17.  Plaintiffs were each offered work and employed on Defendant Mesa Packing’s harvesting  crews.     18.  Plaintiffs were promised, among other things:  a. Pay for all hours worked;  b. Pay of $12.75 per hour in the 2018 season;  c. Pay of $13 per hour in the 2019 and 2020 seasons;   d. Overtime pay in compliance with Wage Order 14; and   e. Payment of wages in compliance with California law.   19.  The terms of Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, whether as seasonal or migrant  agricultural workers, were required to be in writing as California Labor Code § 2810.5 mandates  that the disclosure be in writing, effectively electing for Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, that  Defendant provide the written disclosures specified in the AWPA at 29 U.S.C. § 1821(a) and  1831(a) to meet both statutory requirements.     20.  The terms of the required disclosure promised to Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated,  formed a working arrangement enforceable under federal law.    21.  Defendant’s daily work schedule included pre-shift exercises for Plaintiffs and others  similarly situated.   23.  The distribution of items for harvest occurred pre-shift, and the work, without justification,  was not recorded or compensated by Defendant.    24.  Specifically, Defendant failed to record the accurate field arrival time and the start of work  of Plaintiffs and members of the Class that occurred prior to scheduled shift start times.    25.  Additionally, because Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated workers, began work before it  was light out, Plaintiffs needed headlamps to see and harvest the crop.     26.  Plaintiffs and other similarly situated workers acquired, maintained, charged and replaced  headlamps and batteries without any reimbursement from Defendant for their expenses.   27.  Defendant also did not record or compensate Plaintiffs for the time spent charging,  preparing and maintaining their headlamps.    28.  Defendant knew or should have known that headlamps were in use as they were clearly  visible on their workforce.    29.  As a result of their practice of failing to record all hours worked, Defendant, without  justification, did not pay wages in keeping with California wage statutes and paid wages below  those required by California law and the parties working arrangement.   30.  Plaintiffs and others similarly situated regularly worked for a piece rate based on the units of  production with an understanding that all nonproductive time would be paid separately.    31.  Defendant did not record the hours associated with Plaintiffs’ piece rate activities in  violation of California and federal law.     32.  Because Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, routinely worked a significant portion of  their week, if not the majority of their week, performing piece rate work, the result was a significant  under recording of hours worked.    33.  As a product of this pay record manipulation, Defendant’s employment records routinely  reflect dozens or hundreds of units of production being performed by Plaintiffs and other similarly  situated workers, each week, in zero hours.   35.  Defendant’s paystubs violated the AWPA’s recordkeeping provisions and California  statutory paystub requirements by failing to list the total number of hours worked and the hours  associated with piece rate work.    36.  At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs and members of the Class were also suffered  and permitted to work for several minutes after the start of and before the end of their thirty (30)  minute unpaid meal periods.     37.  At all times relevant to this action, Defendant automatically deducted thirty (30) minutes  from the daily hour totals of Plaintiffs and members of the Class for meal periods regardless of  whether they used, or were permitted, a full thirty minutes for an off-duty meal period.    38.  Time spent off-the-clock by Plaintiffs and members of the Class before the scheduled start  of their shifts, during their thirty (30) minute unpaid meal periods, and after the scheduled end of  their shifts, constitutes hours worked that has gone and continues to go unpaid by Defendant.     39.  Plaintiffs and other workers similarly situated were required to report to work Monday  through Friday and at times Monday through Saturday, but at times were sent home before being  provided at least half of their usual or scheduled day’s work.     40.  On occasions when Defendant’s crew leaders and/or supervisors sent workers home after  reporting to work but before receiving half of their usual or scheduled day’s work, Defendant failed  to pay Plaintiffs and members of the Class reporting time wages of at least half their usual or  scheduled day’s work.   41.  At all times relevant to this action, Defendant knew, should have known, or otherwise  showed willful and reckless disregard for the requirement that Plaintiffs and members of the Class  were entitled to receive all meal periods or payment of one additional hour of pay at the regular rate  of pay when a meal period was missed, late, or incomplete.   43.  At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs and members of the Class were not paid meal  period premium wages for each late, short or missed meal period.    44.  On information and belief, Defendant knew, should have known, or otherwise showed  willful and reckless disregard for the requirement that Plaintiffs and members of the Class were  entitled to receive all rest breaks or payment of one additional hour of pay at the regular rate of pay  when a rest break was missed or incomplete, and that they did not receive payment of one  additional hour of pay at the regular rate of pay when a rest break was missed or incomplete.     45.  Plaintiffs and members of the Class regularly worked in excess of 3.5 hours in a day without  being provided an off duty and uninterrupted ten (10) minute rest break, and regularly worked more  than six (6) hours in a day without a second ten (10) minute rest break.     46.  Defendant did not pay Plaintiffs and other workers similarly situated rest break premium  wages for late, short or missed rest breaks.     47.  The wage and time recording violations also caused minimum and overtime violations as  Defendant failed to accurately record all compensable hours worked underreporting Plaintiffs’  hours and thereby underreporting and underpaying minimum and overtime wages.     48.  Defendant Mesa Packing, LLC is a farm labor contractor registered with the state of  California although federally unregistered.    49.  Defendant Mesa Packing left a space on its paystubs for FLC license but this space was not  completed with a license number.   50.  Proposed Class. Plaintiffs brings this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of  Civil Procedure on behalf of the following Class:   51.  All workers employed by Defendant at work sites in California and compensated, in part, on  a piece rate basis or employed during early morning or late evening low-light conditions.   52.  There is a well-defined community of interest in the litigation and the class is ascertainable:   54.  Typicality: Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of each class they seek to represent in  that they arise from Defendant's failure to conform their wage and hour practices to the  requirements of the federal AWPA requirements and regulations, the AWPA working arrangement,  and the California Labor Code and the applicable California Wage Order, resulting in injury to  Plaintiffs and the other putative class members.    56.  Adequacy of Plaintiffs as Class Representatives.  Plaintiffs Miguel-Sanchez, Meza- Estrada, and Jiménez-Cruz, can adequately and fairly represent the interests of the Plaintiff Class as  defined above because their individual interests are consistent with, not antagonistic to, the interests  of the class. Further, Plaintiffs have no actual or potential conflict with any member of the class.    57.   Adequacy of Counsel for the Class.  Counsel for Plaintiffs possess the requisite resources  and ability to prosecute this case as a class action and are experienced labor and employment  attorneys who have successfully litigated other cases involving similar issues.   58.   Propriety of Class Action Mechanism.  Class certification is appropriate under Rule  23(b)(3) because common questions of law and fact predominate over any questions affecting only  individual members of each Class. Defendant has implemented a scheme that is generally  applicable to the Plaintiff Class, making it appropriate to issue relief, including injunctive relief and  corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the Plaintiff Class. In particular, the violations of  law perpetrated against all Class Members in this case revolve around the application and  interpretation of the AWPA working arrangement, AWPA disclosure, and AWPA and state  paystubs and wage payment violations.    60.  Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 7 through 59 of this Complaint by reference as though fully  set forth herein.   61.  Plaintiffs Miguel-Sanchez, Meza-Estrada, and Jimenez bring Count One against Defendant  Mesa Packing for the 2015 to present seasons in which they worked for the Defendant pursuant to  29 U.S.C. § 1854.  This count is brought as a Rule 23 class claim.   62.  Defendant intentionally violated the rights of Plaintiffs and others similarly situated under  the AWPA by:  a. Failing to provide a written disclosure of the terms and conditions of work as required by  29 U.S.C. § 1821(a) and as required by 29 U.S.C. § 1831(a) through operation of Cal.  Labor Code 2810.5;  b. Providing false and misleading information regarding the terms and conditions of  employment, in violation of 29 U.S.C. §§ 1821(f) and 1831(e);  c. Violating the terms of the working arrangement, without just cause, made with Plaintiffs  and others similarly situated, in violation of 29 U.S.C. §§ 1822(c) and 1832(c); these  working arrangements include those terms contained in California Wage Order 14, those  posted at the work site;  d. Failing to pay wages when due for unpaid hours worked, and for missed or non- compliant meal periods and rest breaks, in violation of 29 U.S.C. §§ 1822(a) and  1832(a); and  e. Failing to provide workers with accurate, itemized written statements which include the  correct number of hours worked, the correct hourly, piece rate, and nonproductive time  rates of pay, the correct total pay period earnings, and the correct net pay, in violation of  29 U.S.C. §§ 1821(d) and 1831(c).   64.  Pursuant to California Labor Code § 2810.5, employers must provide notice to employees of  their rate(s) of pay, designated pay day, and the basis of wage payment.  As such, Defendant had at  the time of Plaintiffs’ seasonal recruitment, and continue to have, an obligation to inform Plaintiffs  and others similarly situated of such information, including all applicable piece rate, hourly rate,  and nonproductive time rates of pay.   65.  The failure by Defendant to provide Plaintiffs and the Class notice of these details regarding  compensation operates as a violation of AWPA’s disclosure and working arrangement provisions.   66.  Plaintiffs allege that Defendant gave notice to Plaintiffs and, on information and belief, the  Class of the kind of work and rates of pay for such work, pursuant to Labor Code § 1695, by  posting the rates of pay for each service provided, including the piece rates of pay for piece-rate  work, and the hourly rates for hourly work, nonproductive time and rest periods.   67.  Plaintiffs allege that Defendant communicated the terms of employment with Plaintiffs by  posting the Wage Orders at the job site enumerating specific obligations of the employer with  regard to working conditions required by state law, and in particular with regard to: the payment of  minimum wages; recordkeeping requirements; provision of meal periods; provision of rest breaks;  and application of penalties.   68.  Defendant provided false and misleading information regarding the terms and conditions of  employment, including failing to disclose that hours were not be recorded for piece rate work, that  pre shift preparation time would not be recorded or compensated, and that some equipment would  not be provided.   69.  For each violation of AWPA, each Plaintiff and class member is entitled to recover his or  her actual damages, or up to $500 per violation in statutory damages, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1854.  Wherefore, Plaintiffs request relief as described herein and below.  71.  Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), Plaintiffs bring this as a class claim and allege that Defendant’s  actions violated their rights and the rights of other similarly situated individuals to receive the  minimum wage required by California Law.    72.  As described above in paragraph 21 through 33, Defendant did not record portions of  Plaintiffs’ and class members’ work day including compensable pre and post shift work, exercise  and waiting time.    73.  The hours, referenced above, were worked without additional payment. Consequently, those  hours were completely uncompensated in violation of California's minimum wage laws.  Cal. Labor  Code §§ 1182.11-1182.13, 1194, and 1197.   74.   As a result of Defendant’s failure to comply with the aforementioned portions of the  California Labor Code and Wage Order 14, Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class have been  deprived of wages due them in amounts to be proven at trial, and are also owed liquidated damages  for violations of their right to a minimum wage.    75.  Pursuant to Cal. Labor Code § 1194(a), Plaintiffs seek to recover the unpaid balance for all  uncompensated hours, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Pursuant to Cal. Labor § 1194.2,  Plaintiffs also seek to recover liquidated damages.  76.  Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations in paragraphs 7 to 59.   77.  Plaintiffs brings this claim pursuant to California Labor Code § 1194 on behalf of  themselves and a class of other workers, pursuant to Federal Rule 23(b)(3), and alleges that  Defendant has violated California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 14 by failing to  accurately record and pay overtime wages for work performed.     79.  Specifically, Defendant failed to accurately record and compensate their field laborers for all  compensable hours, including pre and post shift activities, waiting time, and piece-rate compensated  time as detailed in paragraphs 21 through 24 and 25 through 37.   80.  Plaintiffs and a class of others similarly situated did not receive premium pay for all  overtime hours worked as a result of the underreporting of hours.   81.  As a direct and proximate result of the acts and/or omissions of the Defendant, Plaintiffs and  the class have been deprived of overtime wages due and are entitled to recover their unpaid wages.   82.  Plaintiffs and the class seek the relief described below, including damages in the amount  equal to unpaid overtime hours (at the premium rate), pre- and post-judgment interest and attorney's  fees and costs pursuant to Cal. Labor Code § 1194.  FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA LABOR  CODE § 1194 and WAGE ORDER 14   Violation of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act (“AWPA”)  (29 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq. – Rule 23 Class Count)  