Taco Bell Court Complaint

-1- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Mark Yablonovich (SBN 186670) Marc Primo (SBN 216796) Joseph Cho (SBN 198844) Gregory Yu (SBN 230520) Initiative Legal Group LLP 1800 Century Park East, 2nd Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-5637 Facsimile: (310) 861-9051 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO DIVISION

SANDRIKA MEDLOCK and LISA HARDIMAN, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. TACO BELL CORP., a California corporation; TACO BELL OF AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation; TACO BELL FOUNDATION, INC., a California corporation; NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TACO BELL ASSOCIATION, INC., a California corporation; TACO BELL, a business entity form unknown; YUM!, a business entity form unknown; YUM! BRANDS, INC., a business entity form unknown; YUM! BRANDS, a business entity form unknown; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Case Number: COMPLAINT FOR CLASS ACTION (1) Violation of California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198 (Unpaid Overtime); (2) Violation of California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202 (Wages not Paid Upon Termination); (3) Violation of California Labor Code §§ 226.7(a) and 512(a) (Denial of Meal Breaks); (4) Violation of California Labor Code § 226.7(a) (Denial of Rest Breaks); (5) Violation of California Labor Code § 226(a) (Improper Wage Statements);

Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 of 21

mailto:[email protected]

-2-

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

20

23

24

25

28

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

21

22

26

27

Defendants. (6) Violation of California Labor Code §§ 2800 and 2802 (Unpaid Business-Related Expenses); and (7) Violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all other members of the public

similarly situated, allege as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331-1332. The Court has supplemental

jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Plaintiffs allege,

on information and belief, that the aggregate amount in controversy for this class

action exceeds five million dollars ($5,000,000.00) exclusive of interest and costs,

that the class is greater than one-hundred (100) members, and that any one plaintiff

is a citizen of a state different from that of any defendant. See Class Action Fairness

Act (“CAFA”), Pub. L. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005).

2. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) and (b)

because Defendants maintain offices, have agents and are licensed to and do transact

business in this district.

THE PARTIES

3. Plaintiffs SANDRIKA MEDLOCK and LISA HARDIMAN

(hereinafter “Medlock” and “Hardiman” respectively, collectively “Plaintiffs”) are

residents of Fresno County in the State of California.

4. Defendant TACO BELL CORP. was and is, upon information and


-3-


1

2

3

belief, a California corporation, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, an employer

whose employees are engaged throughout this county, the State of California, or the

various states of the United States of America.

4

8

12

17

21

25

5

6

7

5. Defendant TACO BELL OF AMERICA, INC. was and is, upon

information and belief, a Delaware corporation doing business, and at all times

hereinafter mentioned, an employer whose employees are engaged throughout this

county, the State of California, or the various states of the United States of America.

9

10

11

6. Defendant TACO BELL FOUNDATION, INC. was and is, upon

information and belief, a California corporation, and at all times hereinafter

mentioned, an employer whose employees are engaged throughout this county, the

State of California, or the various states of the United States of America.

13

14

15

16

7. Defendant NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TACO BELL

ASSOCIATION, INC. was and is, upon information and belief, a California

corporation, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, an employer whose employees

are engaged throughout this county, the State of California, or the various states of

the United States of America.

18

19

20

8. Defendant TACO BELL was and is, upon information and belief, a

business entity form unknown, doing business, and at all times hereinafter



22

23

24

9. Defendant YUM! was and is, upon information and belief, a business

entity form unknown, doing business, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, an

employer whose employees are engaged throughout this county, the State of

California, or the various states of the United States of America.

26

27

28

10. Defendant YUM! BRANDS, INC. was and is, upon information and

belief, a business entity form unknown, doing business, and at all times hereinafter




-4-


1

5

9

18

27

2

3

4

6

7

8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

13. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that DOES 1-10

are the partners, agents, owners, shareholders, managers or employees of TACO

BELL CORP., TACO BELL OF AMERICA, INC., TACO BELL FOUNDATION,

INC., NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TACO BELL ASSOCIATION, INC., TACO

BELL, YUM!, YUM! BRANDS, INC., and/or YUM! BRANDS, and were acting

on behalf of TACO BELL CORP., TACO BELL OF AMERICA, INC., TACO

BELL FOUNDATION, INC., NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TACO BELL

ASSOCIATION, INC., TACO BELL, YUM!, YUM! BRANDS, INC., and/or

YUM! BRANDS.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

14. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each and all

of the acts and omissions alleged herein was performed by, or is attributable to,

TACO BELL CORP., TACO BELL OF AMERICA, INC., TACO BELL

FOUNDATION, INC., NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TACO BELL

ASSOCIATION, INC., TACO BELL, YUM!, YUM! BRANDS, INC. and/or

YUM! BRANDS and DOES 1-10 (collectively “Defendants”), each acting as the

agent for the other, with legal authority to act on the other’s behalf. The acts of any

and all Defendants were in accordance with, and represent the official policy of,

Defendants.

28

1

11. Defendant YUM! BRANDS was and is, upon information and belief, a

business entity form unknown, doing business, and at all times hereinafter



12. Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names or capacities of the Defendants

sued herein under the fictitious names DOES 1-10, but pray for leave to amend and

serve such fictitiously named Defendants once their names and capacities become

known.

5. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, ratified

each and every act or omission complained of herein. At all times herein


-5-


1

2

3

mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, aided and abetted the acts and omissions

of each and all the other Defendants in proximately causing the damages herein

alleged.

4

7

8

11

13

14

15

16

17

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

6

1

9

10

12

18

6. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each of said

Defendants is in some manner intentionally, negligently, or otherwise responsible

for the acts, omissions, occurrences, and transactions alleged herein.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

17. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf, as well as on behalf of

each and all other persons similarly situated, and thus, seek class certification under

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3).

18. All claims alleged herein arise under California law for which Plaintiffs

seek relief authorized by California law.

19. The proposed class consists of and is defined as:

All non-exempt or hourly paid employees who have been employed by

Defendants in the State of California within four years prior to the

filing of this complaint until resolution of this lawsuit.

20. There is a well defined community of interest in the litigation and the

class is easily ascertainable:

a. Numerosity: The members of the class (and each subclass, if

any) are so numerous that joinder of all members would be unfeasible and

impractical. The membership of the entire class is unknown to Plaintiffs at this

time, however, the class is estimated to be greater than one-hundred (100)

individuals and the identity of such membership is readily ascertainable by

inspection of Defendants’ employment records.

b. Typicality: Plaintiffs are qualified to, and will, fairly and

adequately protect the interests of each class member with whom they have a well

defined community of interest, and Plaintiffs’ claims (or defenses, if any) are typical

of all class members’ as demonstrated herein.


-6-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

27

28

25

26

c. Adequacy: Plaintiffs are qualified to, and will, fairly and

adequately, protect the interests of each class member with whom they have a well-

defined community of interest and typicality of claims, as alleged herein. Plaintiffs

acknowledge that they have an obligation to make known to the Court any

relationship, conflicts, or differences with any class member. Plaintiffs’ attorneys

and the proposed class counsel are versed in the rules governing class action

discovery, certification, and settlement. Plaintiffs have incurred, and throughout the

duration of this action will continue to incur costs and attorneys’ fees that have

been, are, and will be necessarily expended for the prosecution of this action for the

substantial benefit of each class member.

d. Superiority: The nature of this action makes the use of class

action adjudication superior to other methods. Class action will achieve economies

of time, effort and expense as compared with separate lawsuits, and will avoid

inconsistent outcomes because the same issues can be adjudicated in the same

manner and at the same time for the entire class.

e. Public Policy Considerations: Employers of the State violate

employment and labor laws every day. Current employees are often afraid to assert

their rights out of fear of direct or indirect retaliation. Former employees are fearful

of bringing actions because they believe their former employers may damage their

future endeavors through negative references and/or other means. Class actions

provide the class members who are not named in the complaint with a type of

anonymity that allows for the vindication of their rights at the same time as their

privacy is protected.

21. There are common questions of law and fact as to the class (and each

subclass, if any) that predominate over questions affecting only individual members,

including but not limited to:

a. Whether Defendants required Plaintiffs and the other class

members to work over eight (8) hours per day, over twelve (12) hours per day, or


-7-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

over forty (40) hours per week and failed to pay legally required overtime

compensation to Plaintiffs and the other class members;

b. Whether Defendants’ failure to pay wages, without abatement or

reduction, in accordance with the California Labor Code, was willful;

c. Whether Defendants deprived Plaintiffs and the other class

members of meal periods or required Plaintiffs and the class members to work

during meal periods without compensation;

d. Whether Defendants deprived Plaintiffs and the other class

members of rest periods or required Plaintiffs and the class members to work during

rest periods without compensation;

e. Whether Defendants complied with wage reporting as required

by the California Labor Code; including but not limited to § 226;

f. Whether Defendants failed to promptly pay all wages due to

Plaintiffs and the other class members upon their discharge or resignation;

g. Whether Defendants made unlawful deductions from the wages

of Plaintiffs and other class members;

h. Whether Defendants failed to indemnify Plaintiffs and other

class members for necessary and required business expenditures and losses incurred

by them in the scope of their employment;

i. Whether the Defendants failed to reimburse for employee

expenses;

j. Whether Defendants’ conduct was willful or reckless;

k. Whether Defendants engaged in unfair business practices in

violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.; and

l. The appropriate amount of damages, restitution, or monetary

penalties resulting from Defendants’ violations of California law.

\\

\\


-8-


1

2

4

7

10

12

17

21

24

27

3

5

6

8

9

11

13

14

15

16

18

19

20

22

23

25

26

28

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

22. At all times set forth, Defendants employed Plaintiffs and other persons

as non-exempt or hourly paid employees.

23. Defendants employed Plaintiff Medlock as a Shift Manager, which is a

non-exempt or hourly paid position, from on or about October 25, 2005 to on or

about July 9, 2007, at Fresno, California business locations.

24. Defendants employed Plaintiff Hardiman as a Crew Member, which is

a non-exempt or hourly paid position, from on or about August 10, 2005 to on or

about May 30, 2007, at Fresno, California business locations.

25. Defendants continue to employ non-exempt or hourly paid employees

within California.

26. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at all times

herein mentioned, Defendants were advised by skilled lawyers and other

professionals, employees, and advisors knowledgeable about California and federal

labor and wage law and employment and personnel practices, and about the

requirements of California and federal law.

27. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that Defendants

knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and other members of the class were

entitled to receive certain wages for overtime compensation and that they were not

receiving certain wages for overtime compensation.


knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and other class members were entitled to

receive complete and accurate wage statements in accordance with California law.



receive all the wages owed to them upon discharge.




-9-


1

2

receive all meal breaks or payment of one hour of pay at Plaintiffs’ and class

members’ regular rate of pay when a meal break was missed.

3

7

13

20

23

24

25

26

27

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12


knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and the other class members were

entitled to receive full reimbursement for all business-related expenses and costs

they incurred during the course and scope of their employment, and that they did not

receive full reimbursement of applicable business-related expenses and costs they

incurred.

14

15

16

17

18

19

33. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that at all times

herein mentioned, Defendants knew or should have known that they had a duty to

compensate Plaintiffs and other class members, and that Defendants had the

financial ability to pay such compensation, but willfully, knowingly, and

intentionally failed to do so, and falsely represented to Plaintiffs and other class

members that they were properly denied wages, all in order to increase Defendants’

profits.

21

22

34. California Labor Code

28



receive all rest breaks or payment of one hour of pay at Plaintiffs’ and class

members’ regular rate of pay when a rest break was missed.

§ 218 states that nothing in Article 1 of the

Labor Code shall limit the right of any wage claimant to “sue directly...for any

wages or penalty due him [or her] under this article.”

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198

(Against all Defendants)

35. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege as if fully stated herein

the material allegations set out in paragraphs 1 through 34.


-10-


1

6

12

16

22

25

27

2

3

4

5


7

8

9

10

11

13

14

15

17

18

19

20

21

23

24

26

28

§ 1198 and the applicable Industrial Welfare

Commission Wage Order provides that it is unlawful to employ persons without

compensating them at a rate of pay either time-and-one-half or two-times that

person’s regular rate of pay, depending on the number of hours worked by the

person on a daily or weekly basis.

37. Specifically, the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage

Order provides that Defendants are and were required to pay Plaintiffs and the other

class members employed by Defendants, and working more than eight (8) hours in a

day or more than forty (40) hours in a workweek, at the rate of time-and-one-half for

all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a day or more than forty (40) hours

in a workweek.

38. The applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order further

provides that Defendants are and were required to pay Plaintiffs and the other class

members employed by Defendants, and working more than twelve (12) hours in a

day, overtime compensation at a rate of two times their regular rate of pay.

39. California Labor Code § 510 codifies the right to overtime

compensation at one-and-one-half times the regular hourly rate for hours worked in

excess of eight (8) hours in a day or forty (40) hours in a week or for the first eight

(8) hours worked on the seventh day of work, and to overtime compensation at

twice the regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of twelve (12) hours in a

day or in excess of eight (8) hours in a day on the seventh day of work.

40. During the relevant time period, Plaintiffs and the other class members

consistently worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a day, in excess of twelve (12)

hours in a day, or in excess of forty (40) hours in a week.

41. During the relevant time period, Defendants willfully failed to pay all

overtime wages owed to Plaintiffs and the other class members.


regularly received incentives in the form of bonuses which were not incorporated in


-11-


1 Plaintiffs’ and the other class members’ overtime.

2

5

8

9

10

11

12

14

21

25

3

4

4

6

7

13

15

16

17

18

19

20

22

23

24

26

27

28

3. Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs and the other class members the

unpaid balance of overtime compensation, as required by California laws, violates

the provisions of California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198, and is therefore unlawful.

44. Pursuant to California Labor Code § 1194, Plaintiffs and other class

members are entitled to recover their unpaid overtime compensation, as well as

interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION





46. At all times herein set forth, California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202

provide that if an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at

the time of discharge are due and payable immediately, and that if an employee

voluntarily leaves his or her employment, his or her wages shall become due and

payable not later than seventy-two (72) hours thereafter, unless the employee has

given seventy-two (72) hours previous notice of his or her intention to quit, in which

case the employee is entitled to his or her wages at the time of quitting.

47. During the relevant time period, Defendants willfully failed to pay

Plaintiffs and the other class members who are no longer employed by Defendants

their wages, earned and unpaid, either at the time of discharge, or within seventy-

two (72) hours of their leaving Defendants’ employ.

48. Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs and those class members who are

no longer employed by Defendants their wages earned and unpaid at the time of

discharge, or within seventy-two (72) hours of their leaving Defendants’ employ, is

in violation of California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202.


-12-


1

6

10

11

12

13

14

16

19

22

28

2

3

4

5


7

8

9

15

17

18

20

21

23

24

25

26

27

§ 203 provides that if an employer willfully

fails to pay wages owed, in accordance with §§ 201 and 202, then the wages of the

employee shall continue as a penalty from the due date, and at the same rate until

paid or until an action is commenced; but the wages shall not continue for more than

thirty (30) days.

50. Plaintiffs and the other class members are entitled to recover from

Defendants the statutory penalty for each day they were not paid, at their regular

hourly rate of pay, up to a thirty (30) day maximum pursuant to California Labor

Code § 203.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of California Labor Code §§ 226.7(a) and 512(a)




52. At all times herein set forth, the California Industrial Welfare

Commission Order and California Labor Code §§ 226.7(a) and 512(a) were

applicable to Plaintiffs’ and the other class members’ employment by Defendants.

53. At all times herein set forth, California Labor Code § 226.7(a) provides

that no employer shall require an employee to work during any meal period

mandated by an applicable order of the California Industrial Welfare Commission.

54. At all times herein set forth, California Labor Code § 512(a) provides

that an employer may not require, cause or permit an employee to work for a period

of more than five (5) hours per day without providing the employee with a meal

period of not less than thirty (30) minutes, except that if the total work period per

day of the employee is not more than six (6) hours, the meal period may be waived

by mutual consent of both the employer and the employee.

55. At all times herein set forth, California Labor Code § 512(a) further


-13-


1

2

3

4

5

6

provides that an employer may not require, cause or permit an employee to work for

a period of more than ten (10) hours per day without providing the employee with a

second meal period of not less than thirty (30) minutes, except that if the total hours

worked is no more than twelve (12) hours, the second meal period may be waived

by mutual consent of the employer and the employee only if the first meal period

was not waived.

7

12

16

21

25

8

9

10

11

56. During the relevant time period, Plaintiffs and the other members of the

class who were scheduled to work for a period of time no longer than six (6) hours,

and who did not waive their legally-mandated meal periods by mutual consent, were

required to work for periods longer than five (5) hours without a meal period of not

less than thirty (30) minutes.

13

14

15


who were scheduled to work for a period of time in excess of six (6) hours were

required to work for periods longer than five (5) hours without a meal period of not

less than thirty (30) minutes.

17

18

19

20

58. During the relevant time period, Plaintiffs and other members of the

class who were scheduled to work in excess of ten (10) hours but not longer than

twelve (12) hours, and who did not waive their legally-mandated meal periods by

mutual consent were required to work in excess of ten (10) hours without receiving

a second meal period of not less than thirty (30) minutes.

22

23

24


who were scheduled to work for a period of time in excess of twelve (12) hours

were required to work for periods longer than ten (10) hours without a meal period

of not less than thirty (30) minutes.

26

27

28

60. During the relevant time period, Defendants willfully required

Plaintiffs and other members of the class to work during meal periods and failed to

compensate Plaintiffs and members of the class for work performed during meal

periods.


-14-


1

3

7

8

9

10

11

13

16

19

22

25

2

61

4

5

6

12

14

15

17

18

20

21

23

24

26

27

28

. Defendants’ conduct violates applicable Industrial Welfare

Commission Wage Orders, and California Labor Code §§ 226.7(a) and 512(a).

62. Pursuant to California Labor Code § 226.7(b), Plaintiffs and other

members of the class are entitled to recover from Defendants one additional hour of

pay at the employees’ regular hourly rate of compensation for each work day that

the meal period was not provided.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of California Labor Code § 226.7(a)




64. At all times herein set forth, the California Industrial Welfare

Commission Order and California Labor Code § 226.7(a) was applicable to

Plaintiffs’ and other class members’ employment by Defendants.

65. At all times herein set forth, California Labor Code § 226.7(a) provides

that no employer shall require an employee to work during any rest period mandated

by an applicable order of the California Industrial Welfare Commission.

66. During the relevant time period, Defendants required Plaintiffs and

other members of the class to work in excess of four (4) hours without providing a

ten (10) minute rest period.

67. During the relevant time period, Defendants required Plaintiffs and

other members of the class to work an additional four (4) hours without providing a

second ten (10) minute rest period.

68. During the relevant time period, Defendants willfully required

Plaintiffs and other members of the class to work during rest periods and failed to

compensate Plaintiffs and members of the class for work performed during rest

periods.


-15-


1

3

7

8

9

10

11

13

17

20

24

28

2

69

4

5

6

12

14

15

16

18

19

21

22

23

25

26

27

. Defendants’ conduct violates applicable Industrial Welfare

Commission Wage Orders, and California Labor Code § 226.7(a).

70. Pursuant to California Labor Code § 226.7(b), Plaintiffs and other

members of the class are entitled to recover from Defendants one additional hour of

pay at the employee’s regular hourly rate of compensation for each work day that

the rest period was not provided.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of California Labor Code § 226(a)




72. Defendants have intentionally and willfully failed to provide employees

with complete and accurate wage statements that include, among other things,

Plaintiffs’ and other class members’ proper social security number and total hours

worked.

73. As a result of Defendants’ violation of California Labor Code § 226(a),

Plaintiffs and the other class members have suffered injury and damage to their

statutorily-protected rights.

74. Specifically, Plaintiffs and the other class members have been injured

by Defendants’ intentional violation of California Labor Code § 226(a) because they

were denied both their legal right to receive, and their protected interest in receiving,

accurate, itemized wage statements under § 226(a).

75. Plaintiffs and the other class members are entitled to recover from

Defendants the greater of their actual damages caused by Defendants’ failure to

comply with California Labor Code § 226(a), or an aggregate penalty not exceeding

four thousand dollars.

76. Plaintiffs and the other class members are also entitled to an award of


-16-


1 costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Labor Code

2

5

6

7

8

9

11

13

22

25

3

4

10

12

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

23

24

26

27

28

§ 226(e).

77. Plaintiffs and the other class members are also entitled to injunctive

relief to ensure compliance with this section, pursuant to California Labor Code §

226(g).

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION





79. At all times herein set forth California Labor Code §§ 2800 and 2802

provide that an employer must reimburse employees for all necessary expenditures.

80. Plaintiffs and other class members incurred necessary business-related

expenses and costs that were not fully reimbursed by Defendants, including and

without limitation, required shoes, required clothing and related fees and deposits

that resulted from their employment with Defendants. Specifically, Defendants had,

and continue to have, a policy and practice of requiring employees, including

Plaintiffs and class members, to pay for purchase and maintenance of shoes and

other required clothing out of their own funds. Defendants had, and continue to

have, a policy of not reimbursing employees, including Plaintiffs and class

members, for said business-related expenses and costs.

81. Defendants have intentionally and willfully failed to fully reimburse

Plaintiffs and other class members for necessary business-related expenses and

costs.

82. Plaintiffs and other class members are entitled to recover from

Defendants their business-related expenses incurred during the course and scope of

their employment, plus interest and an award of costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees

pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 2800 and 2802.


-17-


1

2

3

4

6

10

13

28

5

7

8

9

11

12

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.




84. Defendants’ conduct, as alleged herein, has been, and continues to be,

unfair, unlawful, and harmful to Plaintiffs, the other class members, and to the

general public. Plaintiffs seek to enforce important rights affecting the public

interest within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5.

85. Defendants’ activities as alleged herein are violations of California law,

and constitute unlawful business acts and practices in violation of California

Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.

86. A violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et

seq. may be predicated on the violation of any state or federal law. In the instant

case, Defendants’ policy and practice of requiring their non-exempt or hourly paid

employees, including Plaintiffs and class members, to work in excess of forty (40)

hours per week without paying them proper overtime compensation violates the Fair

Labor Standards Act, codified at 29 U.S.C. § 207. Additionally, Defendants’ policy

and practice of requiring non-exempt or hourly paid employees, including Plaintiffs

and class members, to work overtime without paying them proper compensation

violates California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198. Defendants’ policy and practice of

requiring non-exempt or hourly employees, including Plaintiffs and class members,

to work through their meal and rest breaks without paying them proper

compensation violates California Labor Code §§ 226.7(a) and 512(a). Moreover,

Defendants’ policy and practice of not reimbursing non-exempt or hourly

employees, including Plaintiffs and class members, for business related expenses

and costs violates California Labor Code §§ 2800 and 2802.

87. Plaintiffs and the putative class members have been personally


-18-


1

2

aggrieved by Defendants’ unlawful business acts and practices as alleged herein,

including but not necessarily limited to by the loss of money or property.

3

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

5

6

7

8

9

88. Pursuant to California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.,

Plaintiffs and the putative class members are entitled to restitution of the wages

withheld and retained by Defendants during a period that commences four years

prior to the filing of this complaint; a permanent injunction requiring Defendants to

pay all outstanding wages due to Plaintiffs and class members; an award of

attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and other

applicable laws; and an award of costs.

REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs request a trial by jury.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiffs, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, prays for relief and

judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows:

Class Certification

1. That this action be certified as a class action;

2. That Plaintiffs be appointed as the representative of the Class; and

3. That counsel for Plaintiffs be appointed as Class counsel.

As to the First Cause of Action

1. For general unpaid wages at overtime wage rates and such general and

2. special damages as may be appropriate;

3. For pre-judgment interest on any unpaid overtime compensation from

the date such amounts were due;

4. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and for costs of suit incurred herein

pursuant to California Labor Code § 1194(a); and

5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and

appropriate.

\\


-19-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

As to the Second Cause of Action

1. For all actual, consequential and incidental losses and damages,

according to proof;

2. For statutory penalties pursuant to California Labor Code § 203 for

Plaintiffs and all other class members who have left Defendants’ employ;

3. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and for costs of suit incurred herein; and


appropriate.

As to the Third Cause of Action

1. For all actual, consequential, and incidental losses and damages,

according to proof;

2. For wages pursuant to California Labor Code § 226.7(b);

3. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit incurred herein; and

4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

As to the Fourth Cause of Action

1. For all actual, consequential, and incidental losses and damages,

according to proof;

2. For wages pursuant to California Labor Code § 226.7(b);


4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

As to the Fifth Cause of Action


according to proof;

2. For statutory penalties pursuant to California Labor Code § 226(e);

3. For injunctive relief to ensure compliance with this section, pursuant to

California Labor Code § 226(g);

4. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit incurred herein pursuant

to California Labor Code § 226(e); and


-20-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


appropriate.

As to the Sixth Cause of Action

1. For unpaid wages and such general and special damages as may be

appropriate;

2. For pre-judgment interest on any unpaid wages from the date such

amounts were due;


according to proof;

4. For statutory penalties pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 2800 and

2802;



appropriate.

As to the Seventh Cause of Action

1. For restitution of unpaid wages to Plaintiffs and all class members and

prejudgment interest from the day such amounts were due and payable;

2. For the appointment of a receiver to receive, manage and distribute any

and all funds disgorged from Defendants and determined to have been

wrongfully acquired by Defendants as a result of violations of California

Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.;

3. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit incurred herein that

Plaintiffs and other class members are entitled to recover under California

Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5;

4. For injunctive relief to ensure compliance with this section, pursuant to

California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.; and

\\

\\


-21-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


appropriate.

Dated: September 7, 2007 Respectfully submitted, Initiative Legal Group LLP By: /s/ Joseph Cho____________ Mark Yablonovich Marc Primo Joseph Cho

Gregory Yu Shawn Westrick

Attorneys for Plaintiffs


Taco Bell Court Complaint

Documents

Transcript of Taco Bell Court Complaint