15  VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE§ 221  16  (Against All Defendants)  17  112  Plamttffre-alleges and mcorporates all precedmg paragraphs, as though set forth  18  m full herem.  19  113  Labor Code § 221 provides, "It shall be unlawful for any employer to collect or  20  receive from an employee any part of wages theretofore paid by said employer to said employee"  21  114  Defendants unlawfully received and/or collected wages from Employees by  22  1mplementmg a policy of automatically deductmg time worth of vested wages, from Employees,  23  for alleged meal penods which they were consistently demed, as well as by understatmg the hours  24  worked and miles dnven and loads delivered by Employees as alleged above.  25  115  As a dtrect and proximate cause of the unauthonzed deductwns, Employees have  26  been damaged, m an amount to be detenmned at tnal  27  ///  28  ///  -30- 18  FAILURE TO PAY WAGES AND OVERTIME UNDER LABOR CODE§ 510  19  (Against All Defendants)  20  65  Plamttff re-alleges and mcorporates all precedmg paragraphs, as though set forth  21  111 full herem  22   21  FOR FAILURE TO PAY WAGES UNDER THE FLSA  22  (Against All Defendants)  23  79  Plamtiff re-alleges and mcorporates all precedmg paragraphs, as though set forth  24  m full herem  25  80  At all relevant times hereto, Defendants have been an "enterpnse engaged m  26  commerce or m the productiOn of goods for commerce," as defined under 29 USC § 203(s)(l)  27  81  Plamttff IS mformed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants have  28  reqmred the Plamtiff and FLSA collective Employees as part of their employment to work off the  -23- 24  VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE§ 17200  25  (Against all Defendants)  26  122  Plamtiffre-alleges and mcorporates all precedmg paragraphs, as though set forth  27  m full herem  28  123  Plamtiff, on behalf of himself, Employees, and the general pubhc, bnngs this  - 31 - 27  30  Pla111tiffbnngs this class actiOn on behalf of himself an all others snnilarly situated  28  pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure§ 382 Pla111tiffseeks to represent a Class (or "the Class" or  - 10- 4  REST-BREAK LIABILITY UNDER LABOR CODE§ 226.7  5  (Against All Defendants)  6  96  Plamtlff re-alleges and mcorporates all precedmg paragraphs, as though set forth  7  m full herem  8  97  Labor Code§§ 226 7 and paragraph 12 of the applicable IWC Wage Orders  9  provtde that employers must authonze and pernnt all employees to take rest penods at the rate of  10  ten (1 0) mmutes net rest ttme per three and a half (3 5) work hours  11  98  Employees consistently worked consecutiVe four (4) hour penods dunng thetr  12  work shifts Pursuant to the Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage Order, Employees were  13  entitled to patd rest breaks of not less than ten (10) mmutes for each consecutive four (4) hour  14  shtft, or maJor fractiOn thereof  15  99  Labor Code§§ 226 7 and paragraph 12 of the applicable IWC Wage Orders  16  provide that If an employer fatls to provtde an employee rest penod m accordance wtth thts  17  sectton, the employer shall pay the employee one (1) hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of  18  compensatton for each workday that the rest penod IS not provtded  19  100  Defendants fatled to provide Employees with timely rest breaks of not less than ten  20  (10) mmutes for each consecutive four (4) hour shtft Defendants, and each of them, have  21  therefore mtenttonally and Improperly demed rest penods to Plamttff and the Class members m  22  vtolatton of Labor Code§§ 226 7 and 512 and paragraph 12 of the applicable IWC Wage Orders  23  101  Defendants failed to authonze and permit Plamtiff and the Class members to take  24  rest penods, as reqmred by the Labor Code Moreover, Defendants dtd not compensate  25  Employees with an additional hour of pay at each Employee's effective hourly rate for each day  26  that Defendants fatled to provtde them with adequate rest breaks, as reqmred under Labor Code §  27  226 7  28  ///  -27- 66.  By their conduct, as set forth herem, Defendants vtolated Cahfomta Labor Code  23  § 510 (and the relevant orders of the Industnal Welfare CommissiOn) by fallmg to pay  24  Employees (a) time and one-half their regular hourly rates for hours worked m excess of eight  25  (8) hours m a workday or m excess of forty ( 40) hours m any workweek or for the first eight (8)  26  hours worked on the seventh day of work m any one workweek, or (b) twtce therr regular rate of  27  pay for hours w01ked m excess of twelve (12) hours many one (1) day or for hours worked m  28  excess of etght (8) hours on any seventh day of work 111 a workweek For the Employee  -20- 7  FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES  8  (Against All Defendants)  9  45  Plamtiff re-alleges and mcorporates all precedmg paragraphs, as though set forth  10  m full herem  11  46  Defendants failed to pay Employees mimmum wages for all hours worked  12  Defendants had a consistent policy ofmisstatmg Employees' dnvers' logs and records of hours  13  worked and offaihng to pay Employees for all hours worked AdditiOnally, Defendants had a  14  consistent pohcy of failing to pay Employees for hours worked dunng alleged meal penods for  15  which Employees were consistently demed Plamtlff and the other members of the Class bnng a  16  clatm for Defendants' willful and mtentwnal VIOlatiOns of the California Labor Code and the  17  Industnal Welfare CommissiOn reqmrements for Defendants' failure to accurately calculate and  18  pay mmimum wages to Plamtiff and Class members.  19  47  Pursuant to California Labor Code § 204, other applicable laws and regulations,  20  and pubhc policy, an employer must timely pay Its employees for all hours worked Defendants  21  failed to do so  22  23  24  25  26  states  48  49  California Labor Code § 1197, entitled "Pay of Less Than Mimmum Wage"  The mmimum wage for employees fixed by the commissiOn IS the  mimmum wage to be patd to employees, and the payment of a less  wage than the mmimum so fixed IS unlawful.  The applicable mmunum wages fixed by the commissiOn for work dunng the  27  relevant penod IS found m the Wage Orders. Pursuant to the Wage Orders, Employees are  28  therefore entitled to double the mimmum wage dunng the relevant penod  - 16- 7  VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE§ 226(a) and§ 226.2  8  (Against All Defendants)  9  1 03  Plamtlff re-alleges and mcorporates all precedmg paragraphs, as though set forth  10  m full herem.  11  104  California Labor Code§ 226(a) reqmres an employer to furnish each of his or her  12  employees with an accurate, Itemized statement m wntmg showmg the gross and net earmngs,  13  total hours worked, and the correspondmg number of4_ours worked at each hourly rate; these  14  statements must be appended to the detachable part of the check, draft, voucher, or whatever else  15  serves to pay the employee's wages, or, If wages are paid by cash or personal check, these  16  statements may be given to the employee separately from the payment ofwages, m either case the  17  employer must give the employee these statements twice a month or each time wages are paid  18  105  Defendants faded to provide Employees with accurate Itemized wage statements m  19  wntmg, as reqmred by the Labor Code Specifically, the wage statements given to Employees by  20  Defendants failed to accurately account for wages, overtime, hours worked, pieces earned, hourly  21  rates and piece rates, and did not provide pay for nonproductive time and premmm pay for  22  deficient meal penods and rest breaks, and automatically deducted wages for alleged meal  23  penods, all of which Defendants knew or reasonably should have known were owed to  24  Employees, as alleged heremabove  25  106  Cahfonua Labor Code§ 226 2(a)(2)(A)-(B) further mstructs that "The Itemized  26  statement reqmred by subdivisiOn (a) ofSectwn 226 shall, m addition to the other Items specified  27  m that subdivisiOn, separately state the followmg, to which the provisions of Sectwn 226 shall  28  also be applicable (A) The total hours of compensable rest and recovery penods, tl1e rate of  -28- 9  9  The Employees who comprise the Class, mcludmg Plamtlff, are nonexempt  10  employees pursuant to the applicable Wage Order of the IWC. To the extent Plamtiff or any of  11  the Class members are deemed to be exempt from California's wage and hour laws as dnvers, It  12  IS only as to overtime pay and not as to the reqmrements to pay mimmum wages for all time  13  worked and to provide meal and rest penods to the Class members Plamtiff and the Class  14  members were either not paid by Defendants for all hours worked or otherwise were not pmd at  15  the appropnate mimmum, regular and overtime rates based on the miles dnven or loads delivered  16  under a piece rate calculatiOn Plamtlff also contends that Defendants failed to pay Plamtiff and  17  the Class members all wages due and owmg, made unlawful deductiOns from their pay, failed to  18  provide meal and rest breaks, and failed to furnish accurate wage statements, all m vwlatwn of  19  vanous provisions of the California Labor Code and applicable Wage Orders  20  10  Thus, from at least four (4) years pnor to the filmg of this lawsmt and contmumg  21  to the present, Defendants had a consistent policy or practice of fmlmg to pay Employees for all  22  hours worked, and failmg to pay nummum wage for all time worked as reqmred by California  23  Law Tlus mcluded Defendants' policy and practice of requmng Plamtlff and the Class members  24  to work 5-6 days per work week, and requmng Plamtiffs to work dmly shifts rangmg from 12 to  25  17 hours per day However, rather than compensatmg Plamtiffs as employees for their hours  26  worked and at the appropnate regular, overtime, and double-tune rates, Defendants treated them  27  as exempt employees and paid them based on a piece rate basis Under Defendants' piece rate  28  compensatiOn policy, Plamtlff and the Class members weie generally paid on a per mile or per  -4- 93.  Defendants failed to provide Plamtiff and the Class members with meal penods as  17  reqmred by the Labor Code, mcludmg by not providmg them with the opportumty to take meal  18  breaks, by provtdmg them late or for less than thirty (30) mmutes, or by requmng them to  19  perform work dunng breaks  20  94  Labor Code§ 226 7 and paragraph 11 of the applicable IWC Wage Orders also  21  provide that, If an employer fails to provide an employee a meal penod m accordance With this  22  sectiOn, the employer shall pay the employee one (1) hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of  23  compensatiOn for each workday that the meal penod IS not provtded Defendants failed to  24  compensate Employees for each meal penod not provided or madequately provided, as requrred  25  under Labor Code § 226 7  26  95  Therefore, pursuant to Labor Code§ 226 7 and paragraph 11 of the applicable  27  IWC Wage Orders, Employees are entitled to damages man amount equal to one (1) hour of  28  wages at therr effective hourly rates of pay for each meal penod not provided or deficiently  -26- ADDRESS  COLTON  CALIFORNIA  92324  ENRIQUE VERDUGO  vs.  DENALI WATER SOLUTIONS, LLC  ENRIQUE VERDUGO, on behalf of  himself and others similarly situated,  Plaintiff~  v.  DENALI WATER SOLUTIONS, LLC, a  Delaware limited liability company; and  DOES 1 through SO, mclusive  Defendants.  Case No.:  C!\lt)S172t:.f. ..,-:r  MEAL-PERIOD LIABILITY UNDER LABOR CODE § 226.7  (Against All Defendants)  Plamtiff re-alleges and mcorporates all precedmg paragraphs, as though set forth  Employees regularly worked shifts greater than five (5) hours and greater than ten  7  (10) hours Pursuant to Labor Code§ 512 an employer may not employ someone for a shift of  8  more than five ( 5) hours without providmg him or her with a meal penod of not less than thirty  9  (30) mmutes or for a shift of more than ten (10) hours without providmg him or her with a second  10  meal penod of not less than thirty (30) minutes  11  92  Defendants failed to provide Employees with meal penods as requrred under the  12  Labor Code Employees were consistently reqmred to work through their meal penods which  13  they were consistently demed Furthermore, Employees were regularly requrred to work for more  14  than 10 hours m a given shift without receiVmg a second umnterrupted thirty (30) mmute meal  15  penod as requrred by law  16   PENALTIES PURSUANT TO LABOR CODE § 203  (Against All Defendants)  116  Plamtlff re-alleges and mcorporates all precedmg paragraphs, as though set forth  6  m full herem  7  117.  Numerous Employees are no longer employed by Defendants, they either qmt  8  Defendants' employ or were fired therefrom.  9  118  Defendants failed to pay these Employees all wages due and certam at the time of  10  termmatwn or withm seventy-two (72) hours of resignatiOn  11  119  The wages withheld from these Employees by Defendants remamed due and  12  owmg for more than thirty (30) days from the date of separatiOn of employment  13  120  Defendants failed to pay Plamtiff and the Class members without abatement, all  14  wages as defined by applicable California law Among other thmgs, these Employees were not  15  pmd all regular and overtime wages, mcludmg by failmg to pay for nonproductive time or to pay  16  them at the appropnate rate or reqmnng off the clock work, and failed to pay premmm wages  17  owed for unprovided meal penods and rest penods, as further detailed m thts Complamt  18  Defendants' failure to pay smd wages Withm the reqmred ttme was willful withm the meanmg of  19  Labor Code § 203  20  121  Defendants' Willful failure to pay wages, as alleged above, entitles Plamtiffs and  21  the Employees m the Class to penalties under Labor Code§ 203, which provides that an  22  employee's wages shall contmue until pmd for up to thirty (30) days from the date they were due  23  SAN BERt.JAR~I~'O C!'f!l DIVISION  DEC 2 1 2017  BY " .. I.  SAN BERNAROI:·!i) cr1ill DIVISION  YOU ARE BSNG SUED BY PLAINnFF:  (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):  ENRIQUE VERDUGO, on behalf of himself and others similarly  situated 