Case 3:23-cv-05596 Document 1 Filed 10/30/23 Page 1 of 18

1 ALEXANDER MORRISON + FEHR LLP

Michael S. Morrison (State Bar No. 205320)
2 Jacqueline Gil (State Bar No. 324482)
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
3 Los Angeles, CA 90067
T: (310) 394-0888
4 E: mmorrison@amfllp.com | jgil@amfllp.com
5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs TERRY ORTEGA and
GABRIELA ROCHA, individually and on behalf
6 of all others similarly situated
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
THERESA ORTEGA, an individual, Case No.
11 GABRIELA ROCHA, an individual, on
behalf of themselves, all others similarly
12 situated, and the general public, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR
DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF
13
Plaintiffs, 1) Violation of Federal Warn Act (29 USC
14 Section 2101 et seq.)
2) Violation of Cal Warn Act (Cal Lab Code
15 v. Section 1400, et seq)
3) Cal. Labor Code Section 206
16 4) Cal. Labor Code Section 206.5
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., a 5) Cal. Labor Code Section 203
17 Corporation; OPTUM SERVICES, INC., 6) Failure to Provide Accurate Wage
a Corporation; OPTUM CARE, INC., a Statements (Cal. Lab. Code § 226)
18 Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, 7) Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§
inclusive, 2201-02
19 8) Business and Professions code §§ 17200, et
seq.
20 Defendants.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1
 Case 3:23-cv-05596 Document 1 Filed 10/30/23 Page 2 of 18

1 Plaintiffs THERESA ORTEGA and GABRIELA ROCHA (collectively “Plaintiffs”), as

2 individuals and on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public,
3 complain and allege on information and belief the following against UNITEDHEALTH GROUP,
4 INC., a corporation, OPTUM SERVICES HEALTH, INC., a corporation, OPTUM CARE, INC.,
5 a corporation, and DOES 1-10 (Collectively “Defendants”).
6 INTRODUCTION

7 1. The federal and state Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN)

8 Acts require employers to give 60 days of written notice, or 60 days of pay in lieu of notice, before
9 a mass layoff or plant closure. The notice provisions of the WARN Act are designed to allow
10 workers sufficient time and money to locate other employment before their termination. As former
11 employees of Defendants, Plaintiffs are bringing this employment case because they were laid off
12 as part of a countrywide mass layoff conducted by Defendants in August 2023. Plaintiffs and
13 members of the Plaintiff Class (defined more fully below) are all former employees of Defendants
14 who were informed they were being terminated without cause in August 2023. Defendants, like
15 so many other employers who have recently conducted similar mass layoffs, are attempting to
16 skirt the requirements of the WARN Act and avoid their obligation to pay 60 days of wages to
17 affected employees. Defendants have assumed that the state and federal WARN Acts do not apply
18 to them despite laying off more than 1,000 workers nationwide and approximately 700 workers in
19 California alone. Worse yet, without informing Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class of
20 their WARN Act rights to 60 days of notice or pay in lieu of notice, Defendants have solicited
21 releases from the Plaintiff Class, which provide less wages for many than the WARN Act notice
22 requirements mandate. In essence, members of the Plaintiff Class have been fraudulently induced
23 to accept severance pay packages that provide less than 60 days of wages.
24 2. As part of this lawsuit, in addition to damages resulting from the lack of WARN

25 notice and any applicable statutory or civil penalties, Plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent
26 injunctive relief, which will prevent Defendants from enforcing the releases and will make them
27 void as a matter of law. Plaintiffs also intend to amend the complaint to assert violations of the
28 PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT (“PAGA”) once they have complied with the statute’s

-2-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
 Case 3:23-cv-05596 Document 1 Filed 10/30/23 Page 3 of 18

1 administrative requirements.
2 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3 3. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court per 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 29 U.S.C. §

4 2104(a)(5). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Plaintiffs’ state
5 law claims because those claims derive from a common nucleus of operative facts as Plaintiffs’
6 federal claims.
7 4. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2) because a substantial part of

8 the events and omissions giving rise to members of the Plaintiff Class’s claims occurred in this
9 District. Members of the Plaintiff Class worked in this District at the time of termination and were
10 not provided with legally compliant WARN notice. Additionally, Defendants are deemed to reside
11 in this district under 1391(c) because they are subject to personal jurisdiction.
12 5. Intradistrict assignment: Assignment to the San Francisco/Oakland District is

13 proper because Defendants employed and terminated members of the Plaintiff Class in San
14 Francisco and Alameda Counties.
15 PARTIES

16 6. Plaintiff THERESA ORTEGA is a resident of San Bernardino County and

17 worked at Defendants’ Redlands, California offices. Defendants terminated Plaintiff THERESA

18 ORTEGA on August 10, 2023. Plaintiff GABRIELA ROCHA is also a resident of San
19 Bernardino County and similarly worked at Defendants’ offices in Redlands, California. She, too,
20 was terminated by Defendants on August 10, 2023.
21 7. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and allege that Defendants conducted substantial

22 and continuous business in California at all relevant times. Defendant UNITEDHEALTH

23 GROUP, INC. is the parent company to OPTUM SERVICES, INC. and OPTUM CARE, INC. It
24 is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Minnesota. At all relevant times,
25 Defendant UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC. was an employer subject to the WARN Act because
26 it employs well over 100 employees, excluding part-time workers with less than six months of
27 employment.
28 8. Defendant OPTUM SERVICES, INC. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant

-3-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
 Case 3:23-cv-05596 Document 1 Filed 10/30/23 Page 4 of 18

1 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC. It is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of

2 business in Minnesota. It is the entity appearing on Plaintiffs’ wage statements as their employer.
3 Defendant OPTUM CARE, INC. is also a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant
4 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., and a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
5 business in Minnesota. It is the entity listed on the severance pay plan offered to Plaintiffs and
6 members of the Plaintiff Class after their termination by Defendants.
7 9. Joint Employer/Single Employer Allegations. Defendants, each of them, are joint

8 employers of Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class. Defendant UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC.
9 planned and executed the mass layoffs involving Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class, which impacted
10 its workforce and that of its OPTUM subsidiaries, including OPTUM SERVICES, INC. and
11 OPTUM CARE, INC. Plaintiffs are informed and believe thereon alleges that it was the
12 leadership at Defendant UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC. which decided not to provide WARN
13 Act notice to Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC. also created and
14 implemented many employment policies applicable to Plaintiffs’ employment and that of the
15 Plaintiff Class, including but not limited to the policies contained in Plaintiffs’ and members of the
16 Plaintiff Class’s employee handbooks. Indeed, the employee handbooks include
17 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC’s branding throughout.
18 10. OPTUM SERVICES, INC. is listed as the employer on Plaintiffs’ and many of the

19 Plaintiff Class members’ wage statements. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege that
20 OPTUM SERVICES, INC. handles administrative and personnel functions on behalf of
21 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC.’s companies, which include payroll and scheduling as well as
22 leave requests, among other administrative and personnel functions.
23 11. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege that OPTUM CARE, INC. is the

24 entity that administers the benefits provided to Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class,
25 including health care benefits and the severance pay program (e.g., the “OptumCare Severance
26 Pay Program”) as well as the Separation Agreement and Release offered to Plaintiffs and members
27 of the Plaintiff Class when terminated. It was also the entity tasked with explaining the impact of
28 the terminations resulting from the mass layoffs to Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class, which it did

-4-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
 Case 3:23-cv-05596 Document 1 Filed 10/30/23 Page 5 of 18

1 by creating various documents for Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class to review and by serving as a
2 point of contact for questions from affected employees.
3 12. Besides being a joint employer, Defendants constitute a “single employer” for

4 purposes of the WARN Act because they constitute an integrated enterprise. Courts consider the
5 following factors when determining whether an integrated enterprise exists: (1) interrelation of
6 operations, (2) joint management, (3) common control of labor relations, and (4) common
7 ownership or financial control.
8 13. Defendants operate a single, integrated enterprise by, among other things, jointly

9 determining the composition and structure of the workforce, jointly orienting and training the
10 workforce, and jointly developing policies for layoffs and severance agreements. Defendants: (1)
11 share corporate officers, with some corporate officers explicitly listed as officers for
12 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC. and OPTUM concurrently; (2) have common members who
13 comprise the board of directors of each Defendant entity; (3) operate out of the same buildings and
14 other facilities, including having the same principal place of business; (4) utilize common bank
15 accounts and other financial assets; (5) direct and control the strategic direction of each of the
16 companies; (6) share lower-level employees in addition to corporate officers; (7) develop and
17 implement the employment policies applicable to each of the Defendant entities; and (8) jointly
18 planned, implemented, and effectuated the layoffs affecting Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class which
19 are at issue in this lawsuit. Defendants often boast that there is “one Optum,” which refers to the
20 fact that only one company controls Defendants’ operations and that the predecessor companies
21 acquired by Defendants no longer exist as distinct entities or divisions.
22 14. The facts above also establish that Defendants operate a joint venture because they

23 (1) have a joint interest in a common business, (2) have an agreement that profits will be shared,
24 and (3) have a right to joint control.
25 15. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or

26 otherwise, of the Defendants named as Does 1 through 10, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs at
27 this time, and therefore, fictitious names sue the Doe Defendants. Plaintiffs will seek leave to
28 amend this Complaint to insert the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants when the

-5-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
 Case 3:23-cv-05596 Document 1 Filed 10/30/23 Page 6 of 18

1 name(s) becomes known to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege, on information and belief, that each of the
2 fictitiously named Defendants is responsible for the alleged wrongful acts and, therefore, liable to
3 Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class.
4 16. Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that at all relevant times, Defendants,

5 and each of them, were the agents, employees, joint employers, alter ego or joint venturers of the
6 other Defendants, and each of them, and in doing the things alleged, were acting at least in part
7 within the course and scope of said agency, employment, conspiracy, joint employer, alter ego
8 status, or joint venture and with the permission and consent of each of the other Defendants.
9 17. Whenever and wherever reference is made in this Complaint to any act or failure to

10 act by a Defendant or co-Defendant, such allegations and references shall also be deemed to mean
11 the acts or failures to act by each defendant functioning individually, jointly and severally. Each of
12 the fictitiously named Doe Defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged
13 and proximately caused Plaintiffs’ damages and damages of members of the Plaintiff Class.
14 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

15 18. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

16 as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3). The class that Plaintiff seeks to
17 represent (“Plaintiff Class”) is composed of and defined as follows:
18
19 All persons employed by Defendants and terminated without cause by

20 Defendants in August 2023 who were not provided with 60-day notice or 60-

21 days of wages in lieu of notice.

22
23 19. Within the Plaintiff Class, there are two subclasses:

24
25 CALIFORNIA WARN CLASS: All persons employed in California by

26 Defendants and terminated without cause by Defendants in August 2023 who

27 were not provided with 60-days’ notice or 60-days of wages in lieu of notice.

28

-6-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
 Case 3:23-cv-05596 Document 1 Filed 10/30/23 Page 7 of 18

1 FEDERAL WARN CLASS: All persons employed outside of California by

2 Defendants and terminated without cause by Defendants in August 2023 who

3 were not provided with 60-days’ notice or 60-days of wages in lieu of notice.

4
5 20. Numerosity and Ascertainability: Members of the Plaintiff Class, California

6 WARN Class, and Federal WARN Class are so numerous that joinder of all members would be
7 unfeasible and impracticable. The membership of the entire class and each subclass is greater than
8 100 individuals. Still, the identity of such membership is readily ascertainable via inspection of the
9 personnel records and other documents maintained by Defendants.
10 21. Commonality: There are common questions of law and fact as to members of the

11 Plaintiff Class, California WARN Class, and Federal WARN Class, which predominate over
12 questions affecting only individual members, including, without limitation:
13 (a) whether the members of the WARN Class were employees of Defendants;

14 (b) whether Defendants unlawfully terminated the employment of the members of the

15 Plaintiff Class, including the California WARN Class and Federal WARN Class, without

16 cause on their part and without giving them 60-days advance written notice in violation of

17 the WARN Acts;

18 (c) whether Defendants unlawfully failed to pay the Plaintiff Class, including the

19 California WARN Class and Federal WARN Class, 60-days wages and benefits as

20 required by the WARN Act; and

21 (d) whether Defendants are liable as a single employer to the Plaintiff Class, California

22 WARN Class, and Federal WARN Class.

23 22. Typicality: Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of each Plaintiff Class

24 member in that all claims result from Defendants’ uniform application of unlawful employment
25 practices, as alleged herein. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of each Plaintiff
26 Class member because each has sustained damages arising out of, and caused by, Defendants’
27 common course of unlawful conduct, as alleged herein. As such, Plaintiffs have the same interest
28 in this matter as all members of the Plaintiff Class, including the California WARN Class and

-7-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
 Case 3:23-cv-05596 Document 1 Filed 10/30/23 Page 8 of 18

1 Federal WARN Class, and have no interests antagonistic to those of other Plaintiff Class
2 members.
3 23. Superiority: This action is brought as a class action because this method is superior

4 for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The amount of damages suffered by
5 individual Plaintiff Class members, while not inconsequential, makes individual actions
6 impracticable given the expenses and burdens associated with seeking individual relief, as each
7 individual Plaintiff Class member may lack the resources to undergo the burden and expense of
8 individual prosecution of the complex and extensive litigation necessary to establish Defendants’
9 liability. A class action is the only practicable method by which Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class
10 members can achieve redress from Defendants and prevent Defendants from unjustly benefiting
11 from their common course of unlawful conduct, as alleged herein. The prosecution of individual
12 actions would present a risk of inconsistent judgments, even though each Plaintiff Class member
13 has an effectively identical claim of right against Defendants. Inconsistent judgments could be
14 dispositive to the interests of other Plaintiff Class members who are not parties to the individual
15 adjudication and/or may substantially impede their ability to protect their interests adequately. If
16 separate actions were brought by individual Plaintiff Class members or are required to be brought,
17 the resulting multiplicity of lawsuits would cause undue hardship and burden on the parties and
18 the judicial system. In contrast, the class action device presents far fewer management difficulties.
19 It provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision
20 by a single court on the issue of Defendants’ liability. Class treatment of the liability issues will
21 ensure that all claims and claimants are before this Court for consistent adjudication of the liability
22 issues.
23 24. Adequacy: Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the proposed Plaintiff Class,

24 including the California WARN Class and Federal WARN Class. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of
25 the Plaintiff Class, including the California WARN Class and Federal WARN Class. Plaintiffs and
26 members of Plaintiff Class, including the California WARN Class and Federal WARN Class, have
27 no unique claims, have no conflicts of interest, and share the same interests in the litigation of this
28 matter. Plaintiffs have retained competent counsel experienced in employment law and the

-8-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
 Case 3:23-cv-05596 Document 1 Filed 10/30/23 Page 9 of 18

1 prosecution of complex class actions and is committed to the vigorous prosecution of this action.
2 Further, Plaintiffs’ counsel has the ability and willingness to devote significant resources to
3 prosecuting this matter. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are adequate representatives and will fairly and
4 adequately protect the interests of the Plaintiff Class, including the California WARN Class and
5 Federal WARN Class, with the help of experienced and knowledgeable retained counsel.
6 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

7 25. The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (“WARN Act”) is a

8 federal and state law requiring certain employers to provide advance notice to employees and
9 government authorities in case of a plant closure or mass layoff. The purpose of the notice is to
10 provide affected employees sufficient time to seek alternative employment or job training.
11 26. Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class are former employees of Defendants

12 who worked at Defendants’ California locations. Plaintiff THERESA ORTEGA was hired in April
13 2023 by Defendants as an administrative assistant to the Facilities Director. Plaintiff GABRIELA
14 ROCHA was hired in April 2023 as a Registration Clerk. Defendants illegally laid off both
15 Plaintiffs.
16 27. On or around August 2023, Defendant, as part of a broader strategy to “maintain

17 and grow competitiveness,” enacted a widespread layoff that impacted approximately 700 hundred
18 employees in California and over 1,000 nationally, including Plaintiffs. TERESA ORTEGA and
19 GABRIELA ROCHA were notified on August 10, 2023 that they were being laid off effective
20 August 24, 2023. Defendants did not provide the proper 60-days’ notice or payment in lieu of
21 notice as required to institute a mass layoff of the workforce under California and federal law.
22 28. Defendants were aware of this, so to avoid liability under the WARN Act,

23 Defendants sought to silence employees’ ability to assert their rights by providing all the laid-off
24 employees with severance pay agreements that included a general release clause. Defendants
25 hoped that employees would accept the severance pay agreement, which in the case of many
26 members of the Plaintiff Class and Plaintiffs would pay them less than the 60-days of wages
27 required under the federal and state WARN statutes, and thus waive their right to sue for the
28 violations of the WARN Act. In fact, out of desperation, some members of Plaintiff Class signed

-9-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
 Case 3:23-cv-05596 Document 1 Filed 10/30/23 Page 10 of 18

1 the release without realizing that they were waiving their rights to more money by law than what
2 was offered in severance. Many of the employees in the Plaintiff Class, including Plaintiffs, are
3 middle and lower-middle-class workers with families and bills to pay. Defendants believed that by
4 providing severance pay for less than the pay required by the state and federal WARN acts, they
5 could avoid liability for their blatant violations of the law.
6 29. Defendants’ actions give rise to myriad other derivative claims, such as inaccurate

7 wage statements, failure to pay all wages by the appropriate pay period, and waiting time
8 penalties.
9 30. Members of the Plaintiff Class have suffered injury, including monetary damages,

10 as a result of Defendants’ acts and omissions alleged above.

11 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

12 (Federal WARN Act)

13 (29 U.S.C. 2104(a)(5)

14 (Against All Defendants on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class)

15 31. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the

16 previous paragraphs as though fully stated here.

17 32. At all relevant times, Defendants employed more than 100 full-time employees

18 who, in the aggregate, worked at least 4,000 hours per week, exclusive of overtime hours, within
19 the United States.
20 33. At all relevant times, Defendants were an employer, as that term is defined in 29

21 U.S.C. 2101 (a)(1) and 20 C.F.R. § 639(a).

22 34. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class members were Defendants’

23 employees as 29 U.S.C.§2101 defines that term.

24 35. Defendants ordered mass layoffs, as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. 2101(a)(2).

25 36. The mass layoffs resulted in employment losses, as that term is defined by 29

26 U.S.C.§2101(a)(2) for at least fifty of Defendants’ employees and Defendants terminated Plaintiffs
27 and members of the Plaintiff Class without cause as part of the mass layoffs.
28 37. Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class are affected employees of Defendants,

-10-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
 Case 3:23-cv-05596 Document 1 Filed 10/30/23 Page 11 of 18

1 within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 2101(a)( 5).

2 38. Defendants were required by the WARN Act to give Plaintiffs and members of the

3 Plaintiff Class at least 60-days advance written notice of their terminations or provide payment
4 equivalent to 60-days in lieu of warning. Defendants did neither.
5 39. Instead, Defendants sent out severance agreements that included releases to avoid

6 following the law without informing Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class of their WARN
7 rights to 60-day notice or pay in lieu notice.
8 40. In other words, Defendants deliberately and expressly violated the WARN Act.

9 Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class are aggrieved employees of Defendants as defined in
10 29 U.S.C. 2104(a)(7). As a result of Defendants’ violation of the WARN Act, Plaintiffs and
11 members of the Plaintiff Class are entitled to damages to be proven at trial, statutory WARN Act
12 penalties, and pre-and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys fees as authorized by statute.
13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

14 (California WARN Act)

15 (CA Labor Code §§ 1400-1408)

16 (Against All Defendants on behalf of Plaintiffs and the California WARN Class )

17 41. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the

18 previous paragraphs as though fully stated here.

19 42. As stated above, at least 50 of Defendants’ employees were laid off at California

20 offices, including Plaintiffs, within the relevant time frame.

21 43. Given the number of employees laid off in California, the California WARN Act,

22 Cal. Labor Code 1400 et seq., required Defendants to provide Plaintiffs and members of the
23 California WARN Class with 60 days’ notice before it could terminate them or provide payment
24 equivalent to 60-days pay in lieu of notice.
25 44. As described above, Defendants failed to do either as required under the California

26 WARN Act.
27 45. Defendants deliberately and expressly violated the California and Federal WARN

28 Act.

-11-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
 Case 3:23-cv-05596 Document 1 Filed 10/30/23 Page 12 of 18

1 46. As a result of Defendants’ violation of the California WARN Act, Plaintiffs, and

2 California WARN Class are entitled to damages to be proven at trial, statutory WARN Act
3 penalties, and pre-and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees as authorized by statute.
4 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

5 (Violation of Labor Code Section 206)

6 (CA Labor Code § 206)

7 (Against All Defendants on behalf of Plaintiffs and the California WARN Class)

8 47. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the

9 previous paragraphs as though fully stated here.

10 48. California Labor Code Section 206 states, “In case of a dispute over wages, the

11 employer shall pay, without condition and within the time set by this article, all wages, or parts
12 thereof, conceded by him to be due, leaving to the employee all remedies he might otherwise be
13 entitled to as to any balance claimed.”
14 49. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and members of the California WARN Class the

15 wages due to them by law under the California WARN Act. Given these amounts required by the
16 WARN Acts were undisputed, Defendants’ solicitation of releases for amounts less than required
17 by the federal and state WARN Acts violates section 206’s prohibition of setting conditions for the
18 payment of undisputed amounts.
19 50. Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs and members of the California WARN Class

20 wages, which by law were undisputed, violates California Labor Code Section 206.
21 51. As a direct result of Defendants’ violations of California Labor Code Section 206,

22 Plaintiffs and members of the California WARN Class have suffered economic harm, including
23 but not limited to financial hardships, late fees, and related financial losses.
24 52. Defendants’ violation of Section 206 entitles Plaintiffs and members of the

25 California WARN Class to all unpaid wages. Plaintiffs and members of the California WARN
26 Class are also entitled to their reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, applicable penalties, and interest
27 on any unpaid amounts.
28 ///

-12-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
 Case 3:23-cv-05596 Document 1 Filed 10/30/23 Page 13 of 18

1 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

2 (Violation of Labor Code Section 206.5)

3 (CA Labor Code § 206.5)

4 (Against All Defendants on behalf of Plaintiffs and the California WARN Class)

5 53. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the

6 previous paragraphs as though fully stated here.

7 54. California Labor Code Section 206.5 prohibits employers from requiring

8 employees to execute a release concerning the payment of wages indisputably owed.

9 55. As a condition of receiving severance pay, Defendants required Plaintiffs and the

10 members of the California WARN Class to sign severance agreements that contained a general
11 release. However, as established above, the WARN Act entitled Plaintiffs and members of the
12 California WARN Class to 60-days notice or pay in lieu of notice. Defendants did not provide
13 notice or pay in lieu of notice and conditioned receipt of undisputed wages owed to Plaintiffs and
14 California WARN Class members on the signing of a release.
15 56. Therefore, Defendants’ actions requiring Plaintiffs to sign statements or documents

16 that would waive their valid WARN Act claims and right to WARN Act pay constitute a violation
17 of California Labor Code Section 206.5.
18 57. Defendants’ violation of Section 206.5 entitles Plaintiffs and members of the

19 California WARN Class to all unpaid wages. Plaintiffs and members of the California WARN
20 Class are also entitled to their reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, applicable penalties, and interest
21 on any unpaid amounts.
22 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

23 (Violation of Labor Code § 203)

24 (Against All Defendants on behalf of Plaintiffs and the California WARN Class)

25 58. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the

26 previous paragraphs as though fully stated here.

27 59. California Labor Code Section 203 imposes penalties on employers who willfully
28 fail to pay final wages to employees upon discharge or resignation within the period proscribed by

-13-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
 Case 3:23-cv-05596 Document 1 Filed 10/30/23 Page 14 of 18

1 statute.
2 60. Defendants’ willful failure to provide Plaintiffs and members of the California

3 WARN Class with all wages as required by the WARN Act constitutes a violation of this statutory
4 provision.
5 61. As a direct result of Defendants’ willful violation of California Labor Code Section

6 203, Plaintiffs and members of the California WARN Class have suffered economic harm,
7 including but not limited to unpaid wages and any associated financial losses.
8 62. Under California Labor Code Section 203, Plaintiffs and members of the California

9 WARN Class are entitled to recover penalties in the amount of one day’s wages for each day the
10 violation continues, up to a maximum of 30 days. Plaintiffs and members of the California WARN
11 Class are also entitled to all unpaid wages, costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and interest on all
12 unpaid amounts.
13 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

14 (Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements)

15 (Cal. Labor Code § 226)

16 (Against ALL Defendants on behalf of Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class)

17 63. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference every allegation in the preceding paragraphs.

18 64. California Labor Code § 226 requires all employers to provide accurate itemized

19 wage statements to each employee for wages earned during that pay period.
20 65. Throughout the period for the classes, Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class

21 were employees of Defendants.

22 66. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class with accurate

23 itemized wage statements as required by California law. Defendants knowingly and intentionally
24 misstated workers’ applicable wage rates and total hours worked.
25 67. Plaintiffs and class members suffered injury as a result of Defendants’ failure to

26 provide accurate and complete information as required by the Labor Code.

27 68. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Defendants

28 knowingly and intentionally provided inaccurate payroll records in order to conceal their unlawful

-14-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
 Case 3:23-cv-05596 Document 1 Filed 10/30/23 Page 15 of 18

1 payment practices.
2 69. As a result of Defendants’ improper practices, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class

3 members are entitled to recover the greater of all actual damages or the statutory penalties under
4 the California Labor Code, as well as costs and reasonable attorney fees.
5 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

6 (Declaratory Relief)

7 (28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02)

8 (Against ALL Defendants on behalf of Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class)

9 70. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference every allegation in the preceding paragraphs.

10 71. Plaintiffs have asserted a claim against Defendants seeking payment of all wages

11 and monies owed. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants should be prohibited from circumventing the
12 requirements of the federal and California WARN Act and its obligations under the contracts and
13 promises described herein. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment and an injunction prohibiting
14 Defendants from soliciting employees to sign separation agreements that release their claims
15 asserted herein (including for violations of the Business and Professions Code sec. 17200 and the
16 federal and California WARN Acts) without first informing them of their rights under these
17 statutes and common law doctrines, the pendency of this case filed on their behalf, and the
18 Plaintiff’s counsel’s contact information.
19 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

20 (Unfair Business Practices)

21 (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.)

22 (Against ALL Defendants on behalf of Plaintiffs and the California WARN Class)

23 72. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the

24 previous paragraphs as though fully stated here.

25 73. Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. (the Unfair Competition Law

26 or UCL) prohibits any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice, any unfair,
27 deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising, and any violation of Business and Professions Code
28 Section 17500 et seq.

-15-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
 Case 3:23-cv-05596 Document 1 Filed 10/30/23 Page 16 of 18

1 74. Defendants violated the UCL by engaging in unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent

2 business acts or practices, including but not limited to: (a) failing to comply with WARN Act
3 requirements of 60 days’ notice before a mass layoff; (b) failing to provide Plaintiffs with 60-day
4 pay in lieu of notice as required by the WARN Act; and (c) utilizing severance agreements as a
5 means of avoiding liability under the WARN Act by requiring employees to waive their rights to
6 receive lower payments then they would have been entitled to under the law. These are all
7 unlawful or unfair business practices within the definition of the statute.
8 75. Due to Defendants’ willful violation of Business and Professions Code Section

9 17200, Plaintiffs and members of the California WARN Class have suffered economic harm,
10 including but not limited to unpaid wages and any associated financial losses. Plaintiffs seek
11 restitution of all wages illegally withheld for themselves and members of the California WARN
12 Class.
13 76. Plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to void any releases

14 entered into by members of the Plaintiff Class purporting to waive their rights to 60-days of wages
15 as required by the state and federal WARN Acts and for corrective notice to be issued.
16 / / /
17 / / /
18 / / /
19 / / /
20 / / /
21 / / /
22 / / /
23 / / /
24 / / /
25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /

-16-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
 Case 3:23-cv-05596 Document 1 Filed 10/30/23 Page 17 of 18

1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief against Defendants as follows:

3 1. Certification of causes of action 1-5 and 7 as a class action;

4 2. Payment of all wages and benefits owed;

5 3. Restitution of all monies illegally withheld;

6 4. All statutory and civil penalties recoverable by law;

7 5. Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive relief to void any releases entered into and

8 corrective notices to be sent to members of the Plaintiff Class;

9 5. For reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under all applicable law; and

10 6. Declaratory relief that WARN Act notice was required and releases are void.

11
12 DATED: October 30, 2023 ALEXANDER MORRISON + FEHR LLP

13
14 By: _______________________________
Michael Morrison
15 Jacqueline Gil
Attorneys for Plaintiffs TERRY ORTEGA
16 and GABRIELA ROCHA
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-17-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
 Case 3:23-cv-05596 Document 1 Filed 10/30/23 Page 18 of 18

1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2 Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class demand a jury trial on all issues so triable.

3
4 DATED: October 30, 2023 ALEXANDER MORRISON + FEHR LLP

5
6 By: _______________________________
Michael Morrison
7 Jacqueline Gil
Attorneys for Plaintiffs TERRY ORTEGA
8 and GABRIELA ROCHA
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-18-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL