the other entity DEFENDANT.

           19                40.    PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that at all relevant

          20      times herein, one or more of DEFENDANTS designed, controlled, monitored, maintained, and

           21     enforced the labor policies and practices of the other DEFEDANTS. PLAINTIFFS are informed and

           22     believe, and on that basis allege, that at all relevant times herein, that all employees of

          23      DEFENDANTS, and each of them, including PLAINTIFFS, were managed and employed as though it

           24     were one business operated by a single entity or business.

           25                41.    PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that at all relevant

           26     times herein, that if DEFEDANTS, and each of them, were not a subsidiary or predecessor in interest

           27
                                                                      II
                                   PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITIJTION AND STATIJTORY PENALTIES

LAW OFFICES OF

  GREGORY A.

   DOUGLAS

            1     to the other DEFEDANTS, or ifDEFEDANTS are not an integrated enterprise, that DEFEDANTS,

            2     and each of them, have acted as joint employers with respect to PLAINTIFFS.

            3            42.    PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that at all relevant

            4     times herein, DEFEDANTS, and each of them, ultimately controlled the manner in which

            5     PLAINTIFFS performed PLAITNIFFS' job duties. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and on

            6     that basis allege, that at all relevant times herein, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, paid

            7     PLAINTIFFS' wages/taxes, owned the necessary tools/equipment used by PLAINTIFF, and/or

            8     exercised authority and control over PLAINTIFFS' wages and any and all personnel actions against

            9     PLAITNIFF, including but not limited to, hire, training, promotion, discipline, and/or termination.

          10             43.    PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that at all relevant

          11      times herein, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, ultimately set the policies concerning the payment of

          12      PLAITNIFFS' wages, which "caused" the violations of the Labor Code and Wages Orders, as alleged

          13      in this Complaint, and incorporated herein by reference.

          14             44.     PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that at all relevant

          15      times herein, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have acted as joint employers with respect to

          16      PLAINTIFFS because DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have dictated the common employment

          17      policies applicable to PLAINTIFFS including but not limited to:

          18                     a.	 Jointly exercised meaningful control over the work performed by PLAINTIFFS;

          19                     b.	 Jointly exercised meaningful control over PLAINTIFFS' wages, hours and working

          20                        conditions, including the quantity, quality, quality standards, speed, scheduling, and

          21                        operative details of the tasks PLAINTIFFS performed;

          22                     c.	 Jointly required PLAINTIFFS to perform work which is an integral part of the

          23                        business ofDEFEDNANTS, and each of them;

          24                     d.	 Jointly exercised control over PLAINTIFFS in that PLAINTIFFS, as a matter of

          25                        economic reality, were dependent upon DEFENDANTS, and each ofthem, who

          26                        share the power to set PLAINTIFFS' wages and determine PLAINTIFFS' working

          27                        conditions, and who jointly reap profits from the underpayment of PLAINTIFFS'
           2R                                                     12
                               PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND STATIJTORY PENALTIES

LAW OFFICES OF

  GREGORY A.

   DOUGLAS

            1                       wages and violation of the Labor Code and Wage Orders, and for other related

            2                       reasons;

            3                    e.	 Decisions to misc1assify dancers as independent contractors, as opposed to

            4                       employees;

            5                    f.	 Decisions to require that dancers pay more than half their dance tips with

            6                       DEFENDANTS;

            7                    g.	 Decisions to not pay certain dancers any wages; to threaten retaliation against any

            8                       dancer attempting to assert her statutory rights; and

            9                    h.	 Decisions to adopt and implement policies which violate the Fair Labor Standards

          10                        Act and/or California Labor Code.

           11             45.    PLAINTIFFS are infonned and believe, and on that basis allege, that at all relevant

          12      times herein, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, operated under a principaVagency relationship such

           13     that DEFENDANTS, and each of them, acted and operated as agents for each other in the violation of

           14     the Labor Code and Wage Orders, as alleged in this Complaint, and incorporated herein by reference.

           15     PLAINTIFFS are infonned and believe, and on that basis allege, that at all relevant times herein,

           16     DEFENDANTS, and each of them, aided and helped cause the violations of the Labor Code and Wage

           17     Orders against PLAINTIFF, as alleged in this Complaint, and incorporated herein by reference.

           18             46.    PLAINTIFFS are infonned and believe, and on that basis allege, that at all relevant

           19     times herein, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, engaged in a common course of conduct in violation

          20      of the Labor Code and Wage Orders, as alleged in this Complaint.

          21                             FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

          22              47.    At all relevant times herein, PLAINTIFFS employment was subject to the provisions of

           23     the Labor Code and to the Wage Orders. At all relevant times herein, the Wage Orders applied to the

          24      wages, hours, and working conditions of PLAINTIFFS employed by DEFENDANTS, and each of

           25     them.

           26
           27

           2R                                                      13
                                PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND STATUTORY PENALTIES

LAW OFFICES OF

  GREGORY A.

   DOUGLAS

                         48.    VERONICA COLEMAN ("COLEMAN") was employed as a dancer with

            2     DEFENDANTS, and each ofthem, from on or about September 2007 until termination of the

            3     employment relationship on or about August 2013.

            4            49.    At all relevant times, COLEMAN was not primarily engaged (more than 50 percent of

            5     the time) in duties that meet any of the exemptions as defined in the Wage Orders and Labor Code. At

            6     all relevant times, COLEMAN was a non-exempt employee entitled to the protections of the Wage

            7     Orders and Labor Code as alleged in this Complaint, and incorporated herein by reference.

            8            50.    At all relevant times herein, COLEMAN routinely worked in excess of eight (8) hours

            9     per day. At all relevant times herein, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, routinely and systematically

           10     failed to properly record accurate time records for COLEMAN showing when COLEMAN began and

           11     ended each work period.

           12            51.    At all relevant times herein, COLEMAN was typically paid a wage only for hours

           13     which she was clocked in for work, without regard to the amount of hours actually worked by

           14     COLEMAN ("Wage Rate").

           15            52.    By failing to properly record the actual hours worked by COLEMAN, and paying to

           16     COLEMAN the Wage Rate regardless of hours worked by COLEMAN, DEFENDANTS, and each of

           17     them, routinely and systematically failed to compensate COLEMAN for all wages to which

           18     COLEMAN was entitled.

           19            53.    PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all relevant times

          20      herein, COLEAMN was entitled to an hourly rate of pay of at least $8.00 per hour.

          21             54.    PLAINTIFF routinely and systematically worked overtime hours consisting of work

           22     hours in excess of eight (8) hours in one day. PLAINTIFF routinely and systematically worked off the

           23     clock hours which consisted of work performed while PLAINTIFF was not clocked in for work for

           24     which PLAINTIFF was not properly compensated for.

           25            55.    LISA PIDGEON ("PIDGEON") was employed as a dancer with DEFENDANTS, and

           26     each of them, from on or about March 2003 until termination of the employment relationship on or

           27     aboutJuly 2013.
           2R                                                     14

                               PLAINTlFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTlnrrION AND STATUTORY PENALTIES


LAW OFFICES OF

 GREGORY A.

  DOUGlAS

                            56.    At all relevant times, PIDGEON was not primarily engaged (more than 50 percent of

            2     the time) in duties that meet any of the exemptions as defined in the Wage Orders and Labor Code. At

            3     all relevant times, PIDGEON was a non-exempt employee entitled to the protections of the Wage

            4     Orders and Labor Code as alleged in this Complaint, and incorporated herein by reference.

            5               57.    At all relevant times herein, PIDGEON routinely worked in excess of eight (8) hours

            6     per day. At all relevant times herein, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, routinely and systematically

            7     failed to properly record accurate time records for PIDGEON showing when PIDEON began and

            8     ended each work period.

            9               58.    At all relevant times herein, PIDGEON was typically paid a wage only for hours which

           10     she was clocked in, without regard to the amount of hours actually worked by PIDGEON ("Wage

           11     Rate").

           12               59.    By failing to properly record the actual hours worked by PIDGEON, and paying to

           13     PIDGEON the Wage Rate regardless of hours worked by PIDGEON, DEFENDANTS, and each of

           14     them, routinely and systematically failed to compensate PIDGEON for all wages to which PIDGEON

           15     was entitled.

           16               60.    PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all relevant times

           17     herein, PIDGEON was entitled to an hourly rate of pay of at least $8.00 per hour.

           18               61.    PLAINTIFF routinely and systematically worked overtime hours consisting of work

           19     hours in excess of eight (8) hours in one day. PLAINTIFF routinely and systematically worked off the

          20      clock hours which consisted of work performed while PLAINTIFF was not clocked in for work for

          21      which PLAINTIFF was not properly compensated for.

          22                62.    MARIA MENDOZA ("MENDOZA") was employed as a dancer with DEFENDANTS,

          23      and each of them, continuously from on or about November 2005 until termination of the employment

          24      relationship on or about August 2012.

          25                63.    At all relevant times, MENDOZA was not primarily engaged (more than 50 percent of

          26      the time) in duties that meet any of the exemptions as defined in the Wage Orders and Labor Code. At

           27
           2R                                                         15
                                  PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND STATUTORY PENALTIES

LAW OFFICES OF

 GREGORYA.

  DOUGLAS

                  all relevant times, MENDOZA was a non-exempt employee entitled to the protections of the Wage

            2     Orders and Labor Code as alleged in this Complaint, and incorporated herein by reference.

            3            64.    At all relevant times herein, MENDOZA routinely worked in excess of eight (8) hours

            4     per day. At all relevant times herein, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, routinely and systematically

            5     failed to properly record accurate time records for MENDOZA showing when MENDOZA began and

            6     ended each work period.

            7            65.    Beginning on or about 2009, MENDOZA was not paid any wages, regardless of the

            8     amount of hours actually worked by MENDOZA.

            9            66.    By failing to properly record the actual hours worked by MENDOZA, and by not

           10     paying to MENDOZA any wages regardless of hours worked by MENDOZA, DEFENDANTS, and

           11     each of them, routinely and systematically failed to compensate MENDOZA for all wages to which

           12     MENDOZA was entitled.

           13            67.    PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all relevant times

           14     herein, MENDOZA was entitled to an hourly rate of pay of at least $8.00 per hour.

           15            68.    PLAINTIFF routinely and systematically worked overtime hours consisting of work

           16     hours in excess of eight (8) hours in one day. PLAINTIFF routinely and systematically worked off the

           17     clock hours which consisted of work performed while PLAINTIFF was not clocked in for work for

           18     which PLAINTIFF was not properly compensated for.

           19            69.    NIKKI GABRIEL ("GABRIEL") was employed as a dancer with DEFENDANTS, and

          20      each of them, from on or about August 2010 until termination of the employment relationship on or

          21      about August 2013.

           22            70.    At all relevant times, GABRIEL was not primarily engaged (more than 50 percent of

          23      the time) in duties that meet any of the exemptions as defined in the Wage Orders and Labor Code. At

           24     all relevant times, GABRIEL was a non-exempt employee entitled to the protections of the Wage

           25     Orders and Labor Code as alleged in this Complaint, and incorporated herein by reference.

           26            71.    At all relevant times herein, GABRIEL routinely worked in excess of eight (8) hours

           27     per day. At all relevant times herein, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, routinely and systematically
           2R                                                     16

                               PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND STATUTORY PENALTIES


LAW OFFICES OF

  GREGORY A.

   DOUGlAS

                  failed to properly record accurate time records for GABRIEL showing when GABRIEL began and

            2     ended each work period.

            3               72.    At all relevant times herein, GABRIEL was typically paid a wage only for hours which

            4     she was clocked in, without regard to the amount of hours actually worked by GABRIEL ("Wage

            5     Rate").

            6               73.    By failing to properly record the actual hours worked by GABRIEL, and paying to

            7     GABRIEL the Wage Rate regardless of the actual hours worked by GABRIEL, DEFENDANTS, and

            8     each of them, routinely and systematically failed to compensate GABRIEL for all wages to which

            9     GABRIEL was entitled.

           10               74.    PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all relevant times

           11     herein, GABRIEL was entitled to an hourly rate of pay of at least $8.00 per hour.

           12               75.    PLAINTIFF routinely and systematically worked overtime hours consisting of work

           13     hours in excess of eight (8) hours in one day. PLAINTIFF routinely and systematically worked off the

           14     clock hours which consisted of work performed while PLAINTIFF was not clocked in for work for

           15     which PLAINTIFF was not properly compensated for.

           16               76.    FELISITAS MCDONALD ("MCDONALD") was employed as a dancer with

           17     DEFENDANTS, and each of them, from on or about August 2009 until termination of the

           18     employment relationship on or about August 2013.

           19               77.    At all relevant times, MCDONALD was not primarily engaged (more than 50 percent

          20      of the time) in duties that meet any of the exemptions as defined in the Wage Orders and Labor Code.

          21      At all relevant times, MCDONALD was a non-exempt employee entitled to the protections of the

           22     Wage Orders and Labor Code as alleged in this Complaint, and incorporated herein by reference.

           23               78.    At all relevant times herein, MCDONALD routinely worked in excess of eight (8)

           24     hours per day. At all relevant times herein, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, routinely and

           25     systematically failed to properly record accurate time records for MCDONALD showing when

           26     MCDONALD began and ended each work period.

           27

           2R                                                        17
                                  PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND STATUTORY PENALTIES

LAW OFFICES OF

 GREGORY A.

  DOUGLAS

             1            79.       At all relevant times herein, MCDONALD was typically paid a wage only for hours

             2     which she was clocked in, without regard to the amount of hours actually worked by MCDONALD

             3     ("Wage Rate").

             4            80.       By failing to properly record the actual hours worked by MCDONALD, and paying to

             5     MCDONALD the Wage Rate regardless of hours worked by MCDONALD, DEFENDANTS, and

             6     each of them, routinely and systematically failed to compensate MCDONALD for all wages to which

             7     MCDONALD was entitled.

             8            81.       PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all relevant times

             9     herein, MCDONALD was entitled to an hourly rate of pay of at least $8.00 per hour.

           10             82.       PLAINTIFF routinely and systematically worked overtime hours consisting of work

           11      hours in excess of eight (8) hours in one day. PLAINTIFF routinely and systematically worked off the

           12      clock hours which consisted of work performed while PLAINTIFF was not clocked in for work for

           13      which PLAINTIFF was not properly compensated for.

           14             83.       JAMIE STARKWATHER ("STARKWEATHER") was employed as a dancer with

           15      DEFENDANTS, and each of them, from on or about August 2009 until termination of the

           16      employment relationship on or about August 2012.

           17             84.       At all relevant times, STARKWEATHER was not primarily engaged (more than 50

           18      percent of the time) in duties that meet any of the exemptions as defined in the Wage Orders and

           19      Labor Code. At all relevant times, STARKWEATHER was a non-exempt employee entitled to the

           20      protections of the Wage Orders and Labor Code as alleged in this Complaint, and incorporated herein

           21      by reference.

           22             85.       At all relevant times herein, STARKWEATHER routinely worked in excess of eight

           23      (8) hours per day. At all relevant times herein, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, routinely and

           24      systematically failed to properly record accurate time records for STARKWEATHER showing when

           25      STARKWEATHER began and ended each work period.

           26

           27

           2R                                                         18
                                   PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND STATUTORY PENALTIES

LAW OFF ICES OF

  GREGORY A.

   DOUGLAS

                         86.    Beginning only on or about February 2012, STARKWEATHER was typically paid a

            2     wage, however, STARKWEATHER would only receive a wage for hours when she was clocked in for

            3     work, without regard to the amount of hours actually worked by STARKWEATHER ("Wage Rate").

            4            87.    STARKWEATHER was not compensated any wages for the initial two and one half (2

            5     Yz) years in which she was employed for DEFENDANTS, and each of them.

            6            88.    By failing to properly record the actual hours worked by STARKWEATHER, and

            7     paying to STARKWEATHER the Wage Rate for only the last six (6) months of her employment,

            8     regardless of actual hours worked by STARKWEATHER, DEFENDANTS, and each of them,

            9     routinely and systematically failed to compensate STARKWEATHER for all wages to which

           10     STARKWEATHER was entitled.

           11            89.    PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all relevant times

           12     herein, STARKWEATHER was entitled to an hourly rate of pay of at least $8.00 per hour.

           13            90.    PLAINTIFF routinely and systematically worked overtime hours consisting of work

           14     hours in excess of eight (8) hours in one day. PLAINTIFF routinely and systematically worked off the

           15     clock hours which consisted of work performed while PLAINTIFF was not clocked in for work for

           16     which PLAINTIFF was not properly compensated for.

           17            91.    KATHLEEN LANERE ("LANERE") was employed as a dancer with DEFENDANTS,

           18     and each of them, continuously from on or about September 2012 until termination of the employment

           19     relationship on or about October 2013.

          20             92.    At all relevant times, LANERE was not primarily engaged (more than 50 percent of the

          21      time) in duties that meet any of the exemptions as defmed in the Wage Orders and Labor Code. At all

           22     relevant times, LANERE was a non-exempt employee entitled to the protections of the Wage Orders

           23     and Labor Code as alleged in this Complaint, and incorporated herein by reference.

           24            93.    At all relevant times herein, LANERE routinely worked in excess of eight (8) hours per

           25     day. At all relevant times herein, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, routinely and systematically

           26     failed to properly record accurate time records for LANERE showing when LANERE began and

           27     ended each work period.
           2R                                                     19

                               PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND STATUTORY PENALTIES


LAW OFFICES OF

  GREGORY A.

   DOUGLAS

                          94.    At all relevant times herein, LANERE was never paid any wages, without regard to the

            2     amount of hours actually worked by LANERE.

            3             95.     By failing to properly record the actual hours worked by LANERE, and failing to

            4     compensate LANERE regardless of hours worked by LANERE, DEFENDANTS, and each of them,

            5     routinely and systematically failed to compensate LANERE for all wages to which LANERE was

            6     entitled.

            7             96.     PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all relevant times

            8     herein, LANERE was entitled to an hourly rate of pay of at least $8.00 per hour.

            9             97.     PLAINTIFF routinely and systematically worked overtime hours consisting of work

          10      hours in excess of eight (8) hours in one day. PLAINTIFF routinely and systematically worked off the

          11      clock hours which consisted of work performed while PLAINTIFF was not clocked in for work for

          12      which PLAINTIFF was not properly compensated for.

          13              98.     TRACY SHELOR ("SHELOR") was employed as a dancer with DEFENDANTS, and

          14      each of them, from on or about 2001 until termination of the employment relationship on or about July

          15      2013.

          16              99.     At all relevant times, SHELOR was not primarily engaged (more than 50 percent of the

           17     time) in duties that meet any of the exemptions as defined in the Wage Orders and Labor Code. At all

           18     relevant times, SHELOR was a non-exempt employee entitled to the protections of the Wage Orders

           19     and Labor Code as alleged in this Complaint, and incorporated herein by reference.

          20              100.    At all relevant times herein, SHELOR routinely worked in excess of eight (8) hours per

          21      day. At all relevant times herein, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, routinely and systematically

          22      failed to properly record accurate time records for SHELOR showing when SHELOR began and

          23      ended each work period.

          24              101.    At all relevant times herein, SHELOR was never paid any wages, without regard to the

          25      amount of hours actually worked by SHELOR.

          26              102.    By failing to properly record the actual hours worked by SHELOR, and failing to


           27     compensate SHELOR any wages regardless of hours worked by SHELOR, DEFENDANTS, and each

           2R                                                       20

                                 PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITIJTION AND STATUTORY PENALTIES


LAW OFFICES OF

 GREGORY A.

  DOUGlAS

                  of them, routinely and systematically failed to compensate SHELOR for all wages to which SHELOR

            2     was entitled.

            3             103.     PLAINTIFF is infonned and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all relevant times

            4     herein, SHELOR was entitled to an hourly rate of pay of at least $8.00 per hour.

            5             104.     PLAINTIFF routinely and systematically worked overtime hours consisting of work

            6     hours in excess of eight (8) hours in one day. PLAINTIFF routinely and systematically worked off the

            7     clock hours which consisted of work perfonned while PLAINTIFF was not clocked in for work for

            8     which PLAINTIFF was not properly compensated for.

            9             105.     ERICA CREMONINI ("CREMONINI") was employed as a dancer with

           10     DEFENDANTS, and each of them, continuously from on or about June 2008 until tennination of the

           11     employment relationship on or about June 2012.

           12             106.     At all relevant times, CREMONINI was not primarily engaged (more than 50 percent

           13     of the time) in duties that meet any of the exemptions as defined in the Wage Orders and Labor Code.

           14     At all relevant times, CREMONINI was a non-exempt employee entitled to the protections of the

           15     Wage Orders and Labor Code as alleged in this Complaint, and incorporated herein by reference.

           16             107.     At all relevant times herein, CREMONINI routinely worked in excess of eight (8)

           17     hours per day. At all relevant times herein, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, routinely and

           18     systematically failed to properly record accurate time records for CREMONINI showing when

           19     CREMONINI began and ended each work period.

           20             108.     Beginning on or about October 2011, CREMONINI stopped receiving wages from

          21      DEFENDANTS, and each of them. From on or about June 2008 through on or about October 2011

           22     CREMONINI was typically paid a wage only for hours which she was clocked in, without regard to

           23     the amount of hours actually worked by CREMONINI ("Wage Rate").

           24             109.     By failing to properly record the actual hours worked by CREMONINI, and paying to

           25     CREMONINI the Wage Rate regardless of hours worked by CREMONINI, DEFENDANTS, and each

           26     of them, routinely and systematically failed to compensate CREMONINI for all wages to which

           27     CREMONINI was entitled.
           2R                                                        21

                                  PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITIJTION AND STATIJTORY PENALTIES


LAW OFFICES OF

 GREGORY A.

  DOUGLAS

                         110.      PLAINTIFF is infonned and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all relevant times

            2     herein, CREMONINI was entitled to an hourly rate of pay of at least $8.00 per hour.

            3            111.      PLAINTIFF routinely and systematically worked overtime hours consisting of work

            4     hours in excess of eight (8) hours in one day. PLAINTIFF routinely and systematically worked off the

            5     clock hours which consisted of work perfonned while PLAINTIFF was not clocked in for work for

            6     which PLAINTIFF was not properly compensated for.

            7            112.      LARISHA LAWSON ("LAWSON") was employed as a dancer with DEFENDANTS,

            8     and each of them, continuously from on or about June 2009 until tennination of the employment

            9     relationship on or about August 2013.

          10             113.      At all relevant times, LAWSON was not primarily engaged (more than 50 percent of

          11      the time) in duties that meet any of the exemptions as defined in the Wage Orders and Labor Code. At

          12      all relevant times, LAWSON was a non-exempt employee entitled to the protections of the Wage

          13      Orders and Labor Code as alleged in this Complaint, and incorporated herein by reference.

          14             114.      At all relevant times herein, LAWSON routinely worked in excess of eight (8) hours

          15      per day. At all relevant times herein, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, routinely and systematically

          16      failed to properly record accurate time records for LAWSON showing when LAWSON began and

          17      ended each work period.

           18            115.      Beginning on or about August 2011 , LAWSON stopped receiving wages from

           19     DEFENDANTS, and each of them. From on or about June 2009 through on or about August 2011

          20      LAWSON was typically paid a wage only for hours which she was clocked in, without regard to the

          21      amount of hours actually worked by LAWSON ("Wage Rate").

          22             116.      By failing to properly record the actual hours worked by LAWSON, and paying to

          23      LAWSON the Wage Rate regardless of hours worked by LAWSON, DEFENDANTS, and each of

          24      them, routinely and systematically failed to compensate LAWSON for all wages to which LAWSON

          25      was entitled.

          26             117.      PLAINTIFF is infonned and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all relevant times

           27     herein, LAWSON was entitled to an hourly rate of pay of at least $8.00 per hour.
           2R                                                        22

                                  PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND STATIJTORY PENALTIES


LAW OFFICES OF

  GREGORY A.

   DOUGLAS

                            118.    PLAINTIFF routinely and systematically worked overtime hours consisting of work

              2   hours in excess of eight (8) hours in one day. PLAINTIFF routinely and systematically worked off the

              3   clock hours which consisted of work performed while PLAINTIFF was not clocked in for work for

              4   which PLAINTIFF was not properly compensated for.

              5             119.    SERENA SISK ("SISK") was employed as a dancer with DEFENDANTS, and each of

              6   them, from on or about December 31, 2010 until termination of the employment relationship on or

              7   about February 16,2014.

              8             120.    At all relevant times, SISK was not primarily engaged (more than 50 percent of the

              9   time) in duties that meet any of the exemptions as defined in the Wage Orders and Labor Code. At all

           10     relevant times, SISK was a non-exempt employee entitled to the protections of the Wage Orders and

           11     Labor Code as alleged in this Complaint, and incorporated herein by reference.

           12               121.    At all relevant times herein, SISK routinely worked in excess of eight (8) hours per day.

           13     At all relevant times herein, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, routinely and systematically failed to

           14     properly record accurate time records for SISK showing when SISK began and ended each work

           15     period.

           16               122.    For the initial two (2) years of employment, SISK was not compensated by

           17     DEFENDANTS, and each of them, but worked for tips only. Beginning on or about 2013 SISK was

           18     paid a wage of $8.00 per hour only for hours which she was clocked in for work, without regard to the

           19     amount of hours actually worked by SISK ("Wage Rate").

          20                123.    By failing to properly record the actual hours worked by SISK, and paying to SISK the

          21      Wage Rate regardless of hours worked by SISK, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, routinely and

          22      systematically failed to compensate SISK for all wages to which SISK was entitled.

          23                124.    PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all relevant times

          24      herein, SISK was entitled to an hourly rate of pay of at least $8.00 per hour.

          25                125.    PLAINTIFF routinely and systematically worked overtime hours consisting of work

           26     hours in excess of eight (8) hours in one day. PLAINTIFF routinely and systematically worked off the

           27

           2R                                                           23
                                   PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND STATUTORY PENALTIES

LAW OFFICES OF

 GREGORY A.

   DOUGLAS

                  clock hours which consisted of work perfonned while PLAINTIFF was not clocked in for work for

            2     which PLAINTIFF was not properly compensated for.

            3            126.    DEFENDANTS, and each of them, routinely and systematically failed to pay to

            4     PLAINTIFFS all wages owed for all hours actually worked. PLAINTIFFS complained to

            5     DEFENDANTS, and each of them, about this fact, to no avail.

            6            127.    Throughout PLAINTIFFS' employment, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, failed to

            7     provide PLAINTIFFS with accurate itemized wage statements showing the correct number of hours

            8     worked by PLAINTIFFS at the effective regular and overtime rates of pay applicable to those hours

            9     worked.

           10            128.    Throughout PLAINTIFFS' employment, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, required

           11     PLAINTIFFS actually pay them in order to work. PLAINTIFFS were required to pay a $20.00 "tip­

           12     out" for each day shift worked and/or PLAINTIFFS were required to pay a $40.00 "tip-out" for each

           13     night shift worked.

           14            129.    On or about September 10,2013, and again on or about October 24,2013,

           15     PLAINTIFFS sent a letter to DEFENDANTS PINK POODLE and DAVID KUZINICH, JOEY

           16     KUZINICH, MICHAEL KUZINICH, PETER KUZINICH, and RICK KUZINICH reque~ting to

           17     inspect or copy PLAINTIFFS' employment records, as soon as practicable, but no later than 21

           18     calendar days from the date of the request. DEFENDANTS PINK POODLE and DAVID KUZINICH,

           19     JOEY KUZINICH, MICHAEL KUZINICH, PETER KUZINICH, and RICK KUZINICH failed and

          20      refused to pennit PLAINTIFFS to inspect or copy PLAINTIFFS' employment records within the time

          21      set forth in Labor Code § 226 (c).

           22            130.    As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of DEFENDANTS, and each of them,

          23      in violation of Labor Codes and Wage Orders, PLAINTIFFS have suffered, and continue to suffer

           24     losses related to the use and enjoyment of wages and lost interest on such wages all to PLAINTIFFS'

           25     damage, respectively, in amounts according to proof at trial.

           26     III


           27     III


           2R                                                        M
                                PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND STATUTORY PENALTIES

LAW OFFICES OF

  GREGORY A.

   DOUGLAS

                                                      FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION


            2
     (Failure to Pay Overtime - Labor Code §§ 510, 558,1194,1198,2699, and 2699.3 and Section 3

            3                        ofthe Applicable Wage Orders Against All DEFENDANTS)

            4            131.    PLAINTIFFS re-allege and incorporate by reference under this cause of action each

            5     and every allegation made in each and every paragraph hereinabove, as if fully set forth hereunder.

            6            132.    Pursuant to Labor Code §§ 510, 558, 1194, 1198 and related statutes, and also pursuant

            7     to Section 3 of the Wage Orders applicable to PLAINTIFFS' industry and occupation,

            8     DEFENDANTS, and each of them, were required to compensate PLAINTIFFS overtime

            9     compensation at prescribed hourly overtime rates for all overtime hours actually worked.

           10            133.     At all relevant times herein, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have failed and

           11     refused to properly calculate overtime compensation to PLAINTIFFS as required by law.

           12            134.    At all relevant times herein, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, routinely and

           13     systematically failed to properly record accurate time records for PLAINTIFFS, showing when

           14     PLAINTIFFS began and ended each work period.

           15            135.    At all relevant times herein, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, paid PLAINTIFFS'

           16     Wage Rate regardless of the actual hours worked.

           17            136.    By failing to properly record the actual hours worked by PLAINTIFFS, and paying to

           18     PLAINTIFFS the Wage Rate regardless of the actual hours worked and/or by failing to compensate

           19     PLAINTIFFS any wages, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, routinely and systematically failed to

          20      pay PLAINTIFFS for the premium pay for all of PLAINTIFFS' overtime hours as required by Labor

           21     Code §§ 510, 558, 1194, 1198 and related statutes, and also pursuant to Section 3 of the Wage Orders

           22     applicable to PLAINTIFFS' industry and occupation.

           23            137.    At all relevant times herein, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, failed and refused to

           24     compensate PLAINTIFFS for overtime hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours per day and/or forty

           25     (40) hours per week, as required under the aforementioned labor regulations. Specifically,

           26     DEFENDANTS, and each of them, failed to compensate PLAINTIFFS for overtime hours worked in

           27     excess of eight (8) hours per day, forty (40) hours per week, and/or for the first eight (8) hours worked
           2R                                                      25
                                PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND STATUTORY PENALTIES

LAW OFFICES OF

 GREGORYA.

  DOUGlAS

                 on the seventh (7th) consecutive day of work in a workweek at one and one-half (1 12) times the regular

            2    rate of pay; and/or double-time hours for hours worked in excess of twelve (12) hours per day and for

            3    all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours on the seventh (i h ) consecutive workday.

            4           138.     As a direct and proximate result of the willful, knowing, and intentional violation of

            5    Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198, and/or section 3 of the Wage Orders regulating hours and days of work

            6    by DEFENDANTS, and each of them, PLAINTIFFS have been damaged in that the PLAINTIFFs

            7    have not received all wages due and owing, and have suffered, and continue to suffer losses related to

            8    the use and enjoyment of wages and lost interest on such wages all to PLAINTIFFS' damage in

            9    amounts according to proof at trial.

          10            139.     As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of DEFENDANTS, and each of them,

          11     in violation of Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198, and/or section 3 of the Wage Orders regulating hours and

          12     days of work, PLAINTIFFS are entitled, pursuant to Labor Code § 1194(a), to recover the unpaid

          13     balance of the full amount of this overtime wage compensation due, including interest thereon,

          14     together with reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit.

          15             140.    Labor Code § 558 provides for a civil penalty to be assessed against any employer or

          16     other person acting on behalf of an employer who violates, or causes to be violated Labor Code § 510

          17     and/or section 3 of the Wage Orders, regulating hours and days of work.

          18             141.    PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that DEFENDANTS,

          19     and each of them, at all relevant times herein, were PLAINTIFFS' employer or acting on behalf of

          20     PLAINTIFFS' employer pursuant to Labor Code § 558 for purposes of the Labor Code violations

          21     alleged in this cause of action, and are therefore subject to civil penalties payable to PLAINTIFF.

          22             142.    PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that DEFENDANTS,

          23     and each of them, at all relevant times herein, were PLAINTIFFS' "employer" as defmed by the Wage

          24     Orders for purposes of violations of Wage Orders alleged in this cause of action, and are therefore

          25     subject to civil penalties payable to PLAINTIFFS. The Wage Orders defme "employer" as any person

          26     "who directly or indirectly, or through an agent or any other person, employs or exercises control over

          27     wages, hours, or working conditions of any person."

          2R                                                       26

                                PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND STATUTORY PENALTIES


LAW OfFICES Of
 GREGORY A.

  DOUGLAS

            1           143.    As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of DEFENDANTS, and each of them,

            2    in violation of Labor Code § 510 and/or section 3 of the Wage Orders, PLAINTIFFS are entitled,

            3    pursuant to Labor Code §§ 558,2699, and 2699.3, to recover a penalty of$50 for each underpaid

            4    employee for each pay period for which the employee is underpaid in addition to an amount sufficient

            5    to recover underpaid wages for any initial violation; and $100 for each underpaid employee for each

            6    pay period for which the employee is underpaid in additional to an amount sufficient to recover unpaid

            7    wages for each subsequent violation.

            8           144.    PLAINTIFFS have complied with the Notice requirements of Labor Code §

            9    2699.3(a)(l), as set for in paragraph 2 regarding the violations of the Labor Code alleged in this cause

          10     of action, prior to commencing this action. PLAINTIFFS therefore have a private right of action

          11     against DEFENDANTS, and each of them, for penalties under Labor Code §§ 2698-2699.5.

          12                                       SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

          13         (Failure to Maintain Records - Labor Code §§ 558, 1174, 1174.5,2699, 2699.3 and 2699.5

          14                                        Against ALL DEFENDANTS)

          15            145.    PLAINTIFFS re-allege and incorporate by reference under this cause of action each

          16     and every allegation made in each and every paragraph hereinabove, as if fully set forth hereunder.

          17            146.    Labor Code § 1174 (c) and (d) requires employers to keep records showing the names

          18     and addresses of all employees employed and the ages of all minors, and to keep, at a central location

          19     in the state or at the plants or establishments at which employees are employed, payroll records

          20     showing the hours worked daily by and the wages paid to, and the number of piece-rate units earned

          21     by and any applicable piece rate paid to, employees employed at the respective plants or

          22     establishments. These records are required to be kept in accordance with rules established for this

          23     purpose by the commission, but in any case shall be kept on file for not less than two years.

          24            147.    At all relevant times herein, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, knowingly,

          25     intentionally, and willfully violated Labor Code § 1174 (c) and (d) by knowingly, intentionally, and

          26     willfully failing to keep accurate and complete payroll records reflecting the number of hours worked

          27     daily by PLAINTIFFS and the wages paid to PLAINTIFFS.
          2R                                                        n
                               PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND STATUTORY PENALTIES

lAW OFFICES OF
  GREGORY A.
   DOUGlAS
                         148.    Labor Code § 1174.5 provides that any person employing labor who willfully fails to

            2     maintain the records required by Labor Code § 1174 (c), or accurate and complete records required by

            3     Labor Code § 1174 (d), shall be subject to a civil penalty in the amount of$500.

            4            149.    Labor Code § 558 provides for a civil penalty to be assessed against any employer or

            5     other person acting on behalf of an employer who violates, or causes to be violated, a provision of the

            6     California Labor Code regulating wages, hours and working conditions.

            7            150.    PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that DEFENDANTS,

            8     and each of them, at all relevant times herein, were PLAINTIFFS' employer or acting on behalf of

            9     PLAINTIFFS' employer pursuant to Labor Code § 558 for purposes of the Labor Code violations

           10     alleged in this cause of action, and are therefore subject to civil penalties payable to PLAINTIFFS.

          11             151.    As a direct and proximate result of the willful conduct of DEFENDANTS, and each of

           12     them, in violation of Labor Code §§ 558, 1174 (c) and (d), PLAINTIFFS are entitled to an award of a

           13     civil penalty in the amount of $500 pursuant to Labor Code § 1174.5.

           14            152.    PLAINTIFFS have complied with the Notice requirements of Labor Code §

           15     2699.3(a)(1), as set for in paragraph 2 regarding the violations of the Labor Code alleged in this cause

           16     of action, prior to commencing this action. PLAINTIFFS therefore have a private right of action

           17     against DEFENDANTS, and each of them, for penalties under Labor Code §§ 2698-2699.5.

           18                                         THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION


           19     (Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements - Labor Code §§ 226, 226.3, 553, 2699, 2699.3


          20                                   AND 2699.5 Against ALL DEFENDANTS)


          21             153.    PLAINTIFFS re-allege and incorporate by reference under this cause of action each

          22      and every allegation made in each and every paragraph hereinabove, as if fully set forth hereunder.

          23             154.    Labor Code § 226(a) requires employers, semimonthly or at the time of each payment

          24      of wages, to furnish each of its employees an accurate itemized statement in writing showing (1) gross

          25      wages earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee, (3) the number of piece-rate units and rates, if

           26     applicable, (4) all deductions, (5) net wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates of the period for which the

           27     employee is paid, (7) the name of the employee and his or her social security number, (8) the name

          2R                                                       28

                                PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND STATIITORY PENALTIES


LAW OFFICES OF

  GREGORY A.

   DOUGLAS

                 and address of the legal entity that is the employer, and (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during

            2    the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee.

            3            155.    Labor Code § 558 provides for a civil penalty to be assessed against any employer or

            4    other person acting on behalf of an employer who violates, or causes to be violated, a provision of the

            5    California Labor Code regulating wages, hours and working conditions.

            6           156.     PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that DEFENDANTS,

            7    and each of them, at all relevant times herein, were PLAINTIFFS' employer or acting on behalf of

            8    PLAINTIFFS' employer pursuant to Labor Code § 558 for purposes of the Labor Code violations

            9    alleged in this cause of action, and are therefore subject to civil penalties payable to PLAINTIFFS.

          10            157.     At all relevant times herein, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, knowingly and

          11     intentionally violated Labor Code § 226 by knowingly and intentionally failing to provide

          12     PLAINTIFFS with properly and accurately itemize statements reflecting the number of hours worked

          13     by PLAINTIFFS at the effective regular rates of pay and the effective overtime rates of pay.

          14             158.    As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of DEFENDANTS, and each of them,

          15     in violation of Labor Code § 226(a), PLAINTIFFS have suffered injury. These injuries include, but are

          16     not limited to, costs expended calculating PLAINTIFFS' actual hours worked and the amount of

          17     employment taxes which were not properly paid to state and federal tax authorities, which are difficult

          18     to estimate.

          19             159.    As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of DEFENDANTS, and each of them,

          20     in violation of Labor Code § 226(a), PLAINTIFFS are entitled to recover the greater of all actual

          21     damages or $50 for the initial pay period in which the violation occurred, and $100.00 per employee

          22     for each violation in a subsequent pay period, not exceeding an aggregate penalty of $4,000, and is

          23     entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney's fees.

          24             160.    Labor Code § 226.3 provides that any employer who violates Labor Code § 226(a), or

          25     who fails to keep the records required in Labor Code § 226(a) shall be subject to a civil penalty in the

          26     amount of $250 per employee per violation in an initial citation and $1,000 per employee for each

          27     violation in a subsequent citation.
          2R                                                       29

                                PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITIJTION AND STATUTORY PENALTIES


LAW OffiCES Of
  GREGORY A.

   DOUGLAS

                         161.     As a direct and proximate result of knowing and intentional conduct of

            2     DEFENDANTS, and each of them, in violation of Labor Code § 226, PLAINTIFFS are entitled to an

            3     award of civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 226.3, 2699, and 2699.3.

            4            162.     PLAINTIFFS have complied with the Notice requirements of Labor Code §

            5     2699.3(a)(l), as set for in paragraph 2 regarding the violations of the Labor Code alleged in this cause

            6     of action, prior to commencing this action. PLAINTIFFS therefore have a private right of action

            7     against DEFENDANTS, and each of them, for penalties under Labor Code §§ 2698-2699.5.

            8                                       FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION


            9      (Failure to Pay Minimum Wage - Labor Code §§ 1197, 1197.1, 1194, 1194.2,2699, and 2699.3


           10                   and Section 4 of the Applicable Wage Orders Against All DEFENDANTS)


           11            163.     PLAINTIFFS re-allege and incorporate by reference under this cause of action each

           12     and every allegation made in each and every paragraph hereinabove, as if fully set forth hereunder.

           13            164.     Labor Code § 1197 provides that "The minimum wage for employees fixed by the

           14     commission is the minimum wage to be paid to employees, and the payment of less that the minimum

           15     so fixed is unlawful."

           16            165.     At all relevant times herein, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, routinely and

           17     systematically failed to properly record accurate time records for PLAINTIFFS, showing when

           18     PLAINTIFFS began and ended each work period.

           19            166.      At all relevant times herein, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, either paid

           20     PLAINTIFFS the Wage Rate, regardless of the actual hours worked by PLAINTIFF or failed to

           21     compensate PLAITNIFFS any wages at all.

           22            167.     By failing to properly record the actual hours worked by PLAINTIFFS, and paying to

           23     PLAINTIFFS the Wage Rate, regardless of the actual hours worked, DEFENDANTS, and each of

           24     them, routinely and systematically failed to pay PLAINTIFFS for all of the hours actually worked at

           25     the legal minimum wage as required by Labor Code § 1197.

           26            168.     Specifically, the total wages paid to PLAINTIFFS, divided by the actual hours worked

           27     by PLAINTIFF, equaled an hourly rate of pay which was less than the applicable minimum wage
           2R                                                       30

                                 PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND STATUTORY PENALTIES


LAW OFFICES OF

  GREGORY A.

   DOUGLAS

                  under California law, in effect during the period worked. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, are in

            2     violation of Labor Code § 1197.

            3             169.       As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of DEFENDANTS, and each of them,

            4     in violation of Labor Code § 1197, PLAINTIFFS have been damaged in that PLAINTIFFS have not

             5    received all wages due and owing, and have suffered, and continue to suffer losses related to the use

             6    and enjoyment of wages and lost interest on such wages all to PLAINTIFFS' damage in amounts

            7     according to proof at trial.

             8            170.       As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of DEFENDANTS, and each of them,

            9     in violation of Labor Code § 1197, PLAINTIFFS are entitled, pursuant to Labor Code § 1194(a), to

           10     recover the unpaid balance of the full amount of this minimum wage compensation due, including

           11     interest thereon, together with reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit.

           12             171.       As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of DEFENDANTS, and each of them,

           13     in violation of Labor Code § 1197, PLAINTIFFS are entitled to recover liquidated damages pursuant

           14     to Labor Code § 1194.2, in an amount equal to wages unlawfully unpaid plus interest, according to

           15     proof at trial.

           16             172.       Labor Code § 1197.1 provides for a civil penalty to be assessed against any employer

           17     or other person acting either individually or as an officer, agent, or employee of an employer, who

           18     pays or causes to be paid to any employee a wage less than the minimum fixed by an order of the

           19     commission.

           20             173.       PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that DEFENDANTS,

           21     and each of them, at all relevant times herein, were PLAINTIFFS' employer or acting either

           22     individually, or as an officer, agent, or employee of PLAINTIFFS' employer pursuant to Labor Code §

           23     1197.1 for purposes of the Labor Code violations alleged in this cause of action, and are therefore

           24     subject to civil penalties payable to PLAINTIFFS.

           25             174.       As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of DEFENDANTS, and each of them,

           26     in violation of Labor Code § 1197, PLAINTIFFS are entitled, pursuant to Labor Code §§ 1197.1,

           27     2699, and 2699.3, to recover a penalty of$100 for each underpaid employee for each pay period for
           2R                                                          31
                                    PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND STATUTORY PENALTIES

LAW OFFICES OF

  GREGORY A.

   DOUGlAS

                  which the employee is underpaid for any initial violation that is intentionally committed; and $250 for

            2     each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee is underpaid for each

            3     subsequent violation for the same specific offense, regardless of whether the initial violation is

            4     intentionally committed.

            5            175.     PLAINTIFFS have complied with the Notice requirements of Labor Code §

            6     2699.3(a)(1), as set for in paragraph 2 regarding the violations of the Labor Code alleged in this cause

            7     of action, prior to commencing this action. PLAINTIFFS therefore have a private right of action

            8     against DEFENDANTS, and each of them, for penalties under Labor Code §§ 2698-2699.5.

            9                                         FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION


           10       (Failure to Pay Wage on Regularly Established Paydays- Labor Code §§ 204,210,2699, and


           11                                      2699.3 Against All DEFENDANTS)


           12            176.     PLAINTIFFS re-allege and incorporate by reference under this cause of action each

           13     and every allegation made in each and every paragraph hereinabove, as if fully set forth hereunder.

           14            177.     Labor Code § 204 provides in part that "all wages, ...,earned by any person in any

           15     employment are due and payable twice during each calendar month, on days designated in advance by

           16     the employer as the regular paydays..."

           17            178.     At all relevant times herein, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, failed to pay to

           18     PLAINTIFFS, on regularly established paydays, all earned wages to which PLAINTIFFS were

           19     entitled, respectively, under the Labor Code and applicable Wage Orders, as alleged in this Complaint,

          20      and incorporated herein by reference.

          21             179.     In violation of Labor Code § 204, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, at all relevant

          22      times herein, willfully and intentionally refused to perfonn their obligations to compensate

           23     PLAINTIFFS for all wages earned.

           24            180.     Labor Code § 210 provides for a civil penalty to be assessed against "every person"

           25     who fails to pay the wages of each employee as provided in Labor Code § 204.

           26             181.    PLAINTIFFS are infonned and believe, and on that basis allege, that DEFENDANTS,
           27     and each of them, at all relevant times herein, were "person[s]" under Labor Code § 210 for purposes
           2R                                                       32

                                 PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND STATUTORY PENALTIES


LAW OFFICES OF

  GREGORY A.

   DOUGLAS

                  of the Labor Code violations alleged in this cause of action, and are therefore subject to civil penalties

            2     payable to PLAINTIFFS.

            3            182.      As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of DEFENDANTS, and each of them,

            4     in violation of Labor Code § 204, PLAINTIFFS are entitled, pursuant to Labor Code §§ 210,2699,

            5     and 2699.3, to recover a penalty of $1 00 for failure to pay each employee for the initial violation; and

            6     $200 for each failure to pay each employee, plus 25 percent of the amount unlawfully withheld for

            7     each subsequent violation, or any willful or intentional violation.

            8            183.      PLAINTIFFS have complied with the Notice requirements of Labor Code §

            9     2699.3 (a)(1 ), as set for in paragraph 2 regarding the violations of the Labor Code alleged in this cause

           10     of action, prior to commencing this action. PLAINTIFFS therefore have a private right of action

           11     against DEFENDANTS, and each of them, for penalties under Labor Code §§ 2698-2699.5.

           12                                          SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION


           13      (Failure to Pay all Wages at Time of Discharge - Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 227.3, 558, 2699,


           14                                2699.3 and 2699.5 Against ALL DEFENDANTS)


           15            184.      PLAINTIFFS re-allege and incorporate by reference under this cause of action each

           16     and every allegation made in each and every paragraph hereinabove, as if fully set forth hereunder.

           17            185.      Labor Code § 20l(a) provides "If an employer discharges an employee, the wages

           18     earned and unpaid at the time of discharge are due and payable immediately... "

           19            186.      Labor Code § 202(a) provides "If an employee not having a written contract for a

          20      defInite period quits his or her employment, his or her wages shall become due and payable not later

          21      than 72 hours thereafter, unless the employee has given 72 hours previous notice of his or her intention

          22      to quit, in which case the employee is entitled to his or her wages at the time of quitting."

           23            187.      Upon termination of PLAINTIFFS' employment relationship, DEFENDANTS, and

           24     each of them, willfully failed and refused to timely pay to PLAINTIFFS, pursuant to Labor Code §§

          25      20l(a) and 202(a), respectively, all wages earned as alleged in this Complaint, and incorporated herein

           26     by reference.

           27
           2R                                                        33
                                  PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND STATUTORY PENALTIES

LAW OFFICES OF

  GREGORY A.

   DOUGLAS

                         188.     Labor Code § 558 provides for a civil penalty to be assessed against any employer or

            2     other person acting on behalf of an employer who violates, or causes to be violated, a provision of the

            3     California Labor Code regulating wages, hours and working conditions.

            4            189.     PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Defendants, and

            5     each of them, at all relevant times herein, were PLAINTIFFS' employer or acting on behalf of

            6     PLAINTIFFS' employer pursuant to Labor Code § 558 for purposes of the Labor Code violations

            7     alleged in this cause of action, and are therefore subject to civil penalties payable to PLAINTIFFS.

            8            190.     DEFENDANTS, and each of them, continue to willfully fail and refuse to pay to

            9     PLAINTIFFS all wages earned as alleged in this Complaint, and incorporated herein by reference.

          10             191.     As a direct and proximate result of the willful conduct of DEFENDANTS, and each of

           11     them, in violation of Labor Code §§ 201,202, and 227.3, PLAINTIFFS are entitled, pursuant to Labor

           12     Code § 203, 2699, and 2699.3, to recover waiting time penalties, calculated as a continuance of

           13     PLAINTIFFS' wages from the due date of the wage at the same rate until paid or until an action

           14     therefore is commenced, up to and including 30 days.

           15            192.     PLAINTIFFS have complied with the Notice requirements of Labor Code §

           16     2699.3(a)(l), as set for in paragraph 2 regarding the violations of the Labor Code alleged in this cause

           17     of action, prior to commencing this action. PLAINTIFFS therefore have a private right of action

           18     against DEFENDANTS, and each of them, for penalties under Labor Code §§ 2698-2699.5.

           19                                       SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION


          20      (For Unfair Competition In Violation of Unfair Business Practices- Business & Professions Code


          21                     §§ 17200 et. seq. Against PINK POODLE, DOES 1-10, and DOES 11-20)

           22            193.     PLAINTIFFS re-allege and incorporate by reference under this cause of action each

          23      and every allegation made in each and every paragraph hereinabove, as if fully set forth hereunder.

           24            194.     California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200-et seq. prohibits acts of unfair

           25     competition, which includes any "unlawful and unfair business practices."

           26             195.    The conduct by PINK. POODLE, DOES 1-10, and DOES 11-20 as alleged herein, have

           27     been and continue to be unfair, unlawful, and deleterious to PLAINTIFFS herein. PLAINTIFFS
           2R                                                       34

                                 PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND STATUTORY PENALTIES


LAW OFFICES OF

  GREGORY A.

   DOUGLAS

                  hereby seeks to enforce important rights within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5.

            2     PLAINTIFFS are a "person" within the meaning of the Business & Professions Code § 17204, and

            3     therefore possesses standing to bring this suit for injunctive relief and restitution.

            4             196.    It is the policy of this State to enforce minimum labor standards, to ensure that

            5     employees are not required or permitted to work under substandard and unlawful conditions, and to

            6     protect those employers who comply with the law from losing competitive advantage to other

            7     employers who fail to comply with labor standards and requirements.

            8             197.    Through the conduct alleged herein, PINK POODLE, DOES 1-10, and DOES 11-20

            9     acted contrary to these public policies and have engaged in unlawful and/or unfair business practices

           10     in violation of Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et. seq., depriving PLAINTIFFS herein, of the

           11     rights, benefits, and privileges guaranteed to employees under California law.

           12             198.    PINK POODLE, DOES 1-10, and DOES 11-20 regularly and routinely violated the

           13     Wage Orders and Labor Code with respect to PLAINTIFFS as alleged in this Complaint, and

           14     incorporated herein by reference.

           15             199.    PINK POODLE, DOES 1-10, and DOES 11-20 regularly and routinely failed to

           16     provide PLAINTIFFS adequate meal and rest breaks as required by the applicable Wage Order of the

           17     Industrial Welfare Commission and California Labor Code § 226.7. PINK POODLE, DOES 1-10,

           18     and DOES 11-20 acts constitute unfair and unlawful business practices under Business and

           19     Professions Code § 17200, et seq.

          20              200.    By engaging in theses business practices, which are unfair business practices within the

           2]     meaning of Business & Professions Code §§ l7200-et. seq., PINK POODLE, DOES 1-10, and DOES

           22     11-20 harmed PLAINTIFFS herein, and thus by that design and plan gained an unfair competitive

           23     edge in the marketplace.

           24             201.    Under Business & Professions Code § 17203, PLAINTIFFS are entitled to obtain

           25     restitution of these funds from PINK POODLE, DOES 1-10, and DOES 11-20 on behalf of

           26     themselves affected by the unfair business practices of DEFENDANTS, and each of them, as

           27     enumerated herein.
           2R                                                       35

                                 PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND STATUTORY PENALTIES


LAW OFFICES OF

 GREGORY A.

  DOUGLAS

                         202.    Pursuant to Business & Professions Code § 17203, injunctive relief is necessary to

            2     prevent DEFENDANTS, and each of them, from continuing to engage in the unfair business practices

            3     as alleged herein. PLAINTIFFS are infonned and believe, and based thereon allege, that

            4     DEFENDANTS, and each of them, and persons acting in concert with them, have committed and will

            5     continue to commit the above unlawful acts unless restrained or enjoined by this Court. Unless the

            6     relief prayed for below is granted, a multiplicity of actions will result. PLAINTIFFS have no plain,

            7     speedy, or adequate remedy at law, in that pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate and

            8     complete relief. The above-described acts will cause great and irreparable damage to PLAINTIFFS

            9     herein, unless DEFENDANTS, and each of them, are restrained from committing further illegal acts.

           10            203.    PLAINTIFFS' success in this action will result in the enforcement of important rights.

           11     Private enforcement of the rights enumerated in this complaint is necessary, as public agencies have

           12     only sought limited enforcement of those rights, if any. PLAINTIFFS, individually and by and through

           13     counsel, have incurred and continue to incur a financial burden in pursuing this action. PLAINTIFFS

           14     further seek to enjoin the above-referenced unlawful actions under the Labor Code. Therefore,

           15     PLAINTIFFS seeks an award of attorney's fees and costs of suit on this cause of action pursuant to

           16     Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and other applicable Labor Code sections.

           17                                       EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION


           18     (Failure to Permit the Inspection or Copy of Records - Labor Code § 226, 558, 2699, 2699.3 and


           19                                    2699.5 Against ALL DEFENDANTS)


           20            204.      PLAINTIFFS re-allege and incorporate by reference under this cause of action each

           21     and every allegation made in each and every paragraph hereinabove, as if fully set forth hereunder.

           22            205.    Labor Code § 226 (b) and (c) requires an employer to afford current and former

           23     employees the right to inspect or copy records pertaining to that current or fonner employee, upon

           24     reasonable request to the employer, as soon as practicable, but no later than 21 calendar days from the

           25     date of the request.

           26

           27
           2R                                                        36
                                PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND STATUTORY PENALTIES

LAW OFFICES OF

  GREGORY A.

   DOUGLAS

            1            206.    Notwithstanding PLAINTIFFS' reasonable request to inspect or copy their respective

            2     employment records, DEFENDANTS failed and refused to permit PLAINTIFFS to inspect or copy

            3     PLAINTIFFS' employment records within the time set forth in Labor Code § 226 (c).

            4            207.    Labor Code § 558 provides for a civil penalty to be assessed against any employer or

            5     other person acting on behalf of an employer who violates, or causes to be violated, a provision of the

            6     California Labor Code regulating wages, hours and working conditions.

            7            208.    PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that DEFENDANTS,

            8     and each of them, at all relevant times herein, were PLAINTIFFS' employer or acting on behalf of

            9     PLAINTIFFS' employer pursuant to Labor Code § 558 for purposes of the Labor Code violations

           10     alleged in this cause of action, and are therefore subject to civil penalties payable to PLAINTIFFS.

           11            209.    As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of DEFENDANTS in violation of Labor

           12     Code § 226 (b) and (c), PLAINTIFFS are entitled, pursuant to Labor Code § 226 (f), 2699, and

           13     2699.3, to recover a penalty of $750.

           14            210.      PLAINTIFFS have complied with the Notice requirements of Labor Code §

           15     2699.3(a)(l), as set for in paragraph 2 regarding the violations of the Labor Code alleged in this cause

           16     of action, prior to commencing this action. PLAINTIFFS therefore have a private right of action

           17     against DEFENDANTS for penalties under Labor Code §§ 2698-2699.5.

           18                                              NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

           19     (Misclassification of Employee as Independent Contractor - Labor Code § 2750.5 and 226.8 and

           20                    Section 2 oftbe Applicable Wage Orders Against All DEFENDANTS)

          21             211.      PLAINTIFFS re-allege and incorporate by reference under this cause of action each

           22     and every allegation made in each and every paragraph hereinabove, as if fully set forth hereunder.

           23            212.      California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 16 and other Wage

           24     Orders, Section 2 defines "employ" as meaning to engage, suffer, or permit to work.

           25            213.      Labor Code § 2750.5 provides in pertinent part: "Proof of independent contractor

           26     status includes satisfactory proof of these factors:

           27

           2R                                                      37
                                PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND STATUTORY PENALTIES

LAW OFFICES OF

  GREGORY A.

   DOUGLAS

                                 a.	 That the individual has the right to control and discretion as to the manner of

            2                       performance of the contract for services in that the result of the work and not the

            3                       means by which it is accomplished is the primary factor bargained for;

            4                    b.	 That the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established

            5                       business; and

            6                    c.	 That the individual's independent contractor status is bona fide and not a subterfuge

            7                       to avoid employee status. A bona fide independent contractor status is further

            8                       evidenced by the presence of cumulative factors such as substantial investment

            9                       other than personal services in the business, holding out to be.in business for

           10                       oneself, bargaining for a contract to complete a specific project for compensation by

           11                       project rather than by time, control over the time and place the work is performed,

           12                       supplying the tools and instrumentalities normally and customarily provided by

           13                       employers, hiring employees, performing work that is not ordinarily in the course of

           14                       the principal's work, performing work that requires a particular skill, holding a

           15                       license pursuant to the Business and Professions Code, the intent by the parties that

           16                       the work relationship is of an independent contractor status, or that the relationship

           17                       is not severable or terminable at will by the principal but gives rise to an action for

           18                       the breach of contract.

           19            214.      DEFENDANTS, and each of them, as a matter of established company policy and

          20      procedure, consistently:

          21                     a.	 Administered a uniform company policy and practice regarding the duties and

          22                        responsibilities ofPLAlNTIFFS;

           23                    b.	 Administered a uniform company policy and practice regarding the payment of

           24                       wages to PLAINTIFFS;

           25                    c.	 Labeled PLAINTIFF as an "independent contractor" to avoid the payment of wages

           26                       and other benefits in violation of the Labor Code and applicable Wage Orders; and

           27
           2R                                                      38
                                PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAJNT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND STATUTORY PENALTIES

LAW OFFICES OF

  GREGORY A.

   DOUGLAS

             I                   d.	 Acted as if they had the right to, and in fact did control the work performed by,

            2                         and/or the manner and/or means in which PLAINTIFFS performed PLAINTIFFS

            3                         duties.

            4            215.        As a matter of common business policy, DEFENDANTS, and each of them,

            5     systematically misclassified PLAINTIFFS as independent contractors. DEFENDANTS', and each of

            6     them, classification of PLAINTIFFS as independent contractors was not due to any unique factor

            7     related to their employment or relationship with DEFENDANTS. As a matter of common business

            8     practice, DEEFNDANTS, and each of them, routinely misclassified most of their employees as

            9     independent contractors as opposed to employees.

           10            216.        Labor Code § 226.8 provides in pertinent part: "It is unlawful for any person or

           11     employer to engage in any of the following activities: (I) Willful misclassification of an individual as

           12     an independent contractor."

           13            217.        Labor Code § 226.8 provides for a civil penalty of not less than five thousand dollars

           14     ($5,000) and not more than fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for each violation, in addition to any

           15     other penalties or fmes pennitted by law to be assessed against any employer found to be in violation

           16     of section 228.6

           17            218.        Labor Code § 226.8 provides in pertinent part: "If the Labor and Workforce

           18     Development Agency or a court issues a determination that a person or employer has engaged in any

           19     of the enumerated violations of subdivision (a) and the person or employer has engaged in or is

          20      engaging in a pattern or practice of these violations, the person or employer shall be subject to a civil

           21     penalty of not less than ten thousand ($10,000) and not more than twenty-five thousand dollars

           22     ($25,000) for each violation, in addition to any other penalties or fmes permitted by law."

           23            219.        As a direct and proximate result of knowing and intentional conduct of

          24      DEFENDANTS, and each of them, in violation of Labor Code § 2750.5 and 226.8, PLAINTIFFS are

           25     entitled to an award of civil penalties in an amount to be detennined at trial.

           26            WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS respectfully prays this Court enter judgment in favor of

           27     PLAINTIFFS, and against DEFENDANTS, and each of them, as follows:
           2R                                                      39

                                PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND STATUTORY PENALTlES


LAW OFFICES OF

  GREGORY A.

   DOUGLAS

                              1.     For compensatory damages as may be established according to proof at trial;

            2                 2.     For all unpaid wages as may be established according to proof at trial;

            3                 3.     For liquidated damages as may be established according to proof at trial;

            4                 4.     For prejudgment and post-judgment interest on all damages awarded, at the legal rate;

            5                 5.     For all statutory and civil penalties as may be established according to proof at trial;

            6                 6.     Damages for meal premiums not paid to PLAINTIFFS in an amount to be determined

            7     at trial;

            8                 7.     For reasonable attorney's fees;

            9                 8.     For costs of suit incurred;

           10                 9.     For restitution of all monies due to PLAINTIFFS, and disgorgement of profits from the

           11     unlawful business practices of DEFENDANTS, and each of them;

           12                 10.    For a preliminary and permanent injunction ordering DEFENDANTS, and each of

           13     them, to cease such unlawful and unfair practices as alleged hereinabove and proved to the Court at

           14     the time of trial, requiring the establishment of appropriate and effective means to prevent future

           15     violations; and

           16                 11.    For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

           17

           18     DATED: Apri124, 2014	                             LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY A. DOUGLAS

           19

          20

           21                                                       ,~A-~r'~
                                                                    GRE     R A.DO . AS
           22                                                       Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS
                                                                    VERONICA COLEMAN, LISA PIDGEON, MARIA
           23	                                                      MENDOZA, FELISITAS MCDONALD, NIKKI
                                                                    GABRIEL, JAMIE STARKWEATHER, KATHLEEN
           24                                                       LANERE, TRACY SHELOR, ERICA CREMONINI,
           25                                                       SERENA SISK and LARISHA LAWSON

           26
           27

           2R                                                             40
                                    PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND STATUTORY PENALTIES

LAW OFFICES OF

 GREGORY A.

  DOUGLAS


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:157
posted:5/1/2014
language:Latin
pages:40