Bid Advisory - American Asphalt - FFC Case No. 1103RP — Cotati City Council, April 8, 2025

ELATION FOR
FFC

LATRONRACNES
VIA EMAIL - [email protected]
March 21, 2025
Craig Scott
City of Cotati
201 West Sierra Avenue
Cotati, California 94931
RE: BID ADVISORY
Low Bidder: American Asphalt Repair & Resurfacing Co., Inc.

Awarding Agency: City of Cotati
Project: 2025 Street Improvement Project
FFC Case No.: 1103RP
Dear Mr. Scott:

The Foundation for Fair Contracting (FFC) is a nonprofit organization serving the public interest since 1985. The objective of the FFC is to monitor compliance with prevailing wage laws pertaining to the construction industry, including informing and educating industry stakeholders.

Unbalanced bids raise questions in regard to performance and compliance with the rules and regulations for the payment of prevailing wages, and the safety and well-being of the workforce.

It further opens the question of excessive future change orders and the ultimate fairness to and rights of other bidders in the bidding process and the intent of the bidding process in general.

In deference to all bidders and in order for the public interest to best be served, please enter this formal bid advisory against the above-noted contractor as a matter of public record. We respectfully request that American Asphalt Repair & Resurfacing Co., Inc. (American Asphalt) • ONGOING VIOLATIONS OF PREVAILING WAGE LAWS RESULTING IN WAGE THEFT
American Asphalt is currently under investigation by our offices and the State of California, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), Labor Commissioner's office in connection with issues provided below. We have provided supporting documentation for your review.
• Misclassifications resulting in underpayments.

Failure to comply with overtime requirements.
• Failure to comply with apprenticeship requirements.
• Failure to submit and provide Certified Payroll Reports. • FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH BID SPECIFICATIONS/UNFAIR COMPETITIVE

ADVANTAGE
American Asphalt's bid is 12% below the Engineer's Estimate and 12% - 26% lower than

FOUNDATION FOR FAIR CONTRACTING
807 Pasadena Avenue, Suite 150 - Sacramento, CA 9582
916) 487-7871 - Fax (916) 487-020
www.ffccalifornia.com
JOINT LABOR MANAGEMENT EFFORT 2026
Craig Scott
City of Cotati
March 21, 2025

Page 2 ends

would be inevitable to complete the project in accordance with the specifications and/or prevailing wage laws/standards. This gives American Asphalt an unfair advantage in its bidding practices against its competitors and puts the City of Cotati into a precarious legal position.
• LITIGATION AND PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT (PAGA) LAWSUITS American Asphalt has history of PAGA related lawsuits filed with the State of California, brought forth from workers who have been victims of wage theft. PAGA supporting documentation is attached for your review.
• FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AND FORMAL

APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS
American Asphalt has not made a good faith effort to participate and invest in Local Workforce Development, nor have they participated in local hiring of workers in the community through formal and recognized pre-apprenticeship programs and formal apprenticeship programs for specific apprenticeable crafts. They have failed to request, employ, train, and pay the proper prevailing wages to apprentices.

Please contact our office with questions, comments, or clarifications.

Sincerely,
Jesse Jimenez
Executive Director
Case: 1103RP
CC: City of Cotati - Mayor and Councilmembers
Ben Ford - Email: [email protected]
Sylvia Lemus - Email: [email protected]
Susan Harvey - Email: [email protected]
Laura Sparks - Email: [email protected]
John Savage - Email: [email protected]
Labor Commissioner, State of California
Department of Industrial Relations Gavin Newsom, Governor Division of Labor Standards Enforcement
Bureau of Field Enforcement- Public Works
1500 Hughes Way Ste C202
Long Beach, CA 90810-1882
TEL: 424-450-2589 EMAIL: [email protected]

FOUNDATION FOR FAIR CONTRACTING
3807 PASADENA AVE SUITE 150
SACRAMENTO CA 95821
I|52BA
DATE: In Reply Refer to Case No:

December 31, 2024 40-83851-863

CASE ASSIGNMENT LETTER
Project Name Awarding Body Project No DIR Project ID
ANNUAL SLURRY SEAL PROJECT CITY OF PLEASANTON 24504 20240535999 Prime Contractor

AMERICAN ASPHALT REPAIR AND RESURFACING COMPANY INC
Subcontractor
Please be advised that I have been assigned to investigate your complaint against the above named contractor.

Any additional information should be directed to my attention, in writing. Please reference the case number on all correspondence.

You will be kept advised of the progress of this investigation as needed and of the final disposition in this matter.

RECEIVED
JAN - 6 2025
Foundatian or Fair

STATE LABOR COMMISSIONER
By Belinda Bland
Belinda Bland
Deputy Labor Commissioner
PW 4 (Revined 20021)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS - DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL
(C.C.P. 1013a) OR CERTIFIED MAIL
PLEASE MAIL / EMAIL RESPONSIVE RECORDS TO:

Belinda Bland
bondadies way ste C202
ong Beach, CA 90810-188
40-83851-863 40-83851-863

AMERICAN ASPHALT REPAIR AND

CITY OF PLEASANTON RESURFACING COMPANY INC
PO BOX 520 PO BOX 3367
PLEASANTON CA 94566 HAYWARD CA 94540-3367
Documents 1, 2 and 6 only Documents 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 only Documents 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 only
Cindy Truong , do hereby certify that I am a resident of or employed in the County of Los Angeles , over 18 years of age, and not a party to the within action, and that I am employed at and my business address is:

Division of Labor Standards Enforcement
Public Works Unit
1500 Hughes Way Ste C202
Long Beach, CA 90810-1882
December 31,2024 _, I served the within: (1) Notice of Investigation; (2) Request for Information, Awarding Body; (3) Request for Payroll Records; (4) Statement of Employer Payments (5) Public Works Payroll Reporting Form A1-131; and (6) Notice of Apprenticeship Compliance Long Beach by:

X Ordinary first class mail
X Certified mail
Registered mail
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct Executed on December 31, 2024, at Long Beach _, County of Los Angeles _, California Cindy Truang

SIGNATURE
STATE CASE NO.
40-83851-863
PW 34
Labor Commissioner, State of California
DIVISION USE ONLY:

Department of Industrial Relations
Division of Labor Standards Enforcement CASE #_
ASSIGNED TO:

OFFICE: _ DATE KELEIVED.

DATE ASSIGNED:

PUBLIC WORKS- PUBLIC COMPLAINT
The following information is important and must be provided.

Complainant Information

1. FIRST NAME 2. LAST NAME 3. COMPANY NAME 4. WORK/CELLULAR NO Ramon Castillon Foundation for Fair Contracting 916-487-7871 / 916-549-6377

5. CONTACT ADDRESS 6. CITY 17. STATE/ ZIP CODE 18. EMAIL ADDRESS 3807 Pasadena Ave., Suite 150 Sacramento CA / 95821 [email protected] Project Information
Note: A separate form must be completed for each project in which you are alleging a violation of prevailing wages.

9. PROJECT NAME (If known)

A LIST ASSES OF PROCT WERE WORK WAS PERFORMED
Various Streets in the City of Pleasanton
Alameda County
Complaint Against

11. NAME OF BUSINESS/CONTRACTOR/EMPLOYER 2O CONTRACTOR'S STATE LIC.

American Asphalt Repair & Resurfacing Company Inc. 439591

13. ADDRESS OF BUSINESS/CONTRACTOR/EMPLOYER (Include Zip Code) 14. BUSINESS TEL. NO P.O. Box 3367- Hayward, CA 94540-3367
- (510) 723-0280

15. EMAIL ADDRESS 17. TITLE CEO/President
[email protected] elton Marsall Wage e Vaggene
Awarding Body

18. NAME OF PUBLIC AGENCY/AWARDED CONTRACT ENTITY
City of Pleasanton

19. ADDRESS OF AWARDING BODY P.O. Box 520- Pleasanton, CA 94566 20. BUSINESS TEL. NO/ (925) 931- 5027

21. EMAIL ADDRESS 22. NAME OF PERSON IN CHARGE / TITLE 23. AMOUNT OF CONTRACT pleasantoncityclerk@cityofpleasantonca | Alexa Jeffress $458,610.00 3/19/2024 ADDATE 99/2024 VECT BEGAN 26. PROPOSED FINAZO 27. DATE OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION | 9/9/2024 10/4/2024 Requestec
General Contractor (Prime Contractor)

28. NAME OF GENERAL CONTRACTOR 29. CONTRACTOR'S STATE LIC.

Same as above

30. ADDRESS 31. BUSINESS TEL. NO

32. EMAIL ADDRESS | 33. NAME OF PERSON IN CHARGE 34. TITLE BRIEF EXPLANATION OF IS . Cai in a Vage Issues (Attach statements substantiating the allegation) • No-payment /Underpayment of wages Not paid travel and subsistence Under reporting of hours / Unpaid overtime/Sat/Sun/Holiday rate Misclassification of worker Insufficient fund check Fringe benefits not paid Other
DIR #: 20240535999 FFC Case No.: 1152BA
Apprentice Violations 1777.5 proceed to the next page
DLSEPW 1A (Rev 8.2012)
Apprentice Occupation

36. Trades and Classifications: Operating Engineers
Apprentice Violations 1777.5

37. If the contractor is approved to train- Name of the Apprenticeship Committee:

38. Was there a LABOR COMPLIANCE PROGRAM on this project? OYes • NO If Yes, Name of the LCP: LCP Telephone Number:

Apprentice Issues
(List any documentation attached substantiating the allegation)

39. BRIEF EXPLAINATION OF ISSUES: (Check all applicable boxes) • Failed to provide Contract award information (DAS 140). California Code of Regulations 230 • Failed to request dispatch of apprentices (DAS 142). California Code of Regulations 230.1 Failed to employ registered apprentices in the correct ratio or not at all. California Code of Regulations 230.1 ailed to make apprenticeship training fund contributions. California Code of Regulations 230.2 Other (give clear concise statement of the facts constituting the basis of your complaint) Proof of Service

40. Check the box if Proof of Service upon affected contractor and the General Contractor is attached.

I hereby certify that this is a true statement to the best of my knowledge and belief.

MY NAME MAY BE USED IN THIS INVESTIGATION. Oles ONo
Ramon Castillon 11/26/2024
Signature Date
DLSE PW 1A (Rev 8. 2012)
CONTION ON CHECKLIST CONTRACTOR REVIEWED IFFC CASE #
FFC American Asphalt Repair & Resurfacing Co. | 1152BA
Source Document BID ADVERTISEMENT DATE COMPLETION DATE
|3/9/2024 Requested
N/A = NOT APPLICABLE SIR = SEE REMARKS CPR = CERTIFIED PAYROLL REPORTS

ITEM ITEM
NO. ITEM NO. ITEM
A GENERAL YES NO |N/A S/R F PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS YES NO NIA S/R A1 Contractor Registered with State of CA F1 Funding - State Monies A2 CSLB in Good Standing F2 Funding - Federal Monies
A3 Workers Compensation in Good Standing F3 Special Provisions A4 Secretary of State in Good Standing F4 Special Single Shift A5 F5 Notice of Completion Filed
PAYROLLS YES NO | N/A SIR G CONCLUSIONS YES NO N/A S/R
B1 CPRs A-1-131 Submitted G1 Reviewed CPRs Okay
B2 Daily Logs/CPR Agree G2 Discrepancies Intentional
Time Cards/CPR Agree G3
B4 Canceled Checks/CPR Agree : H RECOMMENDATIONS YES NO N/A S/R B5 | Photographic Evidence/CPR Agree H1 Complaint to Awarding Body/Contractor B6 Wages Paid at/above Prevailing Rates H2 Complaint to DLSE B7 Complied with All OT/Holiday Ramts H3 Complaint to CSLB B8 Check #s/Direct Deposit Info Available H4 Complaint to EDD B9 Employee Questionnaires to Workers H5
B10 Employee Interviews on File ITEM # REMARKS
B11 Employee Interview Reflects Problems Scope Street and Road Work B12 eCPRs Submitted
BENEFITS YES NO • N/A S/R
Statement of Employer Payments PW 26 Submitted
c2 Fringes Paid in Cash CPRs: Please see notes on attached documents.

C3 Fringes Paid to Plans/Funds American Asphalt paid same hourly rate for all hours including overtime C4 Plans/Funds Approved and double time.

C5 Plans/Funds Documents Available
C6 Plans/Funds Statements Available Apprenticeship: Failure to submit DAS 140, DAS 142 to Operating Engineers C7 [Statement Hours Match CPR Hours
c8 Canceled Checks for Payments Available
c9 Canceled Checks Agree with Statements
C10 Annualization Necessary
C11 Annualization Amounts Correct
C12 Employee Interviews on File
Employee Interview Reflects Problems

D APPRENTICESHIP/TRAINING YES NO NA SIR
D1 Form DAS 140 Available
D2 Form DAS 142 Available
Training Fund Paid to JAC
D4 Training Fund Paid to CAC
D5 Hours on CPR Agree with JAC Stmt
Hours on CPR Agree with CAC SImt
D7 Verified JAC Pymt with Cancelled Checks
D8 verified CAC Pymt with Cancelled Checks
D9 Apprentices Registered with State of CA ;
D10 Employed/Trained Apprentices@ Rad Ratio
D11

TRAVEL/SUBSISTENCE S/R
Er Complie with TraverSubsistenco Rams YES NO NA

NAME OF REVIEWER DATE
Ramon Castillon / 11/25/2024
Labor Commissioner, State of California RECEIVED
Department of Industrial Relations Gavin Newsom. Governor Division of Labor Standards Enforcement
Bureau of Field Enforcement- Public Works AUG - 5 2024
7575 Metropolitan Dr. Ste 210
San Diego, CA 92108-4424 Foundation for Fair
TEL: 619-767-2033 EMAIL: [email protected]
Contracting
Foundation For Fair Contracting
3807 Pasadena Ave, Suite 150
Sacramento, CA 95821
DATE: In Reply Refer to Case No:

July 30,2024 +0-82160-341
CASE ASSIGNMENT LETTER 1039 RP
Project Name Awarding Body Project No. DIR Project ID
23F-135 Asphalt Improvements at Four Sites Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District 457103 Prime Contractor
Sumerian Asphalt Repair and Resurfacing Company Ine
Please be advised that I have been assigned to investigate your complaint against the above named contractor.

Any additional information should be directed to my attention, in writing. Please reference the case number on all correspondence.

You will be kept advised of the progress of this investigation as needed and of the final disposition in this matter.

STATE LABOR COMMISSIONER
By Selene Barillas
Selene Barillas
Deputy Labor Commissioner
PW 4 (Reviedt:2021))

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS - DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL
(C.C.P. 1013a) OR CERTIFIED MAIL
PLEASE MAIL / EMAIL RESPONSIVE RECORDS TO:

Selene Barillas
[email protected]
7575 Metropolitan Dr. Ste 210
San Diego, CA 92108-4424
(40-82160-341 40-82160-341
Fairfield-Suisun Unified School American Asphalt Repair and Resurfacing Company Inc
2490 Hilborn Road PO Box 3367
Fairfield. CA 94534 Hayward, CA 94540
Documents 1, 2 and 6 only Documents 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 only Documents 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 only
Cindy Truong , do hereby certify that I am a resident of or employed in the County of Los Angeles , over 18 years of age, and not a party to the within action, and that I am employed at and my business address is:

Division of Labor Standards Enforcement
Public Works Unit
1500 Hughes Way Ste C202
Long Beach, CA 90810-1882
July 30, 2024 , I served the within: (1) Notice of Investigation; (2) Request for Long Beach by:

X Ordinary first class mail
X Certified mail
Registered mail
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct Executed on July 30. 2024 , at Long Beach _, County of Los Angeles California Cindy Trans

SIGNATURE
STATE CASE NO.
40-82160-341
PW 34
Romes BeI
Labor Commissioner, State of California
DIVISION USE ONLY:

Department of Industrial Relations
Division of Labor Standards Enforcement CASE #_
OFFICE:_ DATE KEEIVED
DATE ASSIGNED:

PUBLIC WORKS - PUBLIC COMPLAINT
The following information is important and must be provided.

Complainant Information

1. FIRST NAME 2. LAST NAME 3. COMPANY NAME 4. WORK/CELLULAR NO Ramon Castillon Foundation for Fair Contracting (916) 487-7871;916/549-6373

5. CONTACT ADDRESS 6. CITY 17. STATE /ZIP CODE 18. EMAIL ADDRESS 3807 Pasadena Ave., Suite 150 Sacramento CA / 95821 [email protected] Project Information
Note: A separate form must be completed for each project in which you are alleging a violation of prevailing wages.

9. PROJECT NAME (If known)
23F-135 Asphalt Improvements at Four Sites

10. LIST ADDRESS(ES) OF PROJECT WHERE WORK WAS PERFORMED:
1975 Pennsylvania Ave Fairfield, CA 94533
County: Solano
Complaint Against

11. NAME OF BUSINESS/CONTRACTOR/EMPLOYER 12. CONTRACTOR'S STATE LIC.

American Asphalt Repair & Resurfacing Company Inc.

13. ADDRESS OF BUSINESS/CONTRACTOR/EMPLOYER (Include Zip Code) 14. BUSINESS TEL. NO P.O. Box 3367
- (510) 723-0280
Hayward, CA 94540

15. EMAIL ADDRESS 16. NAME OF PERSON IN CHARGE 17. TITLE CEO/President [email protected] Shelton Marshall Waggener
Awarding Body

18. NAME OF PUBLIC AGENCY/AWARDED CONTRACT ENTITY
City of Pleasanton

19. ADDRESS OF AWARDING BODY 2490 Hilborn Road 20. BUSINESS TEL. NO/ Fairfield, CA 94534 - (707) 399-5148

22. NAME OF PERSON IN CHARGE / TITLE 23. AMOUNT OF CONTRACT pleasantoniyclerk @cilyorpleasantonca A xave or rese $458,610.00

24. FIRST BID AD DATE 25.DATE PROJECT BEGAN 26. PROPOSED FINISH DATE 27. DATE OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION 3/19/202 9/9/2024 10/4/2024 Requestec
General Contractor (Prime Contractor)

28. NAME OF GENERAL CONTRACTOR 29. CONTRACTOR'S STATE LIC.

Same as above

30. ADDRESS 31. BUSINESS TEL. NO

32. EMAIL ADDRESS 33. NAME OF PERSON IN CHARGE 34. TITLE

35. BRIEF EXPLANATION OF ISSUS. Chei in a vage issues (Attach statements substantiating the allegation) •Non-payment /Underpayment of wages • Not paid travel and subsistence FUnder reporting of hours Unpaid overtime/Sat/Sun/Holiday rate L Misclassification of worker •Insufficient fund check •Fringe benefits not paid Other
See attached sheets for additional details
FFC Case No.: 1039RP /DIR Proiect ID:457103
Apprentice Violations 1777.5 proceed to the next page
DLSEPW 1A (Rev 8.2012)
Apprentice Occupation

36. Trades and Classifications: Operating Engineers
Apprentice Violations 1777.5

37. If the contractor is approved to train- Name of the Apprenticeship Committee:

38. Was there a LABOR COMPLIANCE PROGRAM on this project? •Yes ENo If Yes, Name of the LCP: LCP Telephone Number: _
Apprentice Issues
(List any documentation attached substantiating the allegation)

39. BRIEF EXPLAINATION OF ISSUES: (Check all applicable boxes) / Failed to provide Contract award information (DAS 140). California Code of Regulations 230 Failed to request dispatch of apprentices (DAS 142). California Code of Regulations 230.1 •Failed to employ registered apprentices in the correct ratio or not at all. California Code of Regulations 230.1 Failed to make apprenticeship training fund contributions. California Code of Regulations 230.2 Other (give clear concise statement of the facts constituting the basis of your complaint) Proof of Service

40. Check the box if Proof of Service upon affected contractor and the General Contractor is attached.

I hereby certify that this is a true statement to the best of my knowledge and belief.

MY NAME MAY BE USED IN THIS INVESTIGATION. EYes •No
Cary Alb itton 11/26/2024
Signature
DISE PW 1A (Rev 8. 2012)
CONTION ON CHECKLIST CONTRACTOR REVIEWED IFFC CASE #
FFC American Asphalt Repair & Resurfacing Co. | 1152BA
Source Document BID ADVERTISEMENT DATE COMPLETION DATE
|3/9/2024 Requested
N/A = NOT APPLICABLE SIR = SEE REMARKS CPR = CERTIFIED PAYROLL REPORTS

C3 Fringes Paid to Plans/Funds American Asphalt paid same hourly rate for all hours including overtime C4 Plans/Funds Approved and double time.

TRAVEL/SUBSISTENCE S/R
Er Complie with TraverSubsistenco Rams YES NO NA

NAME OF REVIEWER DATE
Ramon Castillon / 11/25/2024
Labor Commissioner, State of California
Department of Industrial Relations Gavin Newsom, Governor Division of Labor Standards Enforcement
Bureau of Field Enforcement- Public Works
6150 Van Nuys Blvd, Room 206
Van Nuys, CA 91401
(818) 464-7819 EMAIL: [email protected]

FFC CALIFOR HIP
3807 Pasadena Ave., Ste 150
Sacramento, CA95821
1001 RP
DATE: In Reply Refer to Case No:
40-79704-692
January 30, 2024

CASE ASSIGNMENT LETTER
Project Name Awarding Bod DIR Project ID
FY 21-22 Micro-Surfacing Project 'ity of Benic 420020
Prime Contractor

AMERICAN ASPHALT REPAIR AND RESURFACING COMPANY INC
Subcontractor
Please be advised that I have been assigned to investigate your complaint against the above named contractor.

Any additional information should be directed to my attention, in writing. Please reference the case number on all correspondence.

You will be kept advised of the progress of this investigation as needed and of the final disposition in this matter.

RECEIVED
FEB - 2 2023
Foundation for Fail
Contracting

STATE LABOR COMMISSIONER

ENTERED
By Susan Balinge
Susan Babirye
Deputy Labor Commissioner
Labor Commissioner, State of California DIVISION USE ONLY:

Department of Industrial Relations
Division of Labor Standards Enforcement TAKENBY CASE +_ DATAKIN _ASSIONED TO:

OFFICE: _DATE RECEIVED

TATE ASSON ID

PUBLIC WORKS - PUBLIC COMPLAINT
The following information is important and must be provided.

Complainant Information

3. COMPANY NAME 4. WORK/CELLULAR NO
CORST NAME Foundation for Fair Contracting (916) 487-7871:(916) 549-6373

5. CONTACT ADDRESS 6. CITY TP. STATETZIP CODE T8. EMAIL ADDRESS 3807 Pasadena Avenue, Suite 150 - Fax: (916) 487-0306 Sacramento CA 95821 [email protected] Project Information
Note: A separate form must be completed for each project in which you are alleging a violation of prevailing wages.

PROJECT NAME (If know
Y21A22 WE SURiCA PICKE NORK WASPERFORNEL
250 East L Street - Benicia, CA 94510
Solano County
Complaint Against
TI. NAME OF BUSINESS/CONTRACTOR/EMPLOYER TR. CONTRACTOR'S STATE LIC American Asphalt Repair and Resurfacing Company, Inc. 439591

13. ADDRESS OF BUSINESS/CONTRACTOR EMPLOYER (Include Zip Code) 14. BUSINESS TEL. NO P.O. Box 3367
- (510) 723-0280
Hayward, CA 94540
IS. EMAIL ADDRESS 16. NAME OF PERSON IN CHARGE 17. TITLE RMO/CEO/PRES [email protected] Allan Anthony Henderson.

Awarding Body

18. NAME OF PUBLIC AGENCY/AWARDED CONTRACT ENTITY
City of Benicia

19. ADDRESS OF AWARDING BODY 250 East L Street 20. BUSINESS TEL. NO:

Benicia, CA 94510 (707) 746-4215

21. EMAIL ADDRES 22. NAME OF PERSON IN CHARGE /TITLE 23. AMOUNT OF CONTRACT [email protected] Sharon Williams $688,663.50

27. DATE OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION
31212022 ADDATE 16141202 ECT BEGAN 383020920 NSH DATE 9/30/2022 2/1/2023 General Contractor (Prime Contractor)

28. NAME OF GENERAL CONTRACTOR 29. CONTRACTOR'S STATE LIC.

Same as above

30. ADDRESS 31. BUSINESS TEL. NO

32. EMAIL ADDRESS T33. NAME OF PERSON IN CHARGE T 34. TITLE Prevailing Wage Issues (Attach statements substantiating the allegation)

35. BRIEF EXPLAINATION OF ISSUES: (Check all applicable boxes) •Non-payment /Underpayment of wages • Not paid travel and subsistence Under reporting of hours Unpaid overtime/Sat/Sun/Holiday rate • Misclassification of worker •Insufficient fund check •Fringe benefits not paid Other
See attached sheets for additional details
FFC Case No.: 1001RP/DIR Proiect ID: 420020
Apprentice Violations 1777.5 proceed to the next page
DLSEPW 1A (Rev 8.2012)
Apprentice Occupation

36. Trades and Classifications: Operating Engineer
Apprentice Violations 1777.5

37. If the contractor is approved to train- Name of the Apprenticeship Committee:

38. Was there a LABOR COMPLIANCE PROGRAM on this project? •Yes If Yes, Name of the LCP: LCP Telephone Number:

Apprentice Issues
(List any documentation attached substantiating the allegation)

39. BRIEF EXPLAINATION OF ISSUES: (Check all applicable boxes) Failed to provide Contract award information (DAS 140). California Code of Regulations 230 Operating Engineer
/ Failed to request dispatch of apprentices (DAS 142). California Code of Regulations 230.1 Operating Engineer
Failed to employ registered apprentices in the correct ratio or not at all. California Code of Regulations 230.1 Failed to make apprenticeship training fund contributions. California Code of Regulations 230.2 Other (give clear concise statement of the facts constituting the basis of your complaint) Proof of Service

40. Check the box if Proof of Service upon affected contractor and the General Contractor is attached.

I hereby certify that this is a true statement to the best of my knowledge and belief.

MY NAME MAY BE USED IN THIS INVESTIGATION. MYes •No
December 19, 2023
Signature Date
DLSE PW 1A (Rev 8. 2012)
[This page intentionally left blank]
DIR Department or
EST. 1927 Industrial Relations

PAGA NOTICE PUBLIC SEARCH
LWDA # typnission Submission Sumision
Silor
LWDA-CM-943261-23 PAGA Notice Moon & Yang. APC Agustin Umana WDA-CM-926032-22 PAGA Notice Moon & Yang, APC 22CV024706 Mora Carias There Kane Moon 3/20/2025 | Page 1 of 1
Industrial Relations

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

PAGA NOTICE PUBLIC SEARCH - CASE DETAIL
Case Information
Case Number: LWDA-CM-943261-23
Law Firm for PAGA Plaintiff: Moon & Yang, APC
Date Caer Reivean Asphalt Repair and Resurfacing Company, Ine Filer for Employer:

Employer Filer Firm:

Related BOFE Case:

Attachments
Attachment Name Description Date Submitted Type
Amended Notice Submitted on 10/01/2024 10/1/202411:00 PM 04:00:42 PM by Mariam Ghazaryan IMERICAN ASPHALT -- 2024 10-01 LTR - PAGA Violation Notice - Amended.pdf Amended Notice PAGA Notice Submitted on 03/20/2023
04:50:23 PM by Mariam Ghazaryan Umana v. American Asphalt 20230320 PAGA Letter.pdf 3/20/2023 11:50 PM PAGA Notice 3/20/2025 | Page 1 of 1
Industrial Relations

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

PAGA NOTICE PUBLIC SEARCH - CASE DETAIL
Case Information
Date Caer Reivean Asphalt Repair and Resurfacing Company, Ine.

Filer for Employer:

Cour Type: Caltermia Superior Cours
Related BOFE Case:

Attachments
Attachment Name Description Date Submitted Type
Amended Notice Submitted on 10/01/2024 IMERICAN ASPHALT -- 2024 10-01 LTR - PAGA Violation Notice - Amended.pdf 04:01:50 PM by Mariam Ghazaryan 10/1/2024 11:01 PM Amended Notice Court Complaint Submitted on 08/31/2023 Court Complaint 05:08:58 PM by Sophia Tu Becerra v. American Asphalt 20230801 FAC - Conformed.pdf 9/1/2023 12:09 AM PAGA Notice Submitted on 12/24/2022 12/25:2022 5:09 AM PAGA Notice 09:09:06 PM by Kane Moon Paga Letter - Beeerra v. American Asphalt.pdf 3/20/2025 | Page 1 of 1
1 Kane Moon (SBN 249834) FILED
[email protected] Superior Court of California
H. Scott Leviant (SBN 200834) County of Alame da
2 [email protected] 08/01/2023
3 Mariam Ghazaryan (SBN 341119* Chad Flake, Exect the Offer / Clerk OTthe Corn [email protected]
4 MOON LAW GROUP, PC By X206- _ Deputy
1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880 X. Bowie
5 Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: (213) 232-3128
6 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
7 ttorneys for Plaintiff Manuel Carlos Ibarra Becerr
gustin Umana Villatoro, and Bryan Hernande
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
= MANUEL CARLOS IBARRA BECERRA,
Case No.: 22CV024706
12 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT:
13 situated,

1. Failure to Pay Minimum Wages [Cal.
14 Lab. Code §§ 204, 1194, 1194.2, and
Plaintiffs, 1197];
15 2. Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation
[Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194 and 1198];
16 VS. 3. Failure to Provide Meal Periods [Cal.

Lab. Code $§ 226.7, 512];
17 4. Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest
AMERICAN ASPHALT REPAIR AND Breaks [Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7]; 18 RESURFACING COMPANY, INC.; and DOES 1 5. Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business through 10, inclusive, Expenses [Cal. Lab. Code § 2802]; 19 6. Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at
Defendants Termination [Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201-
20 Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized
Wage Statements Cal. Lab. Code 8 226 :

Unfair Business Practices [Cal. Bus. &
22 Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.]; and

9. Private Attorneys General Act of 2004
23 [Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq.].
24 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
25 26
27 28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 INTRODUCTION & PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .1
3 THE PARTIES ....... 3
4 A. Plaintiffs. ... 3
5 B. Defendants... ...3
ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION ...4
7 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS.. ...8
8 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION........... 12
9 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION.. 13
10 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION ... 14
11 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION.. 15
12 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION... 16
13 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION.... 17
14 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION..... .. 18
15 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION. 19
16 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION.. 22
17 PRAYER FOR RELIEF.. 24
18 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.. 28
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiffs Manuel Carlos Ibarra Becerra, Agustin Umana Villatoro, and Bryan Hernandez 2 ("Plaintiffs"), based upon facts that either have evidentiary support or are likely to have 3 evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation and discovery, allege 4 as follows:
5 INTRODUCTION & PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendants American Asphalt Repair and 7 Resurfacing Company, Inc. and Does 1 through 10 (collectively referred to as "Defendants") for 8 California Labor Code violations and unfair business practices stemming from Defendants' 9 failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, 10 failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked 11 and meal periods, failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees, failure to indemnify 12 necessary business expenses, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements. 13 2. Plaintiffs bring the First through Eighth Causes of Action individually and as a 14 class action on behalf of themselves and certain current and former employees of Defendants 15 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Class" or "Class Members" and defined more fully 16 below). The Class consists of Plaintiffs Villatoro and Hernandez and all other persons who have 17 been employed by any Defendants in California as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee during 18 the statute of limitations period applicable to the claims pleaded here. 19 Plaintiff Augustin Umana Villatoro brings the Ninth Cause of Action as a 20 representative action under the California Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") to recover 21 civil penalties that are owed to Plaintiff, the State of California, and past and present employees 22 of Defendants (hereinafter referred to as the "Aggrieved Employees").

4. Defendants own/owned and operate/operated an industry, business, and 24 establishment within the State of California, including Alameda County. As such, and based upon all the facts and circumstances incident to Defendants' business in California, Defendants are subject to the California Labor Code, Wage Orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission ("IC), and the California Business & Professions Code. 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 5. Despite these requirements, throughout the statutory period Defendants 2 maintained a systematic, company-wide policy and practice of:
3 (a) Failing to pay employees for all hours worked, including all minimum 4 wages, and overtime wages in compliance with the California Labor Code 5 and IWC Wage Orders;
(b) Failing to provide employees with timely and duty-free meal periods in 7 compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, failing 8 to maintain accurate records of all meal periods taken or missed, and 9 failing to pay an additional hour's pay for each workday a meal period 10 violation occurred;
11 (c) Failing to authorize and permit employees to take timely and duty-free rest 12 periods in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage 13 Orders, and failing to pay an additional hour's pay for each workday a rest 14 period violation occurred;
15 (d) Failing to indemnify employees for necessary business expenses incurred; 16 (e) Willfully failing to pay employees all minimum wages, overtime wages, 17 meal period premium wages, and rest period premium wages due within 18 the time period specified by California law when employment terminates; 19 and
20 (f) Failing to maintain accurate records of the hours that employees worked. 21 (g) Failing to provide employees with accurate, itemized wage statements 22 containing all the information required by the California Labor Code and 23 IWC Wage Orders.
24 6. On information and belief, Defendants, and each of them were on actual and constructive notice of the improprieties alleged herein and intentionally refused to rectify their unlawful policies. Defendants' violations, as alleged above, during all relevant times herein were willful and deliberate.
28 2

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 At all relevant times, Defendants were and are legally responsible for all of the 2 unlawful conduct, policies, practices, acts and omissions as described in each and all of the 3 foregoing paragraphs as the employer of Plaintiff and the Class. Further, Defendants are 4 responsible for each of the unlawful acts or omissions complained of herein under the doctrine of 5 "respondeat superior".

THE PARTIES
7 A. Plaintiffs
8 8. Plaintiff Manuel Carlos Ibarra Becerra is a California resident that worked for 9 Defendants in the County of Alameda, State of California, as a stripping superintendent primarily 10 in Alameda County during the statutory period.
11 Plaintiff Agustin Umana Villatoro is a California resident that worked for 12 Defendants in the County of Alameda, State of California, as a laborer primarily in Alameda 13 County during the statutory period.
14 10. Plaintiff Bryan Hernandez is a California resident that worked for Defendants in 15 the County of Alameda, State of California, as a laborer primarily in Alameda County during the 16 statutory period.
17 11. Plaintiffs reserve the right to seek leave to amend this complaint to add new 18 plaintiffs, if necessary, in order to establish suitable representative(s) pursuant to La Sala v. 19 American Savings and Loan Association (1971) 5 Cal.3d 864, 872, and other applicable law. 20 B. Defendants
21 12. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based upon that information and belief 22 allege, that Defendant American Asphalt Repair and Resurfacing Company, Inc. is:
(a) A California corporation with its principal places of business in Alameda, 24 California;
(b) A business entity conducting business in numerous counties throughout the 26 State of California, including in Alameda County; and (c) The former employer of Plaintiffs, and the current and/or former employer 28 of the putative Class. Defendants suffered and permitted Plaintiffs and the 3 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 Class to work, and/or controlled their wages, hours, or working conditions. 2 13. Plaintiffs do not currently know the true names or capacities of the persons or 3 entities sued herein as Does 1-10, inclusive, and therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious 4 names. Each of the Doe Defendants was in some manner legally responsible for the damages 5 suffered by Plaintiffs and the Class as alleged herein. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to set forth the true names and capacities of these Defendants when they have been ascertained, 7 together with appropriate charging allegations, as may be necessary. 8 14. At all times mentioned herein, the Defendants named as Does 1-10, inclusive, and 9 each of them, were residents of, doing business in, availed themselves of the jurisdiction of, 10 and/or injured a significant number of the Plaintiffs and the Class in the State of California. 11 15. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all relevant times 12 each Defendant, directly or indirectly, or through agents or other persons, employed Plaintiffs 13 and the other employees described in the class definitions below, and exercised control over their 14 wages, hours, and working conditions. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege 15 that, at all relevant times, each Defendant was the principal, agent, partner, joint venturer, officer, 16 director, controlling shareholder, subsidiary, affiliate, parent corporation, successor in interest 17 and/or predecessor in interest of some or all of the other Defendants, and was engaged with some 18 or all of the other Defendants in a joint enterprise for profit, and bore such other relationships to 19 some or all of the other Defendants so as to be liable for their conduct with respect to the matters 20 alleged below. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each Defendant acted 21 pursuant to and within the scope of the relationships alleged above, that each Defendant knew or 22 should have known about, and authorized, ratified, adopted, approved, controlled, aided and abetted the conduct of all other Defendants.
24 ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

16. Plaintiff Manuel Carlos Ibarra Becerra is a California resident that worked for Defendants in the County of Alameda, State of California, as a stripping superintendent primarily in Alameda County during the statutory period. Plaintiff Agustin Umana Villatoro is a California 28 resident that worked for Defendants in the County of Alameda, State of California, as a laborer

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 primarily in Alameda County during the statutory period. Plaintiff Bryan Hernandez is a 2 California resident that worked for Defendants in the County of Alameda, State of California, as 3 a laborer primarily in Alameda County during the statutory period. During the statutory period, 4 Defendants classified Plaintiffs Villatoro and Hernandez as non-exempt from California's 5 overtime requirements, and paid them an hourly wage. During that same period, Defendants 6 classified Plaintiff Becerra as an exempt employee and paid him a salary. 7 17. Throughout the statutory period, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs for all hours 8 worked (including minimum wages and overtime wages), failed to provide Plaintiffs with 9 uninterrupted meal periods, failed to authorize and permit Plaintiffs to take uninterrupted rest 10 periods, failed to indemnify Plaintiffs for necessary business expenses, failed to timely pay all 11 final wages to Plaintiffs when Defendants terminated Plaintiffs' employment, and failed to 12 furnish accurate wage statements to Plaintiffs. As discussed below, Plaintiffs' experiences 13 working for Defendants was typical and illustrative. 14 18. Throughout the statutory period, Defendants maintained a policy and practice of 15 not paying Plaintiffs and the Class for all hours worked, including all overtime wages. 16 Throughout the statutory period, Plaintiffs and the Class were required to work off the clock, and 17 uncompensated. For example, Plaintiffs and the Class were required to work in excess of 8 hours 18 per day and in excess of 40 hours per week, but were not paid all wages owed. Some employees 19 were paid a specific amount each pay period despite the amount of work performed, amounting 20 to a salary. However, Defendants failed to pay all overtime and double-time wages owed. 21 19. Throughout the statutory period, Defendants have wrongfully failed to provide 22 Plaintiffs and the Class with legally compliant meal periods. Defendants sometimes, but not always, required Plaintiffs and the Class to work in excess of five consecutive hours a day 24 without providing 30-minute, continuous and uninterrupted, duty-free meal period for every five hours of work, or without compensating Plaintiffs and the Class for meal periods that were not 26 provided by the end of the fifth hour of work or tenth hour of work. Defendants also did not 27 adequately inform Plaintiffs and the Class of their right to take a meal period by the end of the 28 fifth hour of work, or, for shifts greater than 10 hours, by the end of the tenth hour of work.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 Defendants also failed to accurately record meal periods. Accordingly, Defendants' policy and 2 practice was to not provide meal periods to Plaintiffs and the Class in compliance with California 3 law.
4 20. Throughout the statutory period, Defendants have wrongfully failed to authorize 5 and permit Plaintiffs and the Class to take timely and duty-free rest periods. Defendants sometimes, but not always, required Plaintiffs and the Class to work in excess of four consecutive hours a day without Defendants authorizing and permitting them to take a 10-minute, 8 continuous and uninterrupted, rest period for every four hours of work (or major fraction of four 9 hours), or without compensating Plaintiffs and the Class for rest periods that were not authorized 10 or permitted. Defendants also did not adequately inform Plaintiffs and the Class of their right to 11 take a rest period. Moreover, Defendants did not have adequate policies or practices permitting 12 or authorizing rest periods for Plaintiffs and the Class, nor did Defendants have adequate policies 13 or practices regarding the timing of rest periods. Defendants also did not have adequate policies 14 or practices to verify whether Plaintiffs and the Class were taking their required rest periods. 15 Further, Defendants did not maintain accurate records of employee work periods, and therefore 16 Defendants cannot demonstrate that Plaintiffs and the Class took rest periods during the middle 17 of each work period. Plaintiffs and the Class were also not permitted to leave the premises during 18 rest breaks. Accordingly, Defendants' policy and practice was to not authorize and permit 19 Plaintiffs and the Class to take rest periods in compliance with California law. 20 21. Throughout the statutory period, Defendants wrongfully required Plaintiffs and the 21 Class to pay expenses that they incurred in direct discharge of their duties for Defendants without 22 reimbursement. Plaintiffs and the Class were required to use their personal cellular telephones for work purposes, without reimbursement.
24 22. Throughout the statutory period, Defendants willfully failed and refused to timely pay Plaintiffs and the Class at the conclusion of their employment all wages for all minimum wages, overtime wages, meal period premium wages, and rest period premium wages.

23. Throughout the statutory period, Defendants failed to furnish Plaintiffs and the 28 Class with accurate, itemized wage statements showing all applicable hourly rates, and all gross 6 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 and net wages earned (including correct hours worked, correct wages earned for hours worked, 2 correct overtime hours worked, correct wages for meal periods that were not provided in 3 accordance with California law, correct wages for rest periods that were not authorized and 4 permitted to take in accordance with California law, and Defendant's address). Further, the wage 5 statements do not show Defendant's address as required by California law. As a result of these violations of California Labor Code § 226(a), the Plaintiffs and the Class suffered injury because, 7 among other things:
8 (a) the violations led them to believe that they were not entitled to be paid 9 minimum wages, overtime wages, meal period premium wages, and rest 10 period premium wages to which they were entitled, even though they were 11 entitled;
12 (b) the violations led them to believe that they had been paid the minimum, 13 overtime, meal period premium, and rest period premium wages, even 14 though they had not been;
15 (c) the violations led them to believe they were not entitled to be paid 16 minimum, overtime, meal period premium, and rest period premium wages 17 at the correct California rate even though they were; 18 (d) the violations led them to believe they had been paid minimum, overtime, 19 meal period premium, and rest period premium wages at the correct 20 California rate even though they had not been;
21 (e) the violations hindered them from determining the amounts of minimum, 22 overtime, meal period premium, and rest period premium owed to them; (f) in connection with their employment before and during this action, and in 24 connection with prosecuting this action, the violations caused them to have to perform mathematical computations to determine the amounts of wages 26 owed to them, computations they would not have to make if the wage statements contained the required accurate information; 7 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 (g) by understating the wages truly due them, the violations caused them to 2 lose entitlement and/or accrual of the full amount of Social Security, 3 disability, unemployment, and other governmental benefits; 4 (h) the wage statements inaccurately understated the wages, hours, and wages 5 rates to which Plaintiff and the Class were entitled, and Plaintiffs and the Class were paid less than the wages and wage rates to which they were entitled.
8 Thus, Plaintiffs and the Class are owed the amounts provided for in California Labor Code § 9 226(e), including actual damages.
10 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
11 24. Plaintiffs brings certain claims individually, as well as on behalf of each and all 12 other persons similarly situated, and thus, seek class certification under California Code of Civil 13 Procedure § 382.
14 25. All claims alleged herein arise under California law for which Plaintiffs seek relief 15 authorized by California law.
16 26. The proposed Class consists of and is defined as:
17 All persons who worked for any Defendant in California as an hourly, non- exempt employee at any time during the period beginning four years before the 18 filing of the initial complaint in this action and ending when notice to the Class 19 is sent.
20 27. At all material times, Plaintiffs Villator and Hernandez were a member of the 21 Class.
22 28. Plaintiffs undertake this concerted activity to improve the wages and working conditions of all Class Members.
24 29. There is a well-defined community of interest in the litigation and the Class is readily 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. 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 The membership of the entire Class is unknown to Plaintiff at this time, 2 however, the Class is estimated to be greater than 100 individuals and the 3 identity of such membership is readily ascertainable by inspection of 4 Defendants' records.
5 (b) Typicality: Plaintiffs are qualified to, and will, fairly and adequately 6 protect the interests of each Class Member with whom there is a shared, well-defined community of interest, and Plaintiffs claims (or defenses, if 8 any) are typical of all Class Members' claims as demonstrated herein. 9 (c) Adequacy: Plaintiffs are qualified to, and will, fairly and adequately 10 protect the interests of each Class Member with whom there is a shared, 11 well-defined community of interest and typicality of claims, as 12 demonstrated herein. Plaintiffs have no conflicts with or interests 13 antagonistic to any Class Member. Plaintiffs' attorneys, the proposed class 14 counsel, are versed in the rules governing class action discovery, 15 certification, and settlement. Plaintiffs have incurred, and throughout the 16 duration of this action, will continue to incur costs and attorneys' fees that 17 have been, are, and will be necessarily expended for the prosecution of this 18 action for the substantial benefit of each class member. 19 (d) Superiority: A Class Action is superior to other available methods for the 20 fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy, including consideration 21 of:
22 1) The interests of the members of the Class in individually 23 controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; 24 2) The extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy 25 already commenced by or against members of the Class; 3) The desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and
28 4) The difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a 9 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 class action.
2 (e) Public Policy Considerations: The public policy of the State of California 3 is to resolve the California Labor Code claims of many employees through 4 a class action. Indeed, current employees are often afraid to assert their 5 rights out of fear of direct or indirect retaliation. Former employees are also fearful of bringing actions because they believe their former employers might damage their future endeavors through negative 8 references and/or other means. Class actions provide the class members 9 who are not named in the complaint with a type of anonymity that allows 10 for the vindication of their rights at the same time as their privacy is 11 protected.
12 30. There are common questions of law and fact as to the Class (and each subclass, if 13 any) that predominate over questions affecting only individual members, including without 14 limitation, whether, as alleged herein, Defendants have:
15 (a) Failed to pay Class Members for all hours worked, including minimum 16 wages, and overtime wages;
17 (b) Failed to provide meal periods and pay meal period premium wages to 18 Class Members;
19 (c) Failed to authorize and permit rest periods and pay rest period premium 20 wages to Class Members;
21 (d) Failed to promptly pay all wages due to Class Members upon their 22 discharge or resignation;
23 (e) Failed to maintain accurate records of all hours Class Members worked, 24 and all meal periods Class Members took or missed;
25 (f) Failed to reimburse Class Members for all necessary business expenses; 26 and
27 (g) Violated California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et. seq. as a result of their illegal conduct as described above.
10 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 31. This Court should permit this action to be maintained as a class action pursuant to 2 California Code of Civil Procedure § 382 because:
3 (a) The questions of law and fact common to the Class predominate over any 4 question affecting only individual members;
5 (b) A class action is superior to any other available method for the fair and efficient adjudication of the claims of the members of the Class; (c) The members of the Class are so numerous that it is impractical to bring all 8 members of the class before the Court;
9 (d) Plaintiffs, and the other members of the Class, will not be able to obtain 10 effective and economic legal redress unless the action is maintained as a 11 class action;
12 (e) There is a community of interest in obtaining appropriate legal and 13 equitable relief for the statutory violations, and in obtaining adequate 14 compensation for the damages and injuries for which Defendants are 15 responsible in an amount sufficient to adequately compensate the members 16 of the Class for the injuries sustained;
17 Without class certification, the prosecution of separate actions by 18 individual members of the class would create a risk of:
19 1) Inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual 20 members of the Class which would establish incompatible standards 21 of conduct for Defendants; and/or
22 2) Adjudications with respect to the individual members which would, 23 as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of other 24 members not parties to the adjudications, or would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests, including but 26 not limited to the potential for exhausting the funds available from 27 those parties who are, or may be, responsible Defendants; and, 28 (g) Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to 11 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 the Class, thereby making final injunctive relief appropriate with respect to 2 the class as a whole.
3 32. Plaintiffs contemplate the eventual issuance of notice to the proposed members of 4 the Class that would set forth the subject and nature of the instant action. The Defendants' own 5 business records may be utilized for assistance in the preparation and issuance of the contemplated notices. To the extent that any further notices may be required, Plaintiffs would contemplate the use of additional techniques and forms commonly used in class actions, such as 8 published notice, e-mail notice, website notice, first-class mail, or combinations thereof, or by 9 other methods suitable to the Class and deemed necessary and/or appropriate by the Court. 10 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
11 (Against all Defendants for Failure to Pay Minimum Wages for All Hours Worked) 12 33. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege as if fully stated herein paragraphs 13 1 through 22 in this First Amended Complaint.
14 34. "Hours worked" is the time during which an employee is subject to the control of 15 an employer, and includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or 16 not required to do so.
17 35. At all relevant times herein mentioned, Defendants knowingly failed to pay to 18 Plaintiffs and the Class compensation for all hours they worked. By their failure to pay = compensation for each hour worked as alleged above, Defendants willfully violated the 20 provisions of Section 1194 of the California Labor Code, and any additional applicable Wage 21 Orders, which require such compensation to non-exempt employees. 22 36. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to recover minimum wages for all non-overtime hours worked for Defendants.
24 37. By and through the conduct described above, Plaintiffs and the Class have been deprived of their rights to be paid wages earned by virtue of their employment with Defendants.

38. By virtue of the Defendants' unlawful failure to pay additional compensation to Plaintiff and the Class for their non-overtime hours worked without pay, Plaintiffs and the Class suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages in amounts which are presently unknown to 12 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiffs and the Class, but which exceed the jurisdictional minimum of this Court, and which 2 will be ascertained according to proof at trial.
3 39. By failing to keep adequate time records required by California Labor Code § 4 1174(d), Defendants have made it difficult to calculate the full extent of minimum wage 5 compensation due to Plaintiffs and the Class.

40. Pursuant to California Labor Code section 1194.2, Plaintiffs and the Class are 7 entitled to recover liquidated damages (double damages) for Defendants' failure to pay minimum 8 wages.
9 41. California Labor Code section 204 requires employers to provide employees with 10 all wages due and payable twice a month. Throughout the statute of limitations period applicable 11 to this cause of action, Plaintiffs and the Class were entitled to be paid twice a month at rates 12 required by law, including minimum wages. However, during all such times, Defendants 13 systematically failed and refused to pay Plaintiffs and the Class all such wages due, and failed to 14 pay those wages twice a month.
15 42. Plaintiffs and the Class are also entitled to seek recovery of all unpaid minimum 16 wages, interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 17 218.5, 218.6, and 1194(a).
18 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
19 (Against all Defendants for Failure to Pay Overtime Wages) 20 43. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege as if fully stated herein paragraphs 21 1 through 22 in this First Amended Complaint.
22 44. California Labor Code § 510 provides that employees in California shall not be 23 employed more than eight (8) hours in any workday or forty (40) hours in a workweek unless 24 they receive additional compensation beyond their regular wages in amounts specified by law.

45. California Labor Code §§ 1194 and 1198 provide that employees in California 26 shall not be employed more than eight hours in any workday unless they receive additional compensation beyond their regular wages in amounts specified by law. Additionally, California 28 Labor Code § 1198 states that the employment of an employee for longer hours than those fixed 13 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 by the Industrial Welfare Commission is unlawful.
2 46. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs and the Class have worked more than eight 3 hours in a workday, as employees of Defendants.
4 47. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Class 5 overtime compensation for the hours they have worked in excess of the maximum hours permissible by law as required by California Labor Code § 510 and 1198. Plaintiffs and the 7 Class are regularly required to work overtime hours.
8 48. By virtue of Defendants' unlawful failure to pay additional premium rate 9 compensation to the Plaintiffs and the Class for their overtime hours worked, Plaintiffs and the 10 Class have suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages in amounts which are presently 11 unknown to them but which exceed the jurisdictional minimum of this Court and which will be 12 ascertained according to proof at trial.
13 49. By failing to keep adequate time records required by Labor Code § 1174(d), 14 Defendants have made it difficult to calculate the full extent of overtime compensation due to 15 Plaintiff and the Class.
16 50. Plaintiffs and the Class also request recovery of overtime compensation according 17 to proof, interest, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to California Labor Code § 1194(a), as well 18 as the assessment of any statutory penalties against Defendants, in a sum as provided by the 19 California Labor Code and/or other statutes.
20 51. California Labor Code § 204 requires employers to provide employees with all 21 wages due and payable twice a month. The Wage Orders also provide that every employer shall 22 pay to each employee, on the established payday for the period involved, overtime wages for all overtime hours worked in the payroll period. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class 24 with all compensation due, in violation of California Labor Code § 204.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Against All Defendants for Failure to Provide Meal Periods)

52. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege as if fully stated herein paragraphs 28 1 through 22 in this First Amended Complaint.
14 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 53. Under California law, Defendants have an affirmative obligation to relieve the 2 Plaintiffs and the Class of all duty in order to take their first daily meal periods no later than the 3 start of Plaintiffs and the Class's sixth hour of work in a workday, and to take their second meal 4 periods no later than the start of the eleventh hour of work in the workday. Section 512 of the 5 California Labor Code, and Section 11 of the applicable Wage Orders require that an employer 6 provide unpaid meal periods of at least 30 minutes for each five-hour period worked. It is a 7 violation of Section 226.7 of the California Labor Code for an employer to require any employee 8 to work during any meal period mandated under any Wage Order. 9 54. Despite these legal requirements, Defendants regularly failed to provide Plaintiffs 10 and the Class with both meal periods as required by California law. By their failure to permit 11 and authorize Plaintiffs and the Class to take all meal periods as alleged above (or due to the fact 12 that Defendants made it impossible or impracticable to take these uninterrupted meal periods), 13 Defendants willfully violated the provisions of Section 226.7 of the California Labor Code and 14 the applicable Wage Orders.
15 55. Under California law, Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to be paid one hour of 16 additional wages for each workday he or she was not provided with all required meal period(s), 17 plus interest thereon.
18 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
19 (Against All Defendants for Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods) 20 56. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege as if fully stated herein paragraphs 21 1 through 22 in this First Amended Complaint.
22 57. Defendants are required by California law to authorize and permit breaks of 10 23 uninterrupted minutes for each four hours of work or major fraction of four hours (i.e. more than 24 two hours. Section 512 of the California Labor Code, the applicable Wage Orders require that 25 the employer permit and authorize all employees to take paid rest periods of 10 minutes each for 26 each 4-hour period worked. Thus, for example, if an employee's work time is 6 hours and ten 27 minutes, the employee is entitled to two rest breaks. Each failure to authorize rest breaks as so 28 required is itself a violation of California's rest break laws. It is a violation of Section 226.7 of 15 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 the California Labor Code for an employer to require any employee to work during any rest 2 period mandated under any Wage Order.
3 58. Despite these legal requirements, Defendants failed to authorize Plaintiffs and the 4 Class to take rest breaks, regardless of whether employees worked more than 4 hours in a 5 workday. By their failure to permit and authorize Plaintiffs and the Class to take rest periods as 6 alleged above (or due to the fact that Defendants made it impossible or impracticable to take 7 these uninterrupted rest periods), Defendants willfully violated the provisions of Section 226.7 of 8 the California Labor Code and the applicable Wage Orders. 9 59. Under California law, Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to be paid one hour of 10 premium wages rate for each workday he or she was not provided with all required rest breaks), 11 plus interest thereon.
12 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
13 (Against All Defendants for Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses) 14 60. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege as if fully stated herein paragraphs 15 1 through 22 in this First Amended Complaint.
16 61. Defendants violated Labor Code section 2802 and the IWC Wage Orders, by 17 failing to pay and indemnify the Plaintiff and the Class for their necessary expenditures and 18 losses incurred in direct consequence of the discharge of their duties or of their obedience to 19 directions of Defendants.
20 62. As a result, Plaintiffs and the Class were damaged at least in the amounts of the 21 expenses they paid, or which were deducted by Defendants from their wages. 22 63. Plaintiffs and the class they represent are entitled to attorney's fees, expenses, and costs of suit pursuant to Labor Code section 2802(c) and interest pursuant to Labor Code section 2802(b).
26 27
16 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 (Against all Defendants for Failure to Pay Wages of Discharged Employees - Waiting Time 3 Penalties)
4 64. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege as if fully stated herein paragraphs 5 1 through 22 in this First Amended Complaint.

65. At all times herein set forth, California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202 provide that if 7 an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge are 8 due and payable immediately, and that if an employee voluntarily leaves his or her employment, 9 his or her wages shall become due and payable not later than seventy-two (72) hours thereafter, 10 unless the employee has given seventy-two (72) hours previous notice of his or her intention to 11 quit, in which case the employee is entitled to his or her wages at the time of quitting. 12 66. Within the applicable statute of limitations, the employment of Plaintiffs and 13 many other members of the Class ended, i.e. was terminated by quitting or discharge, and the 14 employment of others will be. However, during the relevant time period, Defendants failed, and 15 continue to fail to pay terminated Class Members, without abatement, all wages required to be 16 paid by California Labor Code sections 201 and 202 either at the time of discharge, or within 17 seventy-two (72) hours of their leaving Defendants' employ. 18 67. Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs and those Class members who are no longer 19 employed by Defendants their wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge, or within 20 seventy-two (72) hours of their leaving Defendants' employ, is in violation of California Labor 21 Code §§ 201 and 202.
22 68. California Labor Code § 203 provides that if an employer willfully fails to pay 23 wages owed, in accordance with sections 201 and 202, then the wages of the employee shall 24 continue as a penalty wage 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. 26 69. Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to recover from Defendants their additionally accruing wages for each day they were not paid, at their regular hourly rate of pay, up to 30 days 28 maximum pursuant to California Labor Code § 203.
17 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 70. Pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 218.5, 218.6 and 1194, Plaintiffs and the 2 Class are also entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, interest, expenses, and costs 3 incurred in this action.
4 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
5 (Against all Defendants for Failure to Provide and Maintain Accurate and Compliant Wage Records)

71. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege as if fully stated herein paragraphs 8 1 through 22 in this First Amended Complaint.
9 72. At all material times set forth herein, California Labor Code § 226(a) provides that 10 every employer shall furnish each of his or her employees an accurate itemized wage statement 11 in writing showing nine pieces of information, including: (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours 12 worked by the employee, (3) the number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece rate 13 if the employee is paid on a piece-rate basis, (4) all deductions, provided that all deductions made 14 on written orders of the employee may be aggregated and shown as one item, (5) net wages 15 earned, (6) the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the name of the 16 employee and the last four digits of his or her social security number or an employee 17 identification number other than a social security number, (8) the name and address of the legal 18 entity that is the employer, and (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and 19 the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee. 20 73. Defendants have intentionally and willfully failed to provide employees with 21 complete and accurate wage statements. The deficiencies include, among other things, the 22 failure to correctly identify the gross wages earned by Plaintiffs and the Class, the failure to list the true "total hours worked by the employee," and the failure to list the true net wages earned. 24 74. As a result of Defendants' violation of California Labor Code § 226(a), Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered injury and damage to their statutorily-protected rights.

75. Specifically, Plaintiffs and the members of the Class have been injured by 27 Defendants' intentional violation of California Labor Code § 226(a) because they were denied 28 both their legal right to receive, and their protected interest in receiving, accurate, itemized wage 18 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 statements under California Labor Code § 226(a).
2 76. Calculation of the true wage entitlement for Plaintiffs and the Class is difficult and 3 time consuming. • As a result of this unlawful burden, Plaintiffs and the Class were also injured as 4 a result of having to bring this action to attempt to obtain correct wage information following 5 Defendants' refusal to comply with many of the mandates of California's Labor Code and related laws and regulations.

77. Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to recover from Defendants their actual 8 damages caused by Defendants' failure to comply with California Labor Code § 226(a). 9 78. Plaintiffs and the Class are also entitled to injunctive relief, as well as an award of 10 attorney's fees and costs to ensure compliance with this section, pursuant to California Labor 11 Code § 226(h).
12 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
13 (Against all Defendants for Violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, 14 et seg.)
15 79. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege as if fully stated herein paragraphs 16 1 through 22 in this First Amended Complaint.
17 80. Defendants, and each of them, are "persons" as defined under California Business 18 & Professions Code § 17201.
19 81. Defendants' conduct, as alleged herein, has been, and continues to be, unfair, 20 unlawful, and harmful to Plaintiffs, other Class members, and to the general public. Plaintiffs 21 seek to enforce important rights affecting the public interest within the meaning of Code of Civil 22 Procedure $ 1021.5.
23 82. Defendants' activities, as alleged herein, are violations of California law, and 24 constitute unlawful business acts and practices in violation of California Business & Professions 25 Code §§ 17200, et seq.
26 83. A violation of California Business & Professions Code $§ 17200, et seq. may be predicated on the violation of any state or federal law. All of the acts described herein as 28 violations of, among other things, the California Labor Code, are unlawful and in violation of 19 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 public policy; and in addition are immoral, unethical, oppressive, fraudulent and unscrupulous, 2 and thereby constitute unfair, unlawful and/or fraudulent business practices in violation of 3 California Business &Professions Code $§ 17200, et seq. 4 Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
5 84. Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages, and other benefits in violation of the California Labor Code constitutes unlawful and/or unfair activity prohibited by California 7 Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.
8 Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

85. Defendants' failure to pay overtime compensation and other benefits in violation 10 of California Labor Code §§ 510, 1194, and 1198 constitutes unlawful and/or unfair activity 11 prohibited by California Business & Professions Code §$ 17200, et seq. 12 Failure to Maintain Accurate Records of All Hours Worked 13 86. Defendants' failure to maintain accurate records of all hours worked in accordance 14 with California Labor Code § 1174.5 and the IWC Wage Orders constitutes unlawful and/or 15 unfair activity prohibited by California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. 16 Failure to Provide Meal Periods
17 87. Defendants' failure to provide meal periods in accordance with California Labor 18 Code §§ 226.7 and 512, and the IWC Wage Orders, as alleged above, constitutes unlawful and/or 19 unfair activity prohibited by California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. 20 Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods
21 88. Defendants' failure to authorize and permit rest periods in accordance with 22 California Labor Code § 226.7 and the IWC Wage Orders, as alleged above, constitutes unlawful and/or unfair activity prohibited by Business and Professions Code $$ 17200, et seq. 24 Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses

89. Defendants' failure to indemnify employees for necessary business expenses in 26 accordance with California Labor Code § 2802 and the IWC Wage Orders, as alleged above, constitutes unlawful and/or unfair activity prohibited by Business and Professions Code §8 28 17200, et seq.
20 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements
2 90. Defendants' failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in accordance 3 with California Labor Code § 226, as alleged above, constitutes unlawful and/or unfair activity 4 prohibited by California Business & Professions Code $$ 17200, et seq. 5 91. By and through their unfair, unlawful and/or fraudulent business practices described herein, the Defendants, have obtained valuable property, money and services from 7 Plaintiffs, and all persons similarly situated, and have deprived Plaintiffs, and all persons 8 similarly situated, of valuable rights and benefits guaranteed by law, all to their detriment. 9 92. Plaintiffs and the Class Members suffered monetary injury as a direct result of 10 Defendants' wrongful conduct.
11 93. Plaintiffs, individually, and on behalf of members of the putative Class, are 12 entitled to, and do, seek such relief as may be necessary to disgorge money and/or property 13 which the Defendants have wrongfully acquired, or of which Plaintiffs and the Class have been 14 deprived, by means of the above-described unfair, unlawful and/or fraudulent business practices. 15 Plaintiffs and the Class are not obligated to establish individual knowledge of the wrongful 16 practices of Defendants in order to recover restitution. 17 94. Plaintiffs, individually, and on behalf of members of the putative class, are further 18 entitled to and do seek a declaration that the above-described business practices are unfair, 19 unlawful and/or fraudulent, and injunctive relief restraining the Defendants, and each of them, 20 from engaging in any of the above-described unfair, unlawful and/or fraudulent business 21 practices in the future.
22 95. Plaintiffs, individually, and on behalf of members of the putative class, have no 23 plain, speedy, and/or adequate remedy at law to redress the injuries which the Class Members suffered as a consequence of the Defendants' unfair, unlawful and/or fraudulent business practices. As a result of the unfair, unlawful and/or fraudulent business practices described above, Plaintiffs, individually, and on behalf of members of the putative Class, have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm unless the Defendants, and each of them, are restrained 28 from continuing to engage in said unfair, unlawful and/or fraudulent business practices. 21 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 96. Plaintiffs also allege that if Defendants are not enjoined from the conduct set forth 2 herein above, they will continue to avoid paying the appropriate taxes, insurance and other 3 withholdings.
4 97. Pursuant to California Business & Professions Code $§ 17200, et seq., Plaintiffs 5 and 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 7 permanent injunction requiring Defendants to pay all outstanding wages due to Plaintiffs and 8 Class Members; an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 9 1021.5 and other applicable laws; and an award of costs. 10 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
11 (Against all Defendants for Civil Penalties Under the Private Attorneys General Act 12 of 2004, Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq.)
13 98. Plaintiff Agustin Umana Villatoro incorporates by reference and re-alleges as if 14 fully stated herein paragraphs 1 through 23 in this First Amended Complaint. 15 99. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants were subject to the Labor Code of the 16 State of California and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Orders. 17 100. California Labor Code § 2699(a) specifically provides for a private right of action 18 to recover penalties for violations of the Labor Code: "Notwithstanding any other provision of 19 law, any provision of this code that provides for a civil penalty to be assessed and collected by 20 the Labor and Workforce Development Agency or any of its departments, divisions, 21 commissions, boards, agencies, or employees, for a violation of this code, may, as an alternative, 22 be recovered through a civil action brought by an aggrieved employee on behalf of himself or herself and other current or former employees pursuant to the procedures specified in Section 24 2699.3"
101. Plaintiff Agustin Umana Villatoro has exhausted his administrative remedies 26 pursuant to California Labor Code § 2699.3. On March 20, 2023, Plaintiff gave written notice by 27 online filing to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and by certified mail to 28 Defendants of the specific provisions of the Labor Code that Defendants have violated against 22 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff and current and former aggrieved employees, including the facts and theories to support 2 the violations (See attached as Exhibit A). Plaintiff's PAGA case number is No. LWDA-CM- 3 943261-23. At the time of this filing, 65 days has clapsed since Plaintiff provided notice, but the 4 Labor and Workforce Development Agency has not indicated that it intends to investigate 5 Defendants' Labor Code violations discussed in the notice. Accordingly, Plaintiff may commence 6 a civil action to recover penalties under Labor Code § 2699 pursuant to § 2699.3 for the violations of the Labor Code described in this Complaint. These penalties include, but are not limited to, 8 penalties under California Labor Code §§ 210, 226.3, 558, 1197.1, and 2699(f)(2). 9 102. In addition, Plaintiff seeks penalties for Defendants' violation of California Labor 10 Code § 1174(d). Pursuant to California Labor Code § 1174.5, any person, including any entity, employing labor who willfully fails to maintain accurate and complete records required by 12 California Labor Code § 1174 is subject to a penalty under § 1174.5. Pursuant to the applicable 13 IWC Order § 7(A)(3), every employer shall keep time records showing when the employee begins 14 and ends each work period. Meal periods, and total hours worked daily shall also be recorded. 15 Additionally, pursuant to the applicable IWC Order § 7(A)(5), every employer shall keep total 16 hours worked in the payroll period and applicable rates of pay. 17 103. During the time period of employment for Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees, 18 Defendants failed to maintain records pursuant to the Labor Code and IWC Orders by failing to 19 maintain accurate records showing meal periods, and accurate records showing when employees 20 begin and end each work period. Defendants' failure to provide and maintain records required by 21 the Labor Code IWC Wage Orders deprived Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees the ability to 22 know, understand and question the accuracy and frequency of meal periods, and the accuracy of 23 their hours worked stated in Defendants' records. Therefore, Plaintiff and the Aggrieved 24 Employees had no way to dispute the resulting failure to pay wages, all of which resulted in an 25 unjustified economic enrichment to Defendants. As a direct result, Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees have suffered and continue to suffer, substantial losses related to the use and 27 enjoyment of such wages, lost interest on such wages and expenses and attorney's fees in seeking 28 to compel Defendants to fully perform its obligation under state law, all to their respective 23 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 damage in amounts according to proof at trial. Because of Defendants' knowing failure to 2 comply with the Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Orders, Plaintiffs and the Aggrieved 3 Employees have also suffered an injury in that they were prevented from knowing, 4 understanding, and disputing the wage payments paid to them. 5 104. Based on the conduct described in this First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of civil penalties on behalf of themselves, the State of California, and 7 similarly Aggrieved Employees of Defendants. The exact amount of the applicable penalties, in all, is in an amount to be shown according to proof at trial. These penalties are in addition to all 9 other remedies permitted by law.
10 103. In addition, Plaintiffs seek an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs 11 pursuant to California Labor Code § 2699(g)(1), which states, "Any employee who prevails in 12 any action shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs." 13 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
14 Plaintiffs, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated only with respect to 15 the class claims, pray for relief and judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, as 16 follows:
17 Class Certification
18 1. That this action be certified as a class action with respect to the First, Second, 19 Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Causes of Action; 20 2. That Plaintiffs be appointed as the representatives of the Class; and 21 3. That counsel for Plaintiffs be appointed as Class Counsel. 22 As to the First Cause of Action

4. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendants violated California 24 Labor Code §$ 204 and 1194 and applicable IC Wage Orders by willfully failing to pay all 25 minimum wages due;
26 5. For general unpaid wages as may be appropriate;

6. For pre-judgment interest on any unpaid compensation commencing from the date such amounts were due;
24 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 7. For liquidated damages;
2 8. For reasonable attorneys' fees and for costs of suit incurred herein pursuant to 3 California Labor Code § 1194(a); and,
4 For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and appropriate. 5 As to the Second Cause of Action

10. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendants violated California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198 and applicable IWC Wage Orders by willfully failing to pay all 8 overtime wages due;
9 11. For general unpaid wages at overtime wage rates as may be appropriate; 10 12. For pre-judgment interest on any unpaid overtime compensation commencing 11 from the date such amounts were due;
12 13. For reasonable attorneys' fees and for costs of suit incurred herein pursuant to 13 California Labor Code § 1194(a); and.
14 14. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and appropriate. 15 As to the Third Cause of Action
16 15. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendants violated California 17 Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512, and the IC Wage Orders; 18 16. For unpaid meal period premium wages as may be appropriate; 19 17. For pre-judgment interest on any unpaid compensation commencing from the date 20 such amounts were due;
21 18. For reasonable attorneys' fees under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, 22 and for costs of suit incurred herein; and

19. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and appropriate. 24 As to the Fourth Cause of Action

20. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendants violated California 26 Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512, and the IWC Wage Orders;

21. For unpaid rest period premium wages as may be appropriate; 28 25

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 22. For pre-judgment interest on any unpaid compensation commencing from the date 2 such amounts were due;
3 23. For reasonable attorneys' fees under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, 4 and for costs of suit incurred herein; and
5 24. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and appropriate. 6 As to the Fifth Cause of Action

25. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendants violated Labor Code § 8 2802 and the IWC Wage Orders;
9 26. For general unpaid wages and reimbursement of business expenses as may be 10 appropriate;
11 27. For pre-judgment interest on any unpaid compensation commencing from the date 12 such amounts were due;
13 28. For reasonable attorneys' fees and for costs of suit incurred herein; and 14 29. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and appropriate. 15 As to the Sixth Cause of Action
16 30. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendants violated California 17 Labor Code §§ 201, 202, and 203 by willfully failing to pay all compensation owed at the time of 18 termination of the employment;
19 31. For statutory wage penalties pursuant to California Labor Code § 203 for former 20 employees who have left Defendants' employ;
21 32. For pre-judgment interest on any unpaid wages from the date such amounts were 22 due;
23 33. For reasonable attorneys' fees and for costs of suit incurred herein; and 24 34. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and appropriate.

As to the Seventh Cause of Action

35. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendants violated the record keeping provisions of California Labor Code § 226(a) and applicable IWC Wage Orders, and 28 willfully failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements thereto; 26 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 36. For penalties and actual damages pursuant to California Labor Code § 226(e); 2 37. For injunctive relief to ensure compliance with this section, pursuant to California 3 Labor Code § 226(h);
4 38. For reasonable attorneys' fees and for costs of suit incurred herein; and 5 39. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and appropriate.

As to the Eighth Cause of Action
7 40. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendants violated California 8 Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. by failing to pay wages for all hours worked 9 (including minimum and overtime wages), failing to provide meal periods, failing to maintain 10 accurate records of meal periods, failing to authorize and permit rest periods, and failing to 11 maintain accurate records of all hours worked and meal periods, failing to furnish accurate wage 12 statements, and failing to indemnify necessary business expenses; 13 41. For restitution of unpaid wages to Plaintiffs and all Class Members and 14 prejudgment interest from the day such amounts were due and payable; 15 42. For the appointment of a receiver to receive, manage and distribute any and all 16 funds disgorged from Defendants and determined to have been wrongfully acquired by 17 Defendants as a result of violations of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.; 18 43. For reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit incurred herein pursuant to 19 California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5;
20 44. For injunctive relief to ensure compliance with this section, pursuant to California 21 Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.; and,
22 45. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and appropriate. 23 As to the Ninth Cause of Action
24 46. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendants violated the California 25 Labor Code by failing to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to maintain accurate records of 27 hours worked and meal periods, failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees, failure 28 to indemnify necessary business expenses, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements; 27 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 47. For all civil penalties pursuant to California Labor Code § 2699, et seq., and all 2 other applicable Labor Code provisions;
3 48. For reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit incurred herein pursuant to 4 California Labor Code § 2699;
5 49. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and appropriate.

As to all Causes of Action

50. For any additional relief that the Court deems just and proper. 8 9 Dated: July 20, 2023 Respectfully submitted,
10 MOON LAW GROUP, PC
11 By:

Kane Moon
H. Scott Leviant
Mariam Ghazaryan
Attorneys for Plaintiff
14 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
16 Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury as to all causes of action triable by jury. 17 18 Dated: July 20, 2023 MOON LAW GROUP, PC
19 By:
20 Kane Moon
H. Scott Leviant
21 Mariam Ghazarya
attorneys for Plaintif
28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
3 ) ss

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
4 I am employed in the county of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 5 ando Los Any les, ibia i Oh sings 1,202 , es te foregoin documente 6 7 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
8 Xby E-mailing — _the original X a true copy to the following:

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
50 West San Fernando Street, 7t Floor
13 14 [email protected]
[email protected]
16 Attorneys for Desmain americans, Phalt Repair and
17 18
20 X State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Californi hat the above is true and correct
21 Executed on August 1, 2023, at Los Angeles, California. 22 Ximena Reyes
23 Name Signature
24 25
26 27
28 PROOF OF SERVICE

Cotati City CouncilApril 8, 2025

Cotati City Council
April 8, 2025