Taco Bell Court Complaint

Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 1 of 21
1 Mark Yablonovich (SBN 186670)

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Marc Primo (SBN 216796)

Joseph Cho (SBN 198844)
Gregory Yu (SBN 230520)
Initiative Legal Group LLP
1800 Century Park East, 2nd Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-5637
Facsimile: (310) 861-9051
Email: JosephCho@InitiativeLegal.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO DIVISION
11
12
SANDRIKA MEDLOCK and LISA

13 HARDIMAN, individually, and on behalf
14 of other members of the general public
similarly situated,
Case Number:
15
(1) Violation of California Labor Code

510 and 1198 (Unpaid Overtime);
Plaintiffs,
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
vs.
TACO BELL CORP., a California
corporation; TACO BELL OF
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware
corporation; TACO BELL
FOUNDATION, INC., a California
corporation; NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
TACO BELL ASSOCIATION, INC., a
California corporation; TACO BELL, a
business entity form unknown; YUM!, a
business entity form unknown; YUM!
BRANDS, INC., a business entity form
unknown; YUM! BRANDS, a business
entity form unknown; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive,
COMPLAINT FOR CLASS ACTION

201 and 202 (Wages not Paid Upon
Termination);
226.7(a) and 512(a) (Denial of Meal
Breaks);
226.7(a) (Denial of Rest Breaks);
226(a) (Improper Wage Statements);
28
-1CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Defendants.

2800 and 2802 (Unpaid BusinessRelated Expenses); and
2
3
(7) Violation of California Business &

Professions Code 17200, et seq.
4
5
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
6
7
8
9
Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all other members of the public

similarly situated, allege as follows:
10
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1.
This Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331-1332. The Court has supplemental

jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367. Plaintiffs allege,
on information and belief, that the aggregate amount in controversy for this class
action exceeds five million dollars ($5,000,000.00) exclusive of interest and costs,
that the class is greater than one-hundred (100) members, and that any one plaintiff
is a citizen of a state different from that of any defendant. See Class Action Fairness
Act (CAFA), Pub. L. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005).
2.
Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(a) and (b)
because Defendants maintain offices, have agents and are licensed to and do transact
business in this district.
23
THE PARTIES
24
25
26
27
28
3.
Plaintiffs SANDRIKA MEDLOCK and LISA HARDIMAN
(hereinafter Medlock and Hardiman respectively, collectively Plaintiffs) are

residents of Fresno County in the State of California.
4.
Defendant TACO BELL CORP. was and is, upon information and
1 belief, a California corporation, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, an employer

2 whose employees are engaged throughout this county, the State of California, or the
3 various states of the United States of America.
4
5.
Defendant TACO BELL OF AMERICA, INC. was and is, upon
5 information and belief, a Delaware corporation doing business, and at all times
6 hereinafter mentioned, an employer whose employees are engaged throughout this
7 county, the State of California, or the various states of the United States of America.
8
6.
Defendant TACO BELL FOUNDATION, INC. was and is, upon
9 information and belief, a California corporation, and at all times hereinafter

10 mentioned, an employer whose employees are engaged throughout this county, the
11 State of California, or the various states of the United States of America.
12
7.
Defendant NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TACO BELL
13 ASSOCIATION, INC. was and is, upon information and belief, a California
14 corporation, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, an employer whose employees
15 are engaged throughout this county, the State of California, or the various states of
16 the United States of America.
17
8.
Defendant TACO BELL was and is, upon information and belief, a
18 business entity form unknown, doing business, and at all times hereinafter
21
9.
Defendant YUM! was and is, upon information and belief, a business
22 entity form unknown, doing business, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, an
23 employer whose employees are engaged throughout this county, the State of
24 California, or the various states of the United States of America.
25
10.
Defendant YUM! BRANDS, INC. was and is, upon information and
26 belief, a business entity form unknown, doing business, and at all times hereinafter
11.
Defendant YUM! BRANDS was and is, upon information and belief, a
2 business entity form unknown, doing business, and at all times hereinafter
5
12.
Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names or capacities of the Defendants
6 sued herein under the fictitious names DOES 1-10, but pray for leave to amend and
7 serve such fictitiously named Defendants once their names and capacities become
8 known.
9
13.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that DOES 1-10
10 are the partners, agents, owners, shareholders, managers or employees of TACO

11 BELL CORP., TACO BELL OF AMERICA, INC., TACO BELL FOUNDATION,
12 INC., NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TACO BELL ASSOCIATION, INC., TACO
13 BELL, YUM!, YUM! BRANDS, INC., and/or YUM! BRANDS, and were acting
14 on behalf of TACO BELL CORP., TACO BELL OF AMERICA, INC., TACO
15 BELL FOUNDATION, INC., NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TACO BELL
16 ASSOCIATION, INC., TACO BELL, YUM!, YUM! BRANDS, INC., and/or
17 YUM! BRANDS.
18
14.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each and all
19 of the acts and omissions alleged herein was performed by, or is attributable to,
20 TACO BELL CORP., TACO BELL OF AMERICA, INC., TACO BELL
21 FOUNDATION, INC., NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TACO BELL
22 ASSOCIATION, INC., TACO BELL, YUM!, YUM! BRANDS, INC. and/or
23 YUM! BRANDS and DOES 1-10 (collectively Defendants), each acting as the
24 agent for the other, with legal authority to act on the others behalf. The acts of any
25 and all Defendants were in accordance with, and represent the official policy of,
26 Defendants.
27
15.
At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, ratified
28 each and every act or omission complained of herein. At all times herein
1 mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, aided and abetted the acts and omissions
2 of each and all the other Defendants in proximately causing the damages herein
3 alleged.
4
16.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each of said
5 Defendants is in some manner intentionally, negligently, or otherwise responsible

6 for the acts, omissions, occurrences, and transactions alleged herein.
7
8
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

17.
Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf, as well as on behalf of
9 each and all other persons similarly situated, and thus, seek class certification under
10 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3).
11
18.
All claims alleged herein arise under California law for which Plaintiffs
12 seek relief authorized by California law.

13
19.
The proposed class consists of and is defined as:
14
All non-exempt or hourly paid employees who have been employed by
15
Defendants in the State of California within four years prior to the
16
filing of this complaint until resolution of this lawsuit.
17
20.
There is a well defined community of interest in the litigation and the
18 class is easily ascertainable:

19
a.
Numerosity: The members of the class (and each subclass, if
20 any) are so numerous that joinder of all members would be unfeasible and
21 impractical. The membership of the entire class is unknown to Plaintiffs at this
22 time, however, the class is estimated to be greater than one-hundred (100)
23 individuals and the identity of such membership is readily ascertainable by
24 inspection of Defendants employment records.
25
b.
Typicality: Plaintiffs are qualified to, and will, fairly and
26 adequately protect the interests of each class member with whom they have a well
27 defined community of interest, and Plaintiffs claims (or defenses, if any) are typical
28 of all class members as demonstrated herein.
c.
Adequacy: Plaintiffs are qualified to, and will, fairly and
2 adequately, protect the interests of each class member with whom they have a well3 defined community of interest and typicality of claims, as alleged herein. Plaintiffs
4 acknowledge that they have an obligation to make known to the Court any
5 relationship, conflicts, or differences with any class member. Plaintiffs attorneys
6 and the proposed class counsel are versed in the rules governing class action
7 discovery, certification, and settlement. Plaintiffs have incurred, and throughout the
8 duration of this action will continue to incur costs and attorneys fees that have
9 been, are, and will be necessarily expended for the prosecution of this action for the
10 substantial benefit of each class member.
11
d.
Superiority: The nature of this action makes the use of class
12 action adjudication superior to other methods. Class action will achieve economies
13 of time, effort and expense as compared with separate lawsuits, and will avoid
14 inconsistent outcomes because the same issues can be adjudicated in the same
15 manner and at the same time for the entire class.
16
e.
Public Policy Considerations: Employers of the State violate
17 employment and labor laws every day. Current employees are often afraid to assert
18 their rights out of fear of direct or indirect retaliation. Former employees are fearful
19 of bringing actions because they believe their former employers may damage their
20 future endeavors through negative references and/or other means. Class actions
21 provide the class members who are not named in the complaint with a type of
22 anonymity that allows for the vindication of their rights at the same time as their
23 privacy is protected.
24
21.
There are common questions of law and fact as to the class (and each
25 subclass, if any) that predominate over questions affecting only individual members,
26 including but not limited to:
27
a.
Whether Defendants required Plaintiffs and the other class
28 members to work over eight (8) hours per day, over twelve (12) hours per day, or
1 over forty (40) hours per week and failed to pay legally required overtime
2 compensation to Plaintiffs and the other class members;
3
b.
Whether Defendants failure to pay wages, without abatement or
4 reduction, in accordance with the California Labor Code, was willful;

5
c.
Whether Defendants deprived Plaintiffs and the other class
6 members of meal periods or required Plaintiffs and the class members to work
7 during meal periods without compensation;
8
d.
Whether Defendants deprived Plaintiffs and the other class
9 members of rest periods or required Plaintiffs and the class members to work during
10 rest periods without compensation;
11
e.
Whether Defendants complied with wage reporting as required
12 by the California Labor Code; including but not limited to 226;

13
f.
Whether Defendants failed to promptly pay all wages due to
14 Plaintiffs and the other class members upon their discharge or resignation;
15
g.
Whether Defendants made unlawful deductions from the wages
16 of Plaintiffs and other class members;

17
h.
Whether Defendants failed to indemnify Plaintiffs and other
18 class members for necessary and required business expenditures and losses incurred
19 by them in the scope of their employment;
20
i.
Whether the Defendants failed to reimburse for employee
22
j.
Whether Defendants conduct was willful or reckless;
23
k.
Whether Defendants engaged in unfair business practices in
21 expenses;
24 violation of California Business & Professions Code 17200, et seq.; and

25
l.
The appropriate amount of damages, restitution, or monetary
26 penalties resulting from Defendants violations of California law.

27 \\
28 \\
1
2
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
22.
At all times set forth, Defendants employed Plaintiffs and other persons
3 as non-exempt or hourly paid employees.

4
23.
Defendants employed Plaintiff Medlock as a Shift Manager, which is a
5 non-exempt or hourly paid position, from on or about October 25, 2005 to on or

6 about July 9, 2007, at Fresno, California business locations.
7
24.
Defendants employed Plaintiff Hardiman as a Crew Member, which is
8 a non-exempt or hourly paid position, from on or about August 10, 2005 to on or

9 about May 30, 2007, at Fresno, California business locations.
10
25.
Defendants continue to employ non-exempt or hourly paid employees
11 within California.
12
26.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at all times
13 herein mentioned, Defendants were advised by skilled lawyers and other

14 professionals, employees, and advisors knowledgeable about California and federal
15 labor and wage law and employment and personnel practices, and about the
16 requirements of California and federal law.
17
27.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that Defendants
18 knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and other members of the class were
19 entitled to receive certain wages for overtime compensation and that they were not
20 receiving certain wages for overtime compensation.
21
28.
22 knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and other class members were entitled to
23 receive complete and accurate wage statements in accordance with California law.
24
29.
26 receive all the wages owed to them upon discharge.
27
30.
1 receive all meal breaks or payment of one hour of pay at Plaintiffs and class
2 members regular rate of pay when a meal break was missed.
3
31.
5 receive all rest breaks or payment of one hour of pay at Plaintiffs and class
6 members regular rate of pay when a rest break was missed.
7
32.
8 knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and the other class members were
9 entitled to receive full reimbursement for all business-related expenses and costs
10 they incurred during the course and scope of their employment, and that they did not
11 receive full reimbursement of applicable business-related expenses and costs they
12 incurred.
13
33.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that at all times
14 herein mentioned, Defendants knew or should have known that they had a duty to
15 compensate Plaintiffs and other class members, and that Defendants had the
16 financial ability to pay such compensation, but willfully, knowingly, and
17 intentionally failed to do so, and falsely represented to Plaintiffs and other class
18 members that they were properly denied wages, all in order to increase Defendants
19 profits.
20
34.
California Labor Code 218 states that nothing in Article 1 of the
21 Labor Code shall limit the right of any wage claimant to sue directly...for any
22 wages or penalty due him [or her] under this article.
23
24
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
25
Violation of California Labor Code 510 and 1198
26
(Against all Defendants)
27
35.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege as if fully stated herein
28 the material allegations set out in paragraphs 1 through 34.

36.
California Labor Code 1198 and the applicable Industrial Welfare
2 Commission Wage Order provides that it is unlawful to employ persons without

3 compensating them at a rate of pay either time-and-one-half or two-times that
4 persons regular rate of pay, depending on the number of hours worked by the
5 person on a daily or weekly basis.
6
37.
Specifically, the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
7 Order provides that Defendants are and were required to pay Plaintiffs and the other
8 class members employed by Defendants, and working more than eight (8) hours in a
9 day or more than forty (40) hours in a workweek, at the rate of time-and-one-half for
10 all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a day or more than forty (40) hours
11 in a workweek.
12
38.
The applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order further
13 provides that Defendants are and were required to pay Plaintiffs and the other class
14 members employed by Defendants, and working more than twelve (12) hours in a
15 day, overtime compensation at a rate of two times their regular rate of pay.
16
39.
California Labor Code 510 codifies the right to overtime
17 compensation at one-and-one-half times the regular hourly rate for hours worked in
18 excess of eight (8) hours in a day or forty (40) hours in a week or for the first eight
19 (8) hours worked on the seventh day of work, and to overtime compensation at
20 twice the regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of twelve (12) hours in a
21 day or in excess of eight (8) hours in a day on the seventh day of work.
22
40.
During the relevant time period, Plaintiffs and the other class members
23 consistently worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a day, in excess of twelve (12)
24 hours in a day, or in excess of forty (40) hours in a week.
25
41.
During the relevant time period, Defendants willfully failed to pay all
26 overtime wages owed to Plaintiffs and the other class members.

27
42.
28 regularly received incentives in the form of bonuses which were not incorporated in
1 Plaintiffs and the other class members overtime.

2
43.
Defendants failure to pay Plaintiffs and the other class members the
3 unpaid balance of overtime compensation, as required by California laws, violates

4 the provisions of California Labor Code 510 and 1198, and is therefore unlawful.
5
44.
Pursuant to California Labor Code 1194, Plaintiffs and other class
6 members are entitled to recover their unpaid overtime compensation, as well as

7 interest, costs, and attorneys fees.
8
9
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
10
11
12
45.

14
46.
At all times herein set forth, California Labor Code 201 and 202
15 provide that if an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at
16 the time of discharge are due and payable immediately, and that if an employee
17 voluntarily leaves his or her employment, his or her wages shall become due and
18 payable not later than seventy-two (72) hours thereafter, unless the employee has
19 given seventy-two (72) hours previous notice of his or her intention to quit, in which
20 case the employee is entitled to his or her wages at the time of quitting.
21
47.
During the relevant time period, Defendants willfully failed to pay
22 Plaintiffs and the other class members who are no longer employed by Defendants
23 their wages, earned and unpaid, either at the time of discharge, or within seventy24 two (72) hours of their leaving Defendants employ.
25
48.
Defendants failure to pay Plaintiffs and those class members who are
26 no longer employed by Defendants their wages earned and unpaid at the time of
27 discharge, or within seventy-two (72) hours of their leaving Defendants employ, is
28 in violation of California Labor Code 201 and 202.
49.
California Labor Code 203 provides that if an employer willfully
2 fails to pay wages owed, in accordance with 201 and 202, then the wages of the
3 employee shall continue as a penalty from the due date, and at the same rate until
4 paid or until an action is commenced; but the wages shall not continue for more than
5 thirty (30) days.
6
50.
Plaintiffs and the other class members are entitled to recover from
7 Defendants the statutory penalty for each day they were not paid, at their regular
8 hourly rate of pay, up to a thirty (30) day maximum pursuant to California Labor
9 Code 203.
10
11
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
12
Violation of California Labor Code 226.7(a) and 512(a)
13
14
51.

16
52.
At all times herein set forth, the California Industrial Welfare
17 Commission Order and California Labor Code 226.7(a) and 512(a) were
18 applicable to Plaintiffs and the other class members employment by Defendants.
19
53.
At all times herein set forth, California Labor Code 226.7(a) provides
20 that no employer shall require an employee to work during any meal period
21 mandated by an applicable order of the California Industrial Welfare Commission.
22
54.
At all times herein set forth, California Labor Code 512(a) provides
23 that an employer may not require, cause or permit an employee to work for a period
24 of more than five (5) hours per day without providing the employee with a meal
25 period of not less than thirty (30) minutes, except that if the total work period per
26 day of the employee is not more than six (6) hours, the meal period may be waived
27 by mutual consent of both the employer and the employee.
28
55.
At all times herein set forth, California Labor Code 512(a) further
1 provides that an employer may not require, cause or permit an employee to work for
2 a period of more than ten (10) hours per day without providing the employee with a
3 second meal period of not less than thirty (30) minutes, except that if the total hours
4 worked is no more than twelve (12) hours, the second meal period may be waived
5 by mutual consent of the employer and the employee only if the first meal period
6 was not waived.
7
56.
During the relevant time period, Plaintiffs and the other members of the
8 class who were scheduled to work for a period of time no longer than six (6) hours,
9 and who did not waive their legally-mandated meal periods by mutual consent, were
10 required to work for periods longer than five (5) hours without a meal period of not
11 less than thirty (30) minutes.
12
57.
13 who were scheduled to work for a period of time in excess of six (6) hours were
14 required to work for periods longer than five (5) hours without a meal period of not
15 less than thirty (30) minutes.
16
58.
During the relevant time period, Plaintiffs and other members of the
17 class who were scheduled to work in excess of ten (10) hours but not longer than
18 twelve (12) hours, and who did not waive their legally-mandated meal periods by
19 mutual consent were required to work in excess of ten (10) hours without receiving
20 a second meal period of not less than thirty (30) minutes.
21
59.
22 who were scheduled to work for a period of time in excess of twelve (12) hours
23 were required to work for periods longer than ten (10) hours without a meal period
24 of not less than thirty (30) minutes.
25
60.
During the relevant time period, Defendants willfully required
26 Plaintiffs and other members of the class to work during meal periods and failed to
27 compensate Plaintiffs and members of the class for work performed during meal
28 periods.
61.
Defendants conduct violates applicable Industrial Welfare
2 Commission Wage Orders, and California Labor Code 226.7(a) and 512(a).
3
62.
Pursuant to California Labor Code 226.7(b), Plaintiffs and other
4 members of the class are entitled to recover from Defendants one additional hour of
5 pay at the employees regular hourly rate of compensation for each work day that
6 the meal period was not provided.
7
8
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of California Labor Code 226.7(a)
10
11
63.

13
64.
At all times herein set forth, the California Industrial Welfare
14 Commission Order and California Labor Code 226.7(a) was applicable to

15 Plaintiffs and other class members employment by Defendants.
16
65.
At all times herein set forth, California Labor Code 226.7(a) provides
17 that no employer shall require an employee to work during any rest period mandated
18 by an applicable order of the California Industrial Welfare Commission.
19
66.
During the relevant time period, Defendants required Plaintiffs and
20 other members of the class to work in excess of four (4) hours without providing a
21 ten (10) minute rest period.
22
67.
During the relevant time period, Defendants required Plaintiffs and
23 other members of the class to work an additional four (4) hours without providing a
24 second ten (10) minute rest period.
25
68.
During the relevant time period, Defendants willfully required
26 Plaintiffs and other members of the class to work during rest periods and failed to
27 compensate Plaintiffs and members of the class for work performed during rest
28 periods.
69.
Defendants conduct violates applicable Industrial Welfare
2 Commission Wage Orders, and California Labor Code 226.7(a).

3
70.
Pursuant to California Labor Code 226.7(b), Plaintiffs and other
4 members of the class are entitled to recover from Defendants one additional hour of
5 pay at the employees regular hourly rate of compensation for each work day that
6 the rest period was not provided.
7
8
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of California Labor Code 226(a)
10
11
71.

13
72.
Defendants have intentionally and willfully failed to provide employees
14 with complete and accurate wage statements that include, among other things,
15 Plaintiffs and other class members proper social security number and total hours
16 worked.
17
73.
As a result of Defendants violation of California Labor Code 226(a),
18 Plaintiffs and the other class members have suffered injury and damage to their
19 statutorily-protected rights.
20
74.
Specifically, Plaintiffs and the other class members have been injured
21 by Defendants intentional violation of California Labor Code 226(a) because they

22 were denied both their legal right to receive, and their protected interest in receiving,
23 accurate, itemized wage statements under 226(a).
24
75.
Plaintiffs and the other class members are entitled to recover from
25 Defendants the greater of their actual damages caused by Defendants failure to

26 comply with California Labor Code 226(a), or an aggregate penalty not exceeding
27 four thousand dollars.
28
76.
Plaintiffs and the other class members are also entitled to an award of
1 costs and reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to California Labor Code 226(e).
2
77.
Plaintiffs and the other class members are also entitled to injunctive
3 relief to ensure compliance with this section, pursuant to California Labor Code
4 226(g).
5
6
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
78.

11
79.
At all times herein set forth California Labor Code 2800 and 2802
12 provide that an employer must reimburse employees for all necessary expenditures.
13
80.
Plaintiffs and other class members incurred necessary business-related
14 expenses and costs that were not fully reimbursed by Defendants, including and
15 without limitation, required shoes, required clothing and related fees and deposits
16 that resulted from their employment with Defendants. Specifically, Defendants had,
17 and continue to have, a policy and practice of requiring employees, including
18 Plaintiffs and class members, to pay for purchase and maintenance of shoes and
19 other required clothing out of their own funds. Defendants had, and continue to
20 have, a policy of not reimbursing employees, including Plaintiffs and class
21 members, for said business-related expenses and costs.
22
81.
Defendants have intentionally and willfully failed to fully reimburse
23 Plaintiffs and other class members for necessary business-related expenses and
24 costs.
25
82.
Plaintiffs and other class members are entitled to recover from
26 Defendants their business-related expenses incurred during the course and scope of
27 their employment, plus interest and an award of costs and reasonable attorneys fees
28 pursuant to California Labor Code 2800 and 2802.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of California Business & Professions Code 17200, et seq.
83.

6
84.
Defendants conduct, as alleged herein, has been, and continues to be,
7 unfair, unlawful, and harmful to Plaintiffs, the other class members, and to the
8 general public. Plaintiffs seek to enforce important rights affecting the public
9 interest within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure 1021.5.
10
85.
Defendants activities as alleged herein are violations of California law,
11 and constitute unlawful business acts and practices in violation of California

12 Business & Professions Code 17200, et seq.
13
86.
A violation of California Business & Professions Code 17200, et
14 seq. may be predicated on the violation of any state or federal law. In the instant
15 case, Defendants policy and practice of requiring their non-exempt or hourly paid
16 employees, including Plaintiffs and class members, to work in excess of forty (40)
17 hours per week without paying them proper overtime compensation violates the Fair
18 Labor Standards Act, codified at 29 U.S.C. 207. Additionally, Defendants policy
19 and practice of requiring non-exempt or hourly paid employees, including Plaintiffs
20 and class members, to work overtime without paying them proper compensation
21 violates California Labor Code 510 and 1198. Defendants policy and practice of
22 requiring non-exempt or hourly employees, including Plaintiffs and class members,
23 to work through their meal and rest breaks without paying them proper
24 compensation violates California Labor Code 226.7(a) and 512(a). Moreover,
25 Defendants policy and practice of not reimbursing non-exempt or hourly
26 employees, including Plaintiffs and class members, for business related expenses
27 and costs violates California Labor Code 2800 and 2802.
28
87.
Plaintiffs and the putative class members have been personally

1 aggrieved by Defendants unlawful business acts and practices as alleged herein,

2 including but not necessarily limited to by the loss of money or property.
3
88.
Pursuant to California Business & Professions Code 17200, et seq.,
4 Plaintiffs and the putative class members are entitled to restitution of the wages
5 withheld and retained by Defendants during a period that commences four years
6 prior to the filing of this complaint; a permanent injunction requiring Defendants to
7 pay all outstanding wages due to Plaintiffs and class members; an award of
8 attorneys fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 1021.5 and other
9 applicable laws; and an award of costs.
10
11
REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs request a trial by jury.
12
13
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiffs, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, prays for relief and
14 judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows:

15
Class Certification
16
1.
That this action be certified as a class action;
17
2.
That Plaintiffs be appointed as the representative of the Class; and
18
3.
That counsel for Plaintiffs be appointed as Class counsel.
19
As to the First Cause of Action
20
1.
For general unpaid wages at overtime wage rates and such general and
21
2.
special damages as may be appropriate;
22
3.
For pre-judgment interest on any unpaid overtime compensation from
23
the date such amounts were due;
24
4.
25
pursuant to California Labor Code 1194(a); and
26
5.
27
appropriate.
For reasonable attorneys fees and for costs of suit incurred herein
For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and
28 \\
As to the Second Cause of Action
1.
according to proof;
2.
Plaintiffs and all other class members who have left Defendants employ;
3.
For reasonable attorneys fees and for costs of suit incurred herein; and
4.
appropriate.
For all actual, consequential and incidental losses and damages,
For statutory penalties pursuant to California Labor Code 203 for
As to the Third Cause of Action
10
1.
11
according to proof;
12
2.
For wages pursuant to California Labor Code 226.7(b);
13
3.
For reasonable attorneys fees and costs of suit incurred herein; and
14
4.
For such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
For all actual, consequential, and incidental losses and damages,
15
As to the Fourth Cause of Action
16
1.
17
according to proof;
18
2.
For wages pursuant to California Labor Code 226.7(b);
19
3.
20
4.
For such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
For all actual, consequential, and incidental losses and damages,
21
As to the Fifth Cause of Action
22
1.
23
according to proof;
24
2.
For statutory penalties pursuant to California Labor Code 226(e);
25
3.
For injunctive relief to ensure compliance with this section, pursuant to
26
California Labor Code 226(g);
27
4.
28
to California Labor Code 226(e); and
For reasonable attorneys fees and costs of suit incurred herein pursuant
5.
appropriate.
As to the Sixth Cause of Action
1.
appropriate;
2.
amounts were due;
3.
according to proof;
For unpaid wages and such general and special damages as may be
For pre-judgment interest on any unpaid wages from the date such
10
4.
11
2802;
12
5.
13
6.
14
appropriate.
15
For statutory penalties pursuant to California Labor Code 2800 and
As to the Seventh Cause of Action
16
1.
17
prejudgment interest from the day such amounts were due and payable;
18
2.
19
and all funds disgorged from Defendants and determined to have been
20
wrongfully acquired by Defendants as a result of violations of California
21
Business & Professions Code 17200 et seq.;
22
3.
23
Plaintiffs and other class members are entitled to recover under California
24
Code of Civil Procedure 1021.5;
25
4.
26
California Business & Professions Code 17200 et seq.; and
For restitution of unpaid wages to Plaintiffs and all class members and
For the appointment of a receiver to receive, manage and distribute any
For reasonable attorneys fees and costs of suit incurred herein that
For injunctive relief to ensure compliance with this section, pursuant to
27 \\
28 \\
5.
appropriate.
3
4 Dated: September 7, 2007
Respectfully submitted,
Initiative Legal Group LLP
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
By:
/s/ Joseph Cho____________

Mark Yablonovich
Marc Primo
Joseph Cho
Gregory Yu
Shawn Westrick
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Taco Bell Court Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Taco Bell Court Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 1 of 21

1 Mark Yablonovich (SBN 186670)

Marc Primo (SBN 216796)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SANDRIKA MEDLOCK and LISA

(1) Violation of California Labor Code

COMPLAINT FOR CLASS ACTION

(2) Violation of California Labor Code

Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 2 of 21

(6) Violation of California Labor Code

(7) Violation of California Business &

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all other members of the public

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331-1332. The Court has supplemental

Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(a) and (b)

Plaintiffs SANDRIKA MEDLOCK and LISA HARDIMAN

(hereinafter Medlock and Hardiman respectively, collectively Plaintiffs) are

Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 3 of 21

1 belief, a California corporation, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, an employer

Defendant TACO BELL OF AMERICA, INC. was and is, upon

Defendant TACO BELL FOUNDATION, INC. was and is, upon

9 information and belief, a California corporation, and at all times hereinafter

Defendant NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TACO BELL

Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 4 of 21

Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names or capacities of the Defendants

10 are the partners, agents, owners, shareholders, managers or employees of TACO

At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, ratified

Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 5 of 21

5 Defendants is in some manner intentionally, negligently, or otherwise responsible

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf, as well as on behalf of

12 seek relief authorized by California law.

The proposed class consists of and is defined as:

All non-exempt or hourly paid employees who have been employed by

Defendants in the State of California within four years prior to the

filing of this complaint until resolution of this lawsuit.

There is a well defined community of interest in the litigation and the

18 class is easily ascertainable:

Numerosity: The members of the class (and each subclass, if

Typicality: Plaintiffs are qualified to, and will, fairly and

Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 6 of 21

Adequacy: Plaintiffs are qualified to, and will, fairly and

Superiority: The nature of this action makes the use of class

Public Policy Considerations: Employers of the State violate

Whether Defendants required Plaintiffs and the other class

Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 7 of 21

Whether Defendants failure to pay wages, without abatement or

4 reduction, in accordance with the California Labor Code, was willful;

Whether Defendants deprived Plaintiffs and the other class

Whether Defendants deprived Plaintiffs and the other class

Whether Defendants complied with wage reporting as required

12 by the California Labor Code; including but not limited to 226;

Whether Defendants failed to promptly pay all wages due to

Whether Defendants made unlawful deductions from the wages

16 of Plaintiffs and other class members;

Whether Defendants failed to indemnify Plaintiffs and other

Whether the Defendants failed to reimburse for employee

Whether Defendants conduct was willful or reckless;

Whether Defendants engaged in unfair business practices in

24 violation of California Business & Professions Code 17200, et seq.; and

The appropriate amount of damages, restitution, or monetary

26 penalties resulting from Defendants violations of California law.

Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 8 of 21