11.  California Labor Code section 1194 provides that notwithstanding any agreement  to work for a lesser wage, an employee receiving less than the legal overtime compensation is  entitled to recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of their overtime compensation, including  interest thereon, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs of suit.   12.  Further, Business and Professions Code § 17203 provides that any person who  engages in unfair competition may be enjoined in any court of competent jurisdiction. Business  -4 - 21.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated  persons ("Plaintiff Class"), as a class action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 382.  The Plaintiff Class is composed of and defined as follows: all non-exempt employees, employed  by or formerly employed by, Defendant in the positions of merchandisers, sales representatives,  - 6 - 25.  Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class incorporate paragraphs 1 through 24 of this Complaint  as if fully alleged herein.   26.  Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class members regularly worked over eight (8) hours per  -9_- 28.  Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully  set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 27 as if fully alleged herein.   29.  California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512, provide that no employer shall  employ any person for a work period of more than five (5) hours without providing a meal period  of not less than thirty (30) minutes or employ any person for a work period of more than ten (10)  hours without a second meal period of not less than thirty (30) minutes.   30.  California Labor Code section 226.7 provides that if an employer fails to provide  an employee a meal period in accordance with this section, the employer shall pay the employee  one (1) hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each workday that the  meal period is not provided in accordance with this section.   31.  Defendant, and each of them, failed to schedule non-exempt employees in an  adequately overlapping manner so as to reasonably ensure Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class could take  and/or receive such meal periods within the statutory timeframe. As a result, Plaintiff and  Plaintiff Class were often forced to forego meal periods and/or work during their meal periods.  - 1 0 - 37.  Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully  set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 36 as if fully alleged herein.   38.  California Labor Code section 226.7 provides that employers authorize and permit  all employees to take rest periods at the rate of ten (10) minutes rest time per four (4) work hours.   39.  California Labor Code section 226.7(b) provides that if an employer fails to  provide employee rest periods in accordance with this section, the employer shall pay the  - 1 1 - 44.  Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully  set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 43 as if fully alleged herein.   45.  California Labor Code section 1174 (d), requires an employer to keep at a central  location in California or at the plant or establishment at which the employees are employed,  payroll records showing the hours worked daily, and the wages paid to, each employee. Plaintiff  -  1 2 - 51.  Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully  set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 50 as if fully alleged herein.   52.  Plaintiff and certain members of the Plaintiff Class who ended their employment  with Defendants during the Class Period, were entitled to be promptly paid lawful overtime  compensation and other premiums, as required by Cal. Labor Code §§ 201-203. Defendants  refused and/or failed to promptly compensate Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class wages owed as a result  of their failure to provide meal and/or rest periods as well as pay overtime compensation.  Pursuant to Cal. Labor Code § 203, such Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class seek the payment of penalties  pursuant to Cal. Labor Code § 203, according to proof.   53.  Accordingly, Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class are entitled to attorney's fees, and costs,  pursuant to Cal. Labor Code § 1194 for the underlying claims related to this claim, including but  not limited to the recovery of unpaid overtime.  54.  Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully  set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 53 of this Complaint.  -  1 4 - 60.  Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully  set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 59 of this Complaint.   61.  California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et. seq. (also referred to  herein as the "Unfair Business Practices Act" or "Unfair Competition Law") prohibit unfair  competition in the form of any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.   62.  California Business and Professions Code section 17204 allows "any person who  has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of such unfair competition"  to prosecute a civil action for violation of the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").   63.  California Labor Code section 90.5(a) states that it is the public policy of  California to vigorously enforce minimum labor standards in order to ensure employees are not  required to work under substandard and unlawful conditions, and to protect employers who  comply with the law from those who attempt to gain competitive advantage at the expense of their  - 15 - 74.  Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully  set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 73 of this complaint.   75.  California Labor Code sections 2698 and 2699 (The Labor Code Private  Attorneys' General Act of 2004) provides for a civil penalty to be assessed and collected by the  Labor and Workforce Development Agency, or any of its departments, divisions, commissions,  -  1 7 - FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIODS OR COMPENSATION IN LIEU THEREOF  (Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class Member against all Defendants)   FAILURE TO KEEP ACCURATE PAYROLL RECORDS  (Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class against all Defendants)   FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES  (Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class Members against all Defendants)   FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST PERIODS OR COMPENSATION IN LIEU THEREOF  (Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class against all Defendants)   FAILURE TO PAY WAGES OF TERMINATED OR RESIGNED EMPLOYEES  (Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class against all Defendants)   FAILURE TO INDEMNIFY FOR EXPENDITURES  (Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class against all Defendants)   UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW  (Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class against all Defendants)   VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS'  GENERAL ACT - CAL. LABOR CODE $ 2698-2699  (Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class against all Defendants)   ^  ^  30-2016-00882772-CU-0E-CXC  Case No.:  , ,  „  .  Judge Kim G. Dunning 