19.  At all relevant times, JCT was Plaintiff’s “employer” within the meaning of the  FLSA and California law.   20.  Throughout the time period beginning four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit,  through the present, JCT has employed numerous Drivers and contracted with numerous retail  and wholesale clients around the country to provide transportation services.     21.  JCT requires prospective Drivers, including Plaintiff, to report to a location in  Oklahoma before beginning their employment.  While there, prospective Drivers, including  Plaintiff, spend approximately four days completing orientation.  During this time period, Drivers,  including Plaintiff, are trained on running an “owner-operator” trucking business and on JCT’s  policies and procedures.  Drivers, including Plaintiff, pay, or agree to pay, JCT and/or its affiliates  for specified equipment, services, and other fees.  Among these equipment fees, JCT requires  Drivers, including Plaintiff, to enter into truck lease agreements with a leasing company,  including Three Diamond Leasing, LLC.  On information and belief, Three Diamond Leasing,  LLC is a subsidiary of JCT.  The costs paid by Drivers, including Plaintiff, are in excess of  $500.00 within one year of the time Drivers, including Plaintiff, begin operating trucks on behalf  of JCT.   22.  JCT requires prospective Drivers, including Plaintiff, to undergo a physical  examination and to submit to drug and alcohol testing.  Drivers must agree to continue to submit  to drug and alcohol testing throughout their employment.    5  48.  Plaintiff brings his FLSA claims as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §  216(b) as to claims for minimum wage violations, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees and  costs under the FLSA.  The FLSA Collective that Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined as follows:  All current and former Drivers who were employed by JCT to provide transportation  services within the United States at any time during the period beginning three years prior  to the filing of this Complaint, and continuing through the present.     49.  Plaintiff’s claims for violations of the FLSA may be brought and maintained as an  “opt-in” collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA, because Plaintiff’s FLSA  claims are similar to the claims of the Collective members.     50.  The Collective members are similarly situated, as they have substantially similar  job duties and requirements and are subject to a common policy, practice, or plan that  misclassifies them as exempt independent contractors, and thus requires them to perform work  without compensation in violation of the FLSA.  9  54.  First, Plaintiff seeks to maintain his California state law claims as a class action  pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  In particular, Plaintiff seeks to  certify the following Rule 23 Sub-Class (the “First Sub-Class”):  All current and former Drivers who were employed by JCT to provide transportation  services in the State of California at any time during the period beginning four years prior  to the filing of this action and continuing through the present.     55.  Second, Plaintiff seeks to maintain his Oklahoma state law claims as a class action  pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  In particular, Plaintiff seeks to  certify the following Rule 23 Sub-Class (the “Second Sub-Class”):  All current and former Drivers who entered into an agreement with JCT to provide  transportation services in the State of Oklahoma, including, but not limited to, those who  signed a lease agreement with Three Diamond Leasing, LLC, among others, at any time  during the period beginning three years prior to the filing of this action and continuing  through the present.   56.  The two Sub-Classes set forth above are referred to collectively as the “Class.”   Members of each Sub-Class are referred to as members of the “Class” or “Class members.”  10  65.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the above paragraphs as though fully set forth  herein.   66.  JCT violated the FLSA by knowingly failing to maintain records of all hours  worked.   67.  JCT violated the FLSA by knowingly failing to compensate Plaintiff and putative  FLSA Collective members for all hours worked and by knowingly failing to pay Plaintiff and  putative FLSA Collective members the federally mandated minimum wage in violation of 29  U.S.C. § 206 for all hours worked.  14  71.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set  forth herein.   72.  JCT intentionally and willfully pays Plaintiff and putative Class members below  minimum wage by opting to pay Drivers at a rate determined per mile driven on route.  After  deducting costs for expenses, tools and equipment from Plaintiff and Class members’ wages,  Driver compensation is lowered substantially.  After deductions, Drivers often make less than  the state-mandated minimum wage for each hour they work.     73.  Labor Code § 1194(a) provides as follows:  Notwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage, any   employee receiving less than the legal minimum wage or the legal   overtime compensation applicable to the employee is entitled to recover   in a civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount of this minimum   wage or overtime compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable   attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit.    15  80.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set  forth herein.   81.  Labor Code § 200(a) defines wages as “all amounts for labor performed by  employees of every description, whether the amount is fixed or ascertained by the standard of  time, task, piece, commission basis or other method of calculation.”  16  90.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set  forth herein.   91.  JCT routinely denies timely meal periods to Plaintiff and putative Class members.   Despite long work days regularly lasting well in excess of eight hours, deadlines imposed by JCT  prevent Plaintiff and putative Class members from taking a meal period.  When Drivers do get a  meal period, they are often untimely.  In addition, when Plaintiff and putative Class members  work more than ten hours in a day, JCT regularly does not make a second meal period available  to them.   92.  Plaintiff and putative Class members are not paid one hour of premium pay for the  missed meal periods.     93.  Similar to meal periods, JCT routinely fails to make rest periods available to  Plaintiff and putative Class members.  Plaintiff’s and putative Class members’ schedules do not  allow them to take rest periods throughout the day.  When available, rest periods are often too  short.  Plaintiff and putative Class members do not receive premium pay for their missed rest  periods as required by California law.   94.  Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 and IWC Wage Orders 9-2001(11) and 9-2001(12)    require JCT to authorize and permit meal and rest periods to its employees.  Labor Code §§ 226.7  and 512 and the applicable Wage Order prohibits employers from employing an employee for  more than five hours without a meal period of not less than thirty minutes, and from employing an  employee more than ten hours per day without providing the employee with a second meal period  of not less than thirty minutes.  Labor Code § 226.7 and the applicable Wage Orders also require  employers to authorize and permit employees to take ten minutes of net rest time per four hours  or major fraction thereof of work, and to pay employees their full wages during those rest periods.   Unless the employee is relieved of all duty during the thirty-minute meal period and ten-minute  18  99.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set  forth herein.  19  Coerced Purchases  California Labor Code § 450  (On Behalf of the First Sub-Class)  122. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set  forth herein.  123. California Labor Code § 450 prohibits an employer or agent, or other person, from  compelling or coercing any applicant for employment or employee to purchase any thing of value,  including any fee of any type to apply for employment, to receive or complete an application for  employment, or for an employer to provide, accept or process an application for employment.  124. JCT violated California Labor Code § 450 by compelling and/or coercing Plaintiff  and the putative Class alleged herein to lease or purchase vehicles and other equipment directly  from JCT or other companies.  125. Wherefore, Plaintiff and the putative Class request relief as hereinafter provided.  Constructive Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation    (On Behalf of the Second Sub-Class)  183. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set  forth herein.  184. In Oklahoma, the concealment of material facts which one is bound under the  circumstances to disclose, constitutes constructive fraud.  A duty to speak may arise from partial  disclosure, the speaker being under a duty to say nothing or to tell the whole truth. One conveying  a false impression by the disclosure of some facts and the concealment of others is guilty of fraud,  even though his statement is true as far as it goes, since such concealment is in effect a false  representation that what is disclosed is the whole truth.   185. As noted above in paragraphs 159-164, JCT offered Plaintiff and the Class the  Driving Opportunity from which they would be able to develop a career and earn positive income.   Once JCT embarked on making such a business offer to the Plaintiff and putative Class, JCT  owed them a duty of full disclosure.  Plaintiff and the putative class relied on such offer,   representations, and omissions in purchasing the Driving Opportunity.   However, JCT did not  34  Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices   Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, 15 Okl. St.  §§ 752, et seq.  (On Behalf of the Second Sub-Class)  172. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set  forth herein.  173. The Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act (OCPA), 15 Okl. St.  §§ 752, et seq. bars  deceptive and unfair trade practices in connection with “the advertising, offering for sale or  32  Deceptive Trade Practices   Oklahoma Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 78 Okl. St.  §§ 52, et seq.  (On Behalf of the Second Sub-Class)  178. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set  forth herein.  179. The Oklahoma Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 78 Okl. St.  §§ 52, et seq. bars  deceptive trade practices including “Knowingly mak[ing] a false representation as to the  characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits or quantities of goods or services or a false  33  Failure to Authorize and Permit and/or Make Available Meal and Rest Periods   California Labor Code §§ 203, 223, 226.7, 512, and 1198  (On Behalf of the First Sub-Class)   Failure to Pay for All Hours Worked   California Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 204, and 221-223   (On Behalf of the First Sub-Class)   Failure to Pay Wages and Minimum Wage   Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq.  (On Behalf of Collective)   Failure to Pay Minimum Wage   California Labor Code §§ 200, 1182.11, 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198   (On Behalf of the First Sub-Class)   Failure to Reimburse for Necessary Business Expenditures   California Labor Code § 2802  (On Behalf of the First Sub-Class)   Failure to Maintain Proper Payroll Records  California Labor Code § 1174  (On Behalf of the First Sub-Class)  105. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set     forth herein.  106. JCT does not maintain proper records Plaintiff and putative Class members,  including of all hours worked in a pay period, as required by California law.  20  Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements  California Labor Code § 226  (On Behalf of the First Sub-Class)  114. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set  forth herein.  21  Statutory Penalties Pursuant to PAGA  Labor Code § 2699(f)  (On behalf of All Aggrieved Employees)  221.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set  forth herein.  222.  Labor Code § 2699(f) provides:  For all provisions of this code except those for which a civil penalty   is specifically provided, there is established a civil penalty for a   violation of these provisions, as follows: . . . (2) If, at the time   of the alleged violation, the person employs one or more employees, the   civil penalty is one hundred dollars ($100) for each aggrieved   employee per pay period for the initial violation and two hundred dollars   ($200) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each subsequent violation.  223.  To the extent than any violation alleged herein does not carry penalties under Labor  Code § 2699(a), Plaintiff seeks civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 2699(f) for Plaintiff and  Class members each pay period in which he or she was aggrieved, in the amounts established by  Labor Code § 2699(f).  224.  Pursuant to Labor Code § 2699.3(a)(1) and (2), Plaintiff has provided the LWDA  with notice of his intention to file this claim.  Sixty-five calendar days have passed without notice  from the LWDA.  Plaintiff satisfied the administrative prerequisites to commence this civil action  in compliance with § 2699.3(a).  225.  Plaintiff seeks the aforementioned penalties on behalf of the State, other aggrieved  employees, and themselves as set forth in Labor Code § 2699(g), (i).  41  Statutory Penalties Pursuant to PAGA   California Labor Code § 2699(a)  (On behalf of All Aggrieved Employees)  207.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set  forth herein.  208.  Labor Code § 2699(a) provides:  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any provision of this code   that provides for a civil penalty to be assessed and collected by the Labor   and Workforce Development Agency or any of its departments, divisions,  commissions, boards, agencies or employees, for a violation of this code,   38  UNJUST ENRICHMENT  (On Behalf of the Second Sub-Class)  191. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set  forth herein.  192. Because of JCT’s wrongful and fraudulent conduct and its failure to disclose  material facts as described above, Plaintiff and the Drivers have conferred benefits upon JCT.  193. JCT was at all relevant times aware that the benefits conferred upon it by the  Drivers were the result of its wrongful conduct.  194. Allowing JCT to retain these unjust profits and other benefits would offend  traditional notions of justice and fair play.  Under these circumstances, it would be inequitable  and unjust for JCT to retain the benefits and allowing it to do so would induce companies to  engage in fraudulent and/or other wrongful conduct to increase profits.  195. JCT is in possession of funds and benefits that were wrongfully obtained from  Drivers and such funds should be restored and/or disgorged as ill-gotten gains.  36  Unlawful Business Practices   California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.  (On Behalf of Members of both the First and Second Sub-Classes)  196.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set  forth herein.  197.  The UCL prohibits unfair competition in the form of any unlawful, unfair, or  fraudulent business acts or practices.  198.  Business and Professions Code § 17204 allows a person injured by the unfair  business acts or practices to prosecute a civil action for violation of the UCL.  199.  Beginning at an exact date unknown to Plaintiff, but at least since the date four  years prior to the filing of this suit, JCT has committed further acts of unfair competition as  defined by the UCL, by engaging in the unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts and  practices described above, through its violations of the Oklahoma Business Opportunity Sales Act  set forth above.  200.  The violations of these laws serve as unlawful predicate acts and practices for  purposes of Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.  201.  The acts and practices described above constitute unfair, unlawful and fraudulent  business practices, and unfair competition, within the meaning of Business and Professions Code  §§ 17200, et seq.  Among other things, the acts and practices have taken from Plaintiff and the  Class money and wages rightfully earned by them, while enabling JCT to gain an unfair  competitive advantage over law-abiding employers and competitors.  202.  Business and Professions Code § 17203 provides that a court may make such orders  or judgments as may be necessary to prevent the use or employment by any person of any practice  which constitutes unfair competition.  Injunctive relief is necessary and appropriate to prevent JCT  from repeating the unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts and practices alleged above.  37  Unlawful Business Practices   California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.  (On Behalf of the First Sub-Class)  141. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set  forth herein.  142. The UCL prohibits unfair competition in the form of any unlawful, unfair, or  fraudulent business acts or practices.  143. Business and Professions Code § 17204 allows a person injured by the unfair  business acts or practices to prosecute a civil action for violation of the UCL.  144. Labor Code § 90.5(a) states it is the public policy of California to vigorously  enforce minimum labor standards in order to ensure employees are not required to work under  25  Unlawful Sale of Business Opportunities  71 Okla. Stat. §§ 806, 808, 819, 824  (On Behalf of the Second Sub-Class)  153. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set  forth herein.  154. The Oklahoma Business Opportunity Sales Act regulates the sale of a “business  opportunity” in the State of Oklahoma.    155. “Business opportunity” means a contract or agreement, between a seller and  purchaser, express or implied, oral or in writing, wherein it is agreed that the seller shall provide  the purchaser any products, equipment, supplies, or services enabling the purchaser to start a  business and the seller represents directly or indirectly, orally or in writing, inter alia, that the  seller or a person specified by the seller will provide or assist the purchaser in finding accounts  for the purchaser’s services; or that the seller will provide a marketing plan.  156. “Marketing plan” means advice or training, provided to the purchaser by the seller  or a person recommended by the seller, pertaining to the sale of any products, equipment, supplies  or services and the advice or training includes, but is not limited to, preparing or providing, inter  alia, training regarding the promotion, operation, or management of the business opportunity; or  operational, managerial, technical or financial guidelines or assistance.  157. 71 Okla. Stat. § 806 provides:  It is unlawful for any person to offer or sell any business opportunity … in this state unless  the business opportunity is registered under the provisions of the provisions of the  Oklahoma Business Opportunity Sales Act or is exempt under Section 803 of this title.  158. 71 Okla. Stat. § 808(a) provides:  It shall be unlawful for any person to offer or sell any business opportunity required to be  registered pursuant to the Oklahoma Business Opportunity Sales Act unless a written  disclosure document is filed pursuant to Section 807 of this title is delivered to each  purchaser at least ten (10) business days prior to the execution by a purchaser of any  contract or agreement imposing a binding legal obligation on the purchaser or the payment  by a purchaser of any consideration in connection with the offer or sale of the business  opportunity.  28  Waiting Time Penalties   California Labor Code §§ 201-203  (On Behalf of the First Sub-Class)  131. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set  forth herein.  132. JCT does not provide Plaintiff and putative Class members with their wages when  due under California law after their employment with JCT ends.  133. Labor Code § 201 provides:  If an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the time of  discharge are due and payable immediately.    134.  Labor Code § 202 provides:  If an employee not having a written contract for a definite period quits   his or her employment, his or her wages shall become due and payable not   later than 72 hours thereafter, unless the employee has given 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.  135.  Labor Code § 203 provides, in relevant part:  If an employer willfully fails to pay, without abatement or reduction, in   accordance with Sections 201, 201.5, 202, and 205.5, any wages of an   employee who is discharged or who quits, the wages of the employee   shall continue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate   until paid or until an action therefor is commenced; but the wages shall not   continue for more than 30 days.  24  Willful Misclassification  California Labor Code § 226.8  (On Behalf of the First Sub-Class)  126. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set  forth herein.  127. JCT intentionally and willfully characterized Plaintiff and members of the class as  independent contractors rather than employees in violation of California Labor Code § 226.8.  23 